Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Audit Watershed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit finds frequent post‑award changes to Watershed contracts; auditors recommend tighter controls
Summary
A city audit found that many Watershed Management contracts were substantially modified after award, sometimes more than doubling in value; auditors recommended additional guidance, a quarterly reporting requirement and better documentation; the City Utilities Committee accepted and filed the audit.
City auditors told the City Utilities Committee on July 15 that contract amendments and alternative procurements in the Department of Watershed Management frequently increased awarded contract value and often lacked sufficient written justification, raising risks of reduced competition and oversight.
The audit, presented by Dwayne Braithwaite and the audit team, reviewed 298 Watershed contracts the auditors could compile. Of those, 237 were procured competitively and 61 through alternative methods. About 21% of the 298 contracts were later modified. In a sample of 47 competitively procured contracts that were modified, 22 had post‑award increases of more than 100%, and 28 increased by more than 50%. The auditors found vague or missing justification for many contract modifications; of 30 modifications examined in detail, 20 had vague explanations and six lacked justification documents entirely.
The audit highlighted specific code‑related thresholds: small purchase authority for contracts under $100,000 (section 2-1190) and IPRO review for contracts $1,000,000 or greater (Independent Procurement Review Division). Auditors identified instances where contracts initially below thresholds were modified above them and would have required different approvals had the full dollar value been known at award.
“We found instances where post‑award modifications could have avoided procurement controls and may signal steering or overspending,” the audit team said. The auditors recommended that the Chief Procurement Officer provide quarterly reports of contract modifications and that procurement publish clearer guidance for departments about when to use alternative procurement methods and how to document justifications. The Chief Procurement Officer agreed with the recommendations.
Department of Watershed Management leaders said they support the audit findings and will work with procurement; Yolanda Broome, deputy commissioner for administration, said the department wants to close the identified gaps and align with the recommendations. Auditors and councilmembers discussed causes that can trigger modifications, including failed competitive solicitations, one-bid outcomes and the need to keep consent‑decree projects on schedule.
The committee accepted and filed the audit (vote recorded as 5‑0). Committee members asked procurement and Watershed to provide the recommended quarterly modification reports and to supply missing documentation for contracts coming before council.
Ending: Councilmembers said they will follow up on implementation of the audit’s recommendations and asked staff to increase transparency on modifications that push contracts over legal thresholds.
