Audit Report 2011-05A Housing, Human & Veteran Services (Disaster Recovery Initiative: 3404 Seminole Ave) �tiR CpU
COVV
Internal Audit Department
itE C 1�
Interim Report 2011 - 5A
Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Disaster Recovery Initiative
Property Review: 3404 Seminole Ave
September 2011
Ih�iglit E. Brock
Clerk of the Circuit Court
3299 Tamiarni Trail East
Suite #402
Naples. FL 34 1 1 2-5746
° .collierc lei k.corn
Prepared by: Allison Kearns, Internal Auditor
Report Distribution: Board of County Commissioners
Leo Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services Division
Kim Grant, Interim Director, Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Frank Ramsey, Housing Development Manager
Tammar Hammer, Home Rehabilitation Specialist
Cc: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Crystal K. Kinzel, Director of Finance & Accounting
Table of Contents
Background .2
Summary 2
Scope 2
Observations, Recommendations and Responses 3
Conclusion ..10
Additional Management Comments 11
1
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2011, initial pay requests for partial completion of renovations for a Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) grant
property located at 3404 Seminole Ave in Naples from A. Martinez Construction, Inc. (the Contractor) were submitted by
Housing Human and Veteran Services (HHVS) to Clerk's Finance. The property is owned by Anne Delva (the
Homeowner);renovations to the property were initiated as a result of the Homeowner's request for repairs due to damages
sustained during Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
Finance began review of the file and noted that the Homeowner was recently (January 6, 2011) listed as the joint owner of
another property; however, the intake forms for the grant application had not disclosed this asset. This prompted the
Finance grant reviewer to look further into the records and request the assistance of Internal Audit to complete the review.
Internal Audit performed a physical inspection of the home to document the current condition and any work performed by
the Contractor in accordance with the contract. To-date, the rehabilitation of the home is incomplete and the home is
currently vacant.
SUMMARY
After completing a field visit to the property and comparing the pay requests to the work completed on the home, the
following issues were noted:
• The Contractor's invoices are not dated.
• One payment request appears to be based on a vendor quote and not an actual invoice. This quote was approved
by HHVS staff for payment.
• Trusses and lumber purchased by the Homeowner prior to receiving the rehabilitation grant that were to be used
by the new Contractor were directed to be removed by County Code Enforcement before work commenced. Code
Enforcement had initiated the removal due to the lack of a valid building permit. As a result, a change order was
approved which included$2,670 for new trusses and$4,500 for new lumber and plywood.
• The permit application submitted by the Contractor for the renovation used a lower value than the amount awarded
in the contract.
• The Contractor submitted invoices for incomplete work stated to be 100% complete.
• HHVS staff approved pay requests for incomplete work while attesting to 100%completion.
• The Engineer signed affidavits of completion for several levels of plumbing work that were not completed.
• The home is infested with bees and though not an audit observation, it is a safety issue and should be addressed by
HHVS.
HHVS staff submitted signed payment requests to the Clerk's office for rehabilitation work on this property without
having first performed a thorough site inspection, which is an integral control in the payment approval process. In
addition, inspections were not completed for certain permit items as required by the Building Code. As a consequence, the
Contractor would have been paid in full for incomplete work if Internal Audit had not inspected the property and found the
discrepancies between the invoices submitted and the actual work completed.
SCOPE
The interim review consisted of the following tasks:
• Compiling files and information from county Housing staff, the Clerk's Finance Department and documents
available in county public records;
• Site visits on 6/15/2011 and 7/20/2011 to the property including photo documentation;
• Interviewing county Housing staff,the Homeowner and the Contractor on multiple occasions;
2
• Reviewing the grant application and related documents for the Homeowner;
• Comparing details of work within bid specifications to actual work performed by the Contractor;
• Comparing work performed by the Contractor to pay request details;
• Reviewing video of the 7/26/2011 BCC meeting related to the discussion about this property in conjunction with
item 10E(see Interim Audit Report 2011-5B).
