Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06192001 - C.132 C.132 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 19, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Gerber, Glover and Uilkema NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSTAIN: None ACCEPTED the Grand Jury report No. 0107, "Contra Costa County Capital Facilities, Design and Construction of Capital Facilities", and REFERRED to the County Administrator. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: June 19,2001 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: bM44& ,G Deputy Clerk Grand Jur 725 Court Street v . Contra P.O. Box 911 Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091 County June 13, 2001 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, 1 st Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Report No. 0107 Dear Board of Supervisors: Attached is Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 0107 for your information. No response is required. CAROL THEWS, Foreman 1999-00 Contra Costa County Grand Jury CW: Enclosure A REPORT BY THC 2000-01 CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 ReportNo. 0107 . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL FACILITIES APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date: o CJ CAROL TI iWS GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING:. Date: 7, ,70o( MICHAEL R. COLEMAN JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT y. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REPORT NO. 0107 Contra Costa County Capital Facilities Design and Construction of Capital Facilities BACKGROUND Design and construction of small and medium sized capital facilities for the County are managed either directly by the Architectural Division of the General Services Department or by using professional contract services where the in-house capabilities of the Division are exceeded. Large capital projects are directly managed by the County Administrator's Office (CAO). Over the past 15 years, the CAO has utilized one project management firm almost exclusively. FINDINGS 1. Responsibility for managing the selection, negotiation and supervision of architecture, design, construction and project management contracts is divided between the Architectural Services Division of the General Services Department and the County Administrator's Office. If a capital.facility is thought to be too large for the Architectural Services Division to handle, the County Administrator assigns responsibility for the accomplishment of the architecture, design and construction to one of his immediate staff. 2. For small and medium sized projects, the Architectural Services Division is responsible for designing, constructing, remodeling and managing new capital construction and alteration projects, using contract services where in-house capabilities are insufficient. 3. For large projects, the County often uses contract services of Project Management firms. These firms provide a full range of services from development of facility concept, detailed engineering and architectural design, preparation of construction contract bid documents and management of construction. 4. The Architectural Services Division, through public advertisement, normally solicits interest in contracts for architectural and engineering design of facilities. Selection of a specific firm to execute the contract is normally then made through a review and interview process by a County committee of knowledgeable persons and a contract is then negotiated with the selected firm, normally on a firm fixed- price basis. 5. The County Administrator's Office sometimes conducts a formal solicitation of interest in Project Management contracts similarly to that done for architectural contracts. Most of the times, these Project Management contracts are given to the same firm without seeking interest or competition from other qualified firms. 6. The processes used in the selection of a successful firm for Project Management contracts differs between the two offices responsible for the activity. The Architectural Services Division follows a process of obtaining a list of interested firms, selecting one firm by a committee of key County personnel, negotiating a contract with that firm and managing the activities and performance of that firm by qualified architects. However, the County Administrator's Office repeatedly selects the same firm, negotiates a cost-reimbursable contract with that firm and manages the firm's performance with its own staff. (Note: a cost-reimbursable contract is defined as one in which the contractor is paid for services on the basis of time spent on the project at pre-determined man-hour rates rather than a firm fixed price.) 7. The County Administrator's Office has repeatedly hired one firm over the past 15 years for management of major projects. Contracts awarded to this firm over the last eight and one-half years total approximately $8.5 million and include consulting work on the new Martinez Health Center, the Juvenile Hall Tamalpais Addition and the New Juvenile Hall. This firm has also been selected to manage design and construction of the new Permit Center. No documentation exits explaining the reasons for this repeated selection without a competitive process. 8. Documents from the Architectural Services Division describe the selection process for individual projects. Other documents show unexplained departures from the publicized process. In one instance, the initial solicitation of interest was sent to 35 firms, resulting in 14 responses. The solicitation letter indicated that a County committee would develop a short list of 6 "best qualified" firms for further evaluation and discussion. The final list contained 7 firms. 9. The Architectural Services Division Selection Committee's documents for this project showed that 6 of the 14 responding firms received the highest number of votes by the committee and were listed as "best qualified." The 7th firm appearing on this "best qualified" list received only a single vote. This firm ultimately was awarded one of the contracts. 10. Contracts for architectural and engineering services are negotiated, both firm fixed price and cost reimbursable. Most, if not all, Project Management contracts are cost reimbursable. It is not known how the agreed upon fixed price or the "payment limit" amount for cost reimburseable contracts were determined. 1 l. In one cost reimbursable contract, the contractor provided no substantiating documentation supporting periodic contract payments. One contract payment request identified the contractor's personnel along with the number of hours worked in the intervening period and the corresponding man-hour rate for that individual. No information was provided on work performed during this 2 intervening period nor any evaluation of actual versus scheduled progress on the project. Validity of the payment request cannot be judged from this minimal data submitted. 12. County audits of the contract performance and expenditures for cost reimbursable contracts, normally a requirement on this type of contract, are not performed on projects managed by either the County Administrator's Office or the Architectural Division. 13 A performance Audit, directed by the County Administrator of the General Services Department was conducted in 1998 by a team chaired by the County Administrator's Office. The Audit report, dated November 2, 1998, is critical of the performance and management of the Architectural Services Division suggesting inadequate organization, poor supervision, lack of accountability and initiative, poor coordination, and lack of training in project management skills. Recommendations included hiring a General Services Department Deputy to manage the Architectural Services Division along with several other units. The audit stated that this Deputy should possess experience in architectural design and capital project management. 14. County staff assigned to specific projects by the County Administrator are in career fields unrelated to architecture, engineering and construction activities, but yet are responsible for the design and construction management of major new capital facilities projects. 