The Bureau of Buildings Management of Construction Change Orders
Executive Summary
Introduction
State law designates the Department of Finance and Administration as the agency responsible for the erection, repair, and renovation of state buildings. The departments Bureau of Building, Grounds, and Real Property Management handles activities related to building construction.
PEER reviewed the bureaus management of cost changes to building construction contracts and its selection of professional architectural and engineering consultants for building construction. In conducting the review, PEER analyzed details of change order management on sixteen projects with dates of final acceptance between June 19, 2001, and December 19, 2001 (representing all projects with change orders totaling one percent or more of the original project budget).
Background
The Change Order Process
A change order is a written agreement between the bureau and the general contractor to change a building construction contract. Change orders add to, delete from, or otherwise alter the work set forth in the contract documents at the time that the construction contract was bid. As the legal means for changing contracts, change orders are standard in the construction industry.
The following are common reasons for change order initiations by various parties:
Roles of the Bureau of Building, Contract Professionals, and Other Parties Involved in Change Orders
As the entity responsible for construction of buildings that are funded with state money, the bureau is ultimately responsible for the approval and oversight of change orders. In the change order process, bureau staff review the change order documentation provided by the contract professional, determine that funds are available to pay for the change order, and sign final approval for the change. Although the original contract is obtained competitively, in order to expedite the project the bureau usually compensates the general contractor for contract changes without a competitive bidding process. This increases the possibility that a contractor could quote a price for a change order that is excessive and not competitive with what other contractors would offer. Therefore, it is important that the bureau assign responsibility for scrutinizing the cost of change orders during the life of the project and ensuring that change orders are reviewed and controlled to protect the states interest.
Of the parties involved, the bureaus consulting architects and engineers (also referred to throughout this report as contract professionals or professionals) have the most hands-on role in project management, including planning, designing, pre-approval of contractor payments, change order preparation, and on-site inspections.
Other parties in the state construction process involved in change orders are the general contractor, who provides cost proposals for change orders to the contract professional; the tenant agency, which often initiates change orders through the bureau; and, subcontractors, who are not legal parties to the construction contract, but may provide cost quotes to the general contractor.
Elements of a Model Change Order Management System
To ensure that changes to building construction contracts are justified and cost-efficient, the oversight process should include certain important elements:
Problems with the Bureaus Change Order Management Process
The bureaus oversight of cost changes to building construction contracts is incomplete, inconsistent, and fails to assure that cost changes to building construction projects are reasonable.
Process for Selecting Contract Professionals to Manage Construction Projects
The bureau has not established a structure for selecting contract professionals that ensures consistent use of pre-determined selection criteria or rating of the candidates on such criteria or that documents its basis of award.
The bureaus process does not require selection committees to use its evaluation form containing selection criteria. As a result, the bureau cannot demonstrate that contract professionals are selected objectively, that the most competent contract professional has been selected for the job, or that the states interest is protected by obtaining a quality building at the least cost.
Also, the bureau does not have written policies or procedures designed to result in increased competition among contract professionals working with the state to administer construction projects. Without written policies, the bureau cannot ensure that its pursuit of competition is accomplished through objective means.
Assessment of the Reasoning for Change Order Requests
In at least half of the change orders PEER reviewed, the bureaus change order documentation did not identify the change order requestor.
Without understanding the source of the change order request, the bureau cannot fully understand the reasons for the change order (including whether the change was caused by error or omission on the part of the contract professional) and whether the change is necessary.
Cost Review Process Contracted to Professionals
Despite the state construction processs inherent conflict of interest for contract professionals (i.e., a personal financial incentive to approve change orders that result in additional costs versus ethical obligations to the state), the bureau has not developed a strong change order cost review process to protect the states interest.
Contract professionals fees are based on a percentage of total construction costs. In general, the higher the construction costs, the higher the professionals fees. As part of this payment arrangement, professionals receive a fee when a change order is approved, calculated as a percentage of the amount of the cost of the change order. Therefore, the process is a financial incentive for contract professionals to approve change orders that result in additional costs.
The chart below illustrates how contract change orders increase total professional fees--e.g., $44,701 in change orders to a project added $3,058 in professional fees to the cost of the contract.
Despite the disincentive for professionals to scrutinize costs, the bureaus standard contracts do not require professionals to analyze the reasonableness of change order costs. Without clearly outlining the professionals responsibilities, the bureau cannot assume that professionals are actually conducting cost reviews. Since the bureau relies heavily on the contract professionals expertise, if the review does not take place the bureau cannot ensure that the state is getting a fair price from the general contractor to perform the change order.
The bureau does not always require cost itemizations for change orders. In twenty-eight of thirty-one cases PEER reviewed, the bureau did not require that its professionals itemize all costs by quantities of material and labor hours as outlined by its policy. Without detail in change order requests, contract professionals and bureau staff cannot ensure that decisions are valid and defensible.
Also, in twenty-five of the thirty-one cases reviewed, the bureau did not require the contract professional to certify in writing that the cost of the change order had been analyzed and found to be reasonable. Because the bureau does not require its professionals to sign certification statements in most cases, it cannot ensure that the professionals perform the cost reviews and that costs of change orders are actually reasonable. Project change order costs may be beyond the reasonable range and may unnecessarily escalate total project costs.
Bureaus Oversight Process for Analyzing and Controlling Costs
The bureau has no internal process in place for analyzing the costs of change orders presented by the contract professional for accuracy or reasonableness or for verifying that the change order is not already a part of the original contract.
No bureau policies require that staff confirm and document that they have verified change order costs. The bureaus management and staff told PEER that they rely heavily on the contract professionals to assure that costs are reasonable.
The bureau has not established a training curriculum or continuing education to assure that its staff construction administrators are adequately trained to review detailed change order costs and to oversee the work of contract professionals. After a one- to two-month observation period, new hires learn from on-the-job training and informal questions and answers. Without ongoing and sufficient training, the potential increases for the bureaus staff to be inconsistent in carrying out the bureaus policies and to fail to protect the interest of the state in paying reasonable costs for services.
The bureau also has no formal process to identify professional design errors and omissions. The bureau does not compile and retain documentation of the investigation and resolution of potential errors or omissions, thus increasing the possibility that the state will pay for changes that are the responsibility of the professional.
Lack of a System to Retain and Use Experience Data for Future Decisionmaking
Although in the past the bureau has used change order data for analysis, the bureau has not developed an information system to manage change orders--e.g., to identify types of projects associated with higher change order costs or routinely identify specific contract professionals with poor records of controlling change orders.
The bureau operates a management information system, the Project Accounting and Tracking System (PATS), which accounts for project budgets and maintains certain types of information regarding building projects, including data on specific change orders. However, the bureau has not developed a system to record and evaluate the cause of change orders or a method of reviewing data to assist in determining the types of projects that might lead to higher change order costs, nor has it examined change orders as a percentage of original budgets for completed projects.
Also, the bureau does not formally evaluate the performance of contract professionals after they have performed their work, which could help to identify those with poor performance and a poor record of controlling change order costs.
Recommendations
Process for Selecting Contract Professionals to Oversee Change Orders
--base a part of the selection process on consideration of the volume of work the firm has performed for the state (i.e., giving extra points to those who have not done work for the state recently);
--include an element of cost competition in the criteria for selection.
Cost Review Process Contracted to Professionals
Bureaus Oversight Process for Analyzing and Controlling Costs
In devising a new compensation system to improve cost effectiveness, the bureau should consider revising the standard professional contract as follows (see page 33 of the report for additional details):
Lack of a System to Retain and Use Experience Data for Future Decisionmaking