An interim audit report is issued for the purpose of making management immediately aware of issues cited by
Internal Audit so that measures can be taken to promptly address the audit observations. Further findings may be
discovered and incorporated into a subsequent final audit report.
OBSERVATIONS
1) The Contractor's invoices are not dated.
Upon reviewing invoices submitted by the Contractor for approval by HHVS, it was noted that dates were missing from
the invoices. When asked by Internal Audit (on 7/6/2011) why the dates were not included,the Contractor stated it was at
the direction of the Project Manager that dates weren't necessary. The Contractor attested that this was new and that they
had always included dates on their invoices for previous work done with the county; this was verified as accurate by
Internal Audit.
Recommendation:
• For payment requests to be properly approved by HHVS and legally paid by the Clerk, invoices must be dated to
properly reflect the period of work and tasks performed by the Contractor.
• It is important that when invoices are received by HHVS they are promptly date stamped, reviewed and submitted
to Finance for payment in order to be in compliance with the Florida Prompt Payment Act.
Management Response:
Agree with recommendations. HHVS Staff and management have been re-trained to only accept dated invoices, and to
date stamp them the date they arrive in the HHVS office. In addition, the director has recently instituted a new HHVS
tracking report to track all invoices from the date submitted to HHVS to the date submitted to Finance in order to improve
the timeliness of that process.
2) One payment request was based on a quote from a vendor, not an actual invoice.
During the detailed review of invoices submitted by the Contractor for approval by HHVS, it was noted that one of the
Contractor's invoice amounts was based on a quote from a vendor, Raymond Building Supply, and not an actual invoice
that was paid by the Contractor for the goods submitted for payment. The quotes were included as supporting
documentation for A.Martinez Construction invoice 5A for$7,170: New Trusses,Lumber&Plywood.
Recommendation:
• For payment requests to be properly approved by HHVS and legally paid by the Clerk, invoices must be used as
backup documentation to prove that the goods or services were paid for by the Contractor; quotes and estimates do
not provide sufficient evidence for payment.
3
Management Response:
For payment requests based upon items contained and detailed in the awarded bid specification, HHVS will continue with
the current practices. For any work subsequently identified and not contained in the awarded bid specification,HHVS will
ensure a proper invoice and appropriate supporting materials are received from the Contractor.
Internal Audit Response:
It is our understanding that for work performed within the original bid specifications,the Contractor submits an invoice for
that particular item without further detailed supporting invoice documentation being required by Finance. However, for
items added to the rehabilitation via change order, the Contractor is required to submit invoices that support all labor and
materials for the work. Estimates and quotes, regardless of whether in the original bid specs or in a change order, are
never considered sufficient for the Clerk to issue payment.
3) County directed removal of certain building materials to be used in the renovation.
During the period between the bid walk-through on 10/22/2009 with potential contractors and the time the Contractor
proposed an estimate for new trusses, lumber and plywood on 9/9/2010, the materials previously purchased by the
Homeowner were removed at the direction of Collier County Code Enforcement. This action was taken due to the
expiration of a building permit and the Homeowner's failure to apply for another permit in a timely manner.
Since the trusses were still on site at the time HHVS was performing a review of the rehabilitation work to be performed
on the property, they were considered an item that would not be required to be purchased by the bidding contractors, as
stipulated in bid specification #3. Code Enforcement was apparently not aware of the active rehabilitation contract with
the Homeowner at the time the trusses and lumber were removed from the site in January 2010. HHVS staff contacted
Code Enforcement on 3/18/10 to notify them of the Homeowner grant award for rehabilitation of the property and that they
would be correcting any outstanding violations within 3-4 months. However, it was not in time to stop the removal of the
materials by Code Enforcement.
Recommendation:
• Measures should be taken to safeguard assets used for Federal, State and County grant programs to avoid damage
and/or loss of usable materials. Property should be secured, and any loss, theft or change should be documented
through a report to the Sheriff's Office or other law enforcement or regulatory authority.
