Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit office reports contract‑compliance reviews; finds timeliness issues in building inspections and plan reviews
Summary
The commission auditor’s office presented three contract compliance audits covering Facility Contract Services, Calvin Giordano & Associates (building inspections/plan review), and a transportation contractor. Auditors found no exceptions on background or drug screening but recommended clearer burden‑rate procedures, improved invoice transparency,
The Pembroke Pines commission auditor’s office presented results of three contract‑compliance audits on Aug. 6 and recommended process and contract clarifications for several vendor relationships.
Auditors from Forvis Mazars reported on (1) Facility Contract Services (FCS), (2) Calvin Giordano & Associates (CGA) — a consultant that does inspections and plan reviews for the building department — and (3) a transportation provider that handles trips for seniors and school transportation.
Key findings and recommendations
- Facility Contract Services (FCS): Auditors tested 147 employees for background checks and drug screenings and reported no exceptions. They recalculated the contract’s burden rate and found it was applied appropriately, but recommended the city adopt a written policy explaining how the burden rate is applied and to itemize the admin fee on invoices (the contract’s monthly admin fee is $1,500).
- Calvin Giordano & Associates (CGA): The audit examined roughly 86,585 inspections over a two‑year period and found about 7% were not completed within the contract’s one business‑day requirement (the average late interval was about 11 days). For plan reviews, auditors sampled 150 items and found about 13% missed contractual timelines (major permit review standard 10 days; median 5 days; minor 1 day); auditors said the ERP system data does not currently categorize plan types and recommended adding a field that captures permit type to improve vendor monitoring. Auditors also noted a process change with the ERP implementation: fee collection responsibility shifted to the city, but the contract still contemplates vendor collection; it recommended contract alignment with current practice and clearer revenue/fee presentations on invoices (current distribution cited as 88.5% gross revenue to vendor and 11.5% retained by the city under the invoicing arrangement).
- Transportation contractor: Tests of background checks, driver testing and invoice amounts returned no exceptions.
Commission and staff reactions: Commissioners praised the audit team and asked for follow‑up. Commissioner Schwartz asked that vendors be given adequate time to respond before report publication; the auditors said they had met with vendors during the review. Commissioner Rodriguez asked whether customer‑service or resident satisfaction metrics could be added to future engagements; auditors said that could be considered as part of the upcoming risk assessment. City management agreed to provide a reconciliation/change‑order report showing underruns and overruns at project close so commissioners can see final contract costs; staff said a change‑order report would be available the next day.
Next steps: The audit firm said four projects from the 2025 audit plan have been completed and several other projects are underway. The audit office recommended the city add or clarify invoice fields, contract language around burden rates and fees, and system fields for permit types to support vendor performance monitoring.
