Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors ask for review of on‑call construction testing contracts after questions about use for large projects
Summary
Supervisors pressed Public Works staff for historical spending data and policy on on‑call contracts, expressing concern that large, foreseeable capital projects have been handled via on‑call task orders rather than advertised project bids; the board continued the item and ordered staff to return with usage history and a list of board‑approved projects tied to the contracts.
Supervisors on the Orange County Board questioned Public Works officials on Aug. 12 about why on‑call testing and inspection contracts are being used for large, foreseeable capital projects rather than being bid project‑by‑project.
Supervisor Don Wagner said he was concerned that contracts intended for emergencies and one‑off needs were being used to award hundreds of thousands of dollars of work without explicit project‑level board approval. "On call contracts have historically been… They are for these emergencies. They are for these one‑offs," Wagner said, noting that two of six on‑call contracts had been increased from $1,000,000 to $1,200,000 and nearly exhausted.
Public Works staff and Tim Core explained that A&E and testing on‑call contracts are used to develop scopes, provide bridging documents and identify environmental or hazardous conditions that then inform formal solicitations. Staff said some single projects—cited examples included a recently completed Irvine project—have drawn heavily on those contracts during design and pre‑construction phases, and agreed to provide supervisors with three years of procurement usage data, a list of board‑approved CIP projects that will use the contracts, and a clear policy for when task orders may be issued.
After discussion, several supervisors requested a written history of expenditures, a list of upcoming projects tied to the on‑call slate, and the county’s internal policy for issuing task orders under on‑call contracts. The board voted to continue the item so staff could return with the requested documentation and clarifications.