• Better communication between departments can mitigate the potential for taxpayer funds to be expended for
purchases of items already available.
Management Response:
Agree with the first recommendation and for properties owned and/or assets acquired to be used for grant programs,
appropriate measures are taken to avoid damage and/or loss of materials. Any thefts will be promptly reported to
appropriate authorities. Periodic staff visits to all properties and photo documentation will be maintained to demonstrate
these efforts.
However, Collier County did not own, or acquire through a grant, the assets in question on this finding, nor the property.
Actions noted in this finding concerning materials removed were strictly between the Code Enforcement Department and
the homeowner.
4
Regarding the second recommendation, HHVS has regular communication with the Code Enforcement Department
respecting properties owned by Collier County and related to HHVS grant programs.
Internal Audit Response:
Bid specifications developed by HHVS included the use of materials already on the property. By citing the use of the
available materials, contractors adjusted their bids on that line item accordingly. Based upon the inclusion in the bid
specifications, it is evident that HHVS was aware the materials were on site and that there was a failure to secure the
materials or communicate with Code Enforcement. The removal of the materials resulted in higher job costs, as seen in
one of the change orders, which is relevant to this audit. We are pleased to hear that you now have regular communication
with Code Enforcement and unique situations such as this can be avoided in the future.
4) Permit application for renovation valued differently from contract value.
Documentation provided by HHVS included the initial permit application completed by the Contractor. As of 2/28/2011,
the value placed in the application for the permit was $50,000; the contract for the rehabilitation was valued at$84,230 as
of 1/12/2011 as signed by the Project Manager and Contractor on 1/31/2011. At this time, it is unknown why the permit
application value of the rehabilitation was inconsistent with the final contract value.
Recommendation:
• The contract value on a permit application should reflect the actual final contract amount to be in compliance with
County requirements. Measures should be taken by the Project Manager to ensure contractors have accurately
applied for permits.
Management Response:
We understand the intent of the recommendation, however, we assert there has been no failure regarding this item and
there has been no adverse effect.
The "job cost" on a permit application represents estimates as provided by the applicant. An estimated value of
construction can only be calculated by staff for new construction per the Florida Building Code. The permit fees for this
rehabilitation project were based on the scope of work, not the cost or permitted amount of the job. Remodeling and
rehabilitation projects for single family detached homes do not take into consideration the value of materials in fee
calculations rather the scope of work is used to calculate the number and type of trade reviews required to meet the
conditions of the Florida Building Code. Projects that consist of a like for like replacement below $1,500 do not require a
permit per Collier County Ordinance 2009-59. Consequently, the total value of the permitted job was immaterial in the
fees,the reviews or the inspections performed.
Further,per the award documents with the general contractor it states that"It is the contractors responsibility to ensure that
all required permits ... are obtained ... and copies must be provided to the Collier County Housing & Human Services."
In this case the permit was applied for,issued,and the contractor provided a copy for HHVS records.
Internal Audit Response:
Collier County Building Permit Application Instructions state in reference to this issue that "contracted cost" should be
used for the cost of the job. We agree that the fee paid for this particular application would not have changed if the proper
amount had been used in the Contractor's application.
5
5) The Contractor requested payment for incomplete work.
The following items were stated to be 100% complete by the Contractor and were requested for full payment and approved
by HHVS staff without the work having been completed, as observed during physical inspection of the property by
Internal Audit:
a) Demolition$5,000
• Per bid specification #1: Demo the remaining roof and trusses. Demo the 4'x 10'8"x 18' of wood wall
that was the carport. Demo the interior walls, kitchen, baths, and clean out all trash, i.e. appliances,
insulation,garbage,etc.
• Per physical inspection: An overflowing dumpster and debris in the yard was observed to be on site.
• Per Contractor (7/6/2011): This is the 4th dumpster that has been on site and all the trash is "[due to] the
county" placing items in the dumpster.
