Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission urges deeper review of CIP change‑order practices ahead of $93M bond planning
Summary
A CIP subcommittee member told the commission that change orders and outdated procedures have driven cost growth on capital projects, and commissioners asked staff for additional analysis and recommended considering an outside consultant to review procurement and bidding practices before major bond spending.
Commissioners spent a large portion of their March 12 meeting pressing for more transparency and analysis of capital improvement processes after a subcommittee review flagged heavy reliance on change orders and dated procedures.
A member of the CIP subcommittee told the commission the subcommittee reviewed completed projects and found change orders accounted for the lion’s share of spending in some cases and that the council’s administrative change‑order policy (cited in the presentation as created in 1993) has not been updated. The committee member singled out two projects—Anita Street at PCH (job 41240) and the Englewood Avenue at Manhattan Beach Boulevard intersection improvement (job 40960)—as examples where long timelines and multiple contractors were followed by substantial change orders.
"Change orders accounted for 80% of the funds spent," the committee member said, adding that older change‑order authority thresholds (which were raised in some cases from $25,000 to $125,000) and limited comparative bidding on sub‑contracts left the city exposed to inefficiency. The commissioner urged an overhaul of data collection and project‑management processes and recommended hiring an independent consultant to review procedures and recommend improvements in procurement and transparency.
Staff acknowledged the concerns, said RFPs for pieces of the $93 million bond project have been issued, and noted the city engaged an owner’s representative and financial advisors to help sequence the large project. Staff will provide the subcommittee and full commission with a packet of prior council materials, the underlying analysis that supported bond sizing, and a high‑level timeline. Commissioners said they were not yet ready to make formal recommendations to council and that additional analysis—preferably with input from the absent subcommittee members—was required.
Why it matters: the commission’s review precedes major bond implementation and a wave of capital projects; improving procurement, bidding and change‑order controls could affect project cost, schedule and voter confidence in future measures.
Next steps: commissioners voted to continue the CIP subcommittee review to the next meeting and asked staff to provide project‑level bid and change‑order data, the RFP/solicitation process used in practice, and a recommended scope for any outside consultant review.