;i4nt'••
N*'
b) Block Wall$5,390
• Per bid specification #2: Lay block in 4'x 10'8"x 18' in place of existing wood walls. Lay block with 4
window opening per drawing. Pour tie-beam, attaching new walls to existing walls. Stucco new walls
and repair any stucco damage to existing building.
• Per physical inspection: All new stucco work and repairs incomplete.
• Per Contractor (7/6/2011): Agreed that the block work was done but not the stucco. The Project
Manager apparently gave the Contractor the impression that it was acceptable to bill for the whole bid line
item as long as the rest of the work was done by the time the payment was issued.
I I
kz
c) Interior Framing$1,800
• Per bid specification #9: Interior frame 14 walls per drawing per FBC. Walls can be framed with wood
or metal framing. Install Deadwood in kitchen for cabinet install. In bathrooms for future grab bar install
and towel bar&toilet paper install. In closet areas for shelving and closet rod install, and utility room for
shelving install.
• Per physical inspection: Deadwood [support strips] not installed (kitchen area shown below). No permit
inspection sign-off found for Framing even though work had been billed as complete.
6
r _ ..
\ I ,,,,,.
! 1 i
j ,
.. ,
. . i
,., ,
1-477. 11 ,.,
t
,,
t .
111
d) Plumbing$5,750
• Per bid specification #11: The contractor's bid price shall reflect all plumbing installation to meet
applicable codes. Plumbing hardware replacement: replace all plumbing hardware in 2 bathrooms,kitchen
and utility room with new, mid-grade quality fixtures. Lavatory will have new pop up drain stop and
shower will have new diverter valve, spout and shower head. Owner shall have choice of hardware with
either single lever/flow type faucet or individual hot/cold handled hardware.
• Per physical inspection: No fixtures, faucets or other plumbing trim installed, not possible at this early
stage of construction due to items such as cabinets and vanities not being installed yet.
.4-4* i :- 1.0
e) HVAC$3,800
• Per bid specification #12: Central heat and A/C: Install minimum of 2.5 ton, 16 SEER, R410A, central
heating(8 kw heat) and cooling system to include all duct work. Includes all electrical, digital thermostat,
condensing unit, drains, refrigeration piping, air handler and grilles. All grilles vented to all living areas
and all equipment necessary to complete a new system. New system will be adequate for all living areas
to be cooled/heated. Condenser secured on cement pad, include pad in price. System will be installed to
manufacturer specs. No exposed interior ductwork. Warranty info: units must have 10-year warrantee on
compressor,coil,condenser parts,evaporator coil and air handler parts. 1-year labor on entire system.
• Per physical inspection: A/C compressor, drains and trim not installed and not possible at this early stage
of construction. No permit inspection sign-off found for Mechanical Rough A/C even though work had
been billed as complete.
• Per Contractor(7/6/2011): Agreed that the compressor has not been installed yet.
,, .,, _7: i t ..„si
7,
. . .- ,.. , ii ,_ 11111
i i • il
I Ili'
f) Electrical and Low Voltage$4,100
• Per bid specification #13: Follow Electrical drawing per FBC. Install 200 amp service to the home.
Install wiring, switches, outlets, interior lighting and exterior lighting. Bathroom light and exhaust fans,
ceiling fans and light kits. Install GFI outlets in bath and kitchen per FBC. Install new panel box and
7
reconnect and test electrical system, mark new panel breakers. Install electric for over stove and
microwave. Install 7 new UL approved smoke detectors. Install cable,computer and phone.
• Per physical inspection: Switches, circuit breakers, outlets, interior, exterior lighting, bathroom light,
exhaust fan, ceiling fans with light kits and smoke detectors not installed and not possible to complete at
this early phase of construction. No permit inspection sign-off found for Electrical Rough or
TV/Telephone Rough even though work had been billed as complete.
• Per Contractor (7/6/2011): Cannot pass the rough electrical inspection yet until the windows are
installed; the Project Manager told the Contractor to stop work on the house so the windows are currently
being stored with the vendor awaiting installation.
,,,f7,7
0.
N -40
Y 1 57
Recommendations:
• Contractors should be made clearly aware that billing for incomplete work can be construed as a
fraudulent act and can put them in jeopardy of losing the ability to be awarded future jobs with the county,
losing their contractor's license and/or criminal prosecution.
• Building inspections are required by law and therefore Project Managers should be aware of any sign-offs
pending before work is considered completed by a Contractor. It is recommended that HHVS review the
status of permit items is completed before payment requests are approved.
• Work must be completed prior to billing according to the bid specifications and the contract terms.
Management Response:
Agree with recommendations. HHVS management will meet with all contractors involved and make them clearly aware
that billing for incomplete work will no longer be tolerated. Accordingly, HHVS will take additional measures to assure
that work is completed prior to billing and that it is according to the bid specifications and the contract terms. The primary
procedural change is to require photos of the components of work being invoiced. Finally, we agree to add a new
component in our review of invoices to assure that appropriate inspections for the work being invoiced have been
completed. Also, it is standard practice for the HHVS Project Manager to only present the final payment request when a
Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion (CO or CC) has been granted by the building department for the
property. Granting of the CO or CC provides assurance that all required inspections have been completed to the standards
of the Collier County building official. We intend to continue to rely upon this practice for certification that all building
codes have been met.
Please note we disagree with finding 5a) regarding the dumpster. We agree there were still dumpsters on-site when the
photos were taken, however the dumpsters associated with the demolition have been removed as per the bid specs and the
demolition was completed. We have confirmed with code enforcement that as long as there is an active building permit, it
is permissible to have dumpsters on site.
8
Internal Audit Response:
To add to your response, the CO may provide assurance that all required inspections have been performed and are
compliant with codes, but it does not ensure all work required to be performed by the contractor has been completed;
HHVS staff must also perform their inspections in addition to any building code reviews in order to be thorough.
We contend that at the time of our site visit,the dumpster in question still contained materials from the demolition and not
all demolition involving the structure had been completed, making the Contractor's invoice for 100% completion of the
demolition bid spec invalid. We agree that a dumpster is allowed to be on site during active rehabilitation of the homes.
6) County Housing Staff approved payments for incomplete work.
The HHVS Project Manager and Housing Development Manager both signed affidavits attesting to 100% completion of
all work submitted by the Contractor.
• The Project Manager indicated that she personally inspected the property.
• The Contractor stated that the Project Manager walked the property with them in mid-June 2011 to review
the progress of the work;no one had a camera with them at that time.
The observations noted by Internal Audit during our inspections of the property clearly have concluded that the work
billed was incomplete, indicating either a lack of an inspection or a poor inspection by the Project Manager. As indicated
on one of the forms required by HHVS for payment authorization, "This Disbursement Authorization certifies that the
above referenced Vendor is a participant in Collier County's affordable housing program and has performed rehabilitation
work as specified in the attached invoice. A site inspection was conducted and payment is approved for the following
project."
A thorough inspection of the property, before the payment requests totaling $34,840 were approved and submitted to
Finance, was required as part of the controls in place to prevent and detect false billing by contractors. Management
approval of pay requests without sufficient evidence of work having been properly completed is non-compliant with
Federal, State and County regulations and guidelines, acceptable business practices and could potentially be considered a
criminal act.
Recommendations:
• Project Managers must thoroughly inspect all work prior to authorizing any payment requests; signing such
statements without having performed a sufficient inspection is considered a misrepresentation of facts and
falsification of official records.
• Photographic evidence of all items completed to support both the progress of work and payment requests
submitted by contractors is highly advisable. The second signatory on the pay requests should, at a minimum,
utilize the photos as evidence of work completed or personally inspect the property in order to validly attest to the
completion of work.
• The Clerk's office will require evidence of inspections having been performed; photos of completed work being
billed by the contractor and HHVS approvals should be included in the documentation submitted to Finance
beginning immediately.
Management Response:
Agree with recommendations. Beginning immediately,as was stated above,HHVS will take additional measures to assure
that work is completed prior to billing and that it is according to the bid specifications and the contract terms. The primary
procedural change is to require photos of the components of work being invoiced. The second signatory will utilize these
9
photographs and proofs of inspections as evidence on every request for payment, and also, periodically, will perform
unscheduled site inspections to further verify. Finally, we agree to add a new component in our review of invoices to
assure that appropriate inspections for the work being invoiced have been completed.
Internal Audit Response:
Per our discussion with Management, to further clarify the "new component" referenced in Management's response, the
inspections are understood to be trade reviews; we feel this is an excellent addition to Housing's invoice approval process.
7) The Engineer signed affidavits attesting to plumbing completion.
The Contractor submitted the following documents signed by the Engineer overseeing the construction:
a) Building Permits by Affidavit
b) Construction Affidavit
c) Certificate of Completion by Affidavit
d) Certificate of Occupancy by Affidavit
None of the forms were dated or sealed and it is clear from the inspection performed by Internal Audit that these affidavits
appear to have been signed without the Engineer having performed a thorough inspection of the work. Certificates of
Completion and Occupancy typically indicate a level of construction that has been completed for suitable habitation. This
home does not currently have doors, windows, toilets, sinks, faucets or running water; it is unknown as to why the
Engineer attested to the plumbing being complete and suitable for occupants at this time.
Recommendations:
• Affidavits submitted by contractors should be verified by Project Managers during their routine inspections of the
rehabilitation properties.
• Engineers or architects signing affidavits attesting to certain levels of completion for construction without having
performed a sufficient inspection can have the appearance of misrepresenting facts.
Management Response:
Agree with recommendations. While the process of obtaining inspections is a general contractors and building department
responsibility, on which we reasonably relied, we will improve the procedures in the future by not allowing permits by
affidavit for these properties, which means the county building inspectors will always do an on-site inspection of all
permittable items. Also, we will assure that interim inspections applicable to items being billed have been completed by
the appropriate official/inspector.
CONCLUSION
Until line items from the bid specifications are completed by the contractor, inspected by the Project Manager and verified
by HHVS management, payment requests should not be approved or forwarded to the Clerk's Office for payment. The
Clerk's Office cannot process invoices for payment where the work is not verified as completed in accordance with the
contract and the bid specifications.
It is the responsibility of management to understand and implement the proper process and procedural controls to limit the
risk of fraud and misappropriation of county assets. When these controls are circumvented, it is possible that payment
10
requests forwarded to the Clerk are not legally sufficient to pay. The Clerk's Office may suggest recommendations in
audit reports,but it is the decision of management to formulate compliant ways of implementing those controls.
As a result of the issues noted for this property, the Clerk's Internal Audit Department decided to choose another property
from a different grant and with a different Project Manager for further review. By choosing another property as a sample,
Internal Audit can attempt to determine whether the issues cited here are systemic or simply a random occurrence.
Reference Interim Audit Report 2011-5B for further details.
Additional Management Comments:
As soon as these issues were brought to the attention of management, improved controls were implemented to limit the
risk of adverse exposure to Collier County. The improved controls were discussed with the internal audit team on the day
of their arrival on site for the initial audit review and are consistent with what has been recommended throughout this
report. We understand and concur that it is imperative to present requests for payment that represent only work that is
complete,and we have assumed a"zero tolerance"for such issues in the future.
We very much appreciate the work of the Clerk of Courts staff and volunteers in performing these audits and bringing
these issues to light in order for us take immediate and substantive corrective actions. In addition,we look forward to
partnering with the audit and management staff to continue to reinforce and improve the internal controls of the operation.
11