15. No written County policy guidance, manuals or regulations governing the procurement of professional engineering and project management contracts exits. . CONCLUSIONS 1. The process for architecture, engineering, design and construction of County capital improvements appears to be poorly managed. The Architectural Services Division, charged with the responsibility for these activities, has not been able to perform because of a lack of qualified personnel. The result has been to add specific project management responsibilities to the County Administrator's Office. This gets the job done but at uncertain costs and questions the County's reputation for equitable distribution of available project management work. 2. Continuous use of one project management firm for large contracts, combined with the use of cost reimbursable contracts, inadequate periodic billing documentation and lack of contract audits creates the potential for irregularities in contract performance and payments. 3 3. The"payment limit" amount contained in cost reimbursable contracts is considered to be the cost controlling mechanism by itself, but it certainly does not lend to productivity or.initiative. This is particularly true when the "payment limit" amount is normally the same as the firm's proposal. 4. The recommendations of the Performance Audit of the General Services Department sought to strengthen the management and performance capability of the Architectural Services.Division to enable it to do the job it is assigned. Very few of the recommendations therein relating to the Architectural Services Division appear to have been implemented. Instead, the County,continues to allow responsibilities for project management to be split, resulting in the divergent and distorted processes it now experiences. 5. The current system of project management procurement for large projects allows for selection of the firm, contract negotiations, contract performance management and authorization of payments to be performed without adequate checks and balances. 6. The reason for relieving the Architectural Services Division of the responsibility for numerous major capital improvement projects was the Division's limited capabilities. It is noted that this limited capability was replaced with staff from the County Administrator's Office. One or.more qualified persons could have been added to the Architectural Services Division office instead to perform this function. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Contra Costa County Administrator: 1. Develop standardized and uniform County regulations prescribing required processes for procuring engineering and design services by contract, to include: . a. selection of firms, type of contract to use and negotiation of contract scope and price, specifically identifying the requirements justifying repeated use of one firm. b. written documentation requirements to include explanation for any divergence from the regulation requirements. 2. Develop County regulations prescribing required processes and standards for cost reimbursable contracts, to include: a. detailed project schedule by major component of work. 4 b. amount of supporting information to be provided with periodic payment requests. C. requirements for periodic County audits. 3. Re-evaluate the November 2, 1998 Performance Audit of the General Services Department with a view toward strengthening the Architectural Services Division so it can perform the County's total design and construction management function by December 2002. J 5 Grand Jury Contra C. OX 725 Court Street �+ P.O.Box 911 Cotta Martinez, CA 94553-0091 County 5� L June 7, 2001 RECEIVED .y Srq C'f)UN'� JUN 0:7. 2001 John Sweeten CLERKBOARD OF SUPER County Administrator CONTRA C STACO.ISORS 651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Sweeten: Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 0107, "Contra Costa County Capital Facilities, Design and Construction of Capital Facilities" prepared by the 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury. In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at least two working days before it is released publicly. Section 933.5(a) of the California Government Code requires that (the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions) in respect to each finding: (1) "The respondent agrees with the finding." (2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding." (3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding." In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. In addition; Section 933.05(b) requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by stating one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report. John Sweeten June 7, 2001 Page 2 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof. Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the mandated items. We will expect your response, using the form described by the quoted Government Code, no later than September 5, 2001. To aid you in responding to this report, we have attached a.copy of "Guidelines for Responding to a Grand Jury Report." Failure to conform to these requirements could result in your having to resubmit your response. You are also advised that your response becomes a public record upon receipt by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Sincerely, CAROL THEWS, Foreman 2000-2001 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury CW: Enclosures A REPORT BY THE 2000-01 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 Report No. 0107 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL FACILITIES APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: CJ `i Date: �2 CAROL TFWWS GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Date: 7` zoo MICHAEL R. COLEMAN JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT SECTION 933.(C) & 933.05 STANDARD CALIFORNIA CODE Section 933. Comments and Reports on Grand Ju rti (4)The recommendation will not be implemented Recommendations because:it is not warranted or is not reasonable,with an explanation therefor. (c)No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public (c)However,if a finding or recommendation of agency subject to its reviewing authority,the governing the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding. a counh-agency or department headed by an elected judge of the superior court on the findings and officer,.both the agency or department head and the board . recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, the governing body,and every elected county officer or but the response of the board of supervisors shall address agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to some decision making authority. The response of the the presiding judge of the superior court,with an elected agency or department head shall address all aspects information copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under agency or department. the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency had (d)A grand jury may request a subject person or i supervises or controls. In any city and county,the mayor entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of shall also comment ort the findings and recommendations. reading end discussing the findings of the grand jury report All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who accuracy of the findings prior to their release. impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the (e)During an investigation,the grand jury shall public agency and the office of thc.county clerk,or the meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the mayor when applicable,and shall remain on file in those investigation,unless the court,either ort its own offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the determination or upon request of the foreperson of the I applicable grand jury final report by,and in the control of grand jur✓,determines that such a meeting would be the currently impaneled grand jury,where it shall be detrimental. maintained for a minimum of five years.Leg.H.1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch.674. 1974 clts.393,1396, 1977 chs. 107, (f)A grand jury shall provide to the affected 187, 1980 ch.543,1.981.ch.203,1982 ch. 1408,1985 ch. agency a ropy of the portion of the grand jury report 221, 1987 ch.690; 1988 ch. 1297,-1997 eh.443;-1988 ch. relating to that person or entity two working days prior to 230. its ublic;.-elease and after the approval of the presidia P PI g judge. No officer,agency,department,or governing body Section 933.05(Parlrun Respohse to Graild'Jttry of a public;agency shall disclose any contents of the report Recommendations-Content Requirements... prior to th-,public release of the final report. I i ..•.--•-•�-.--(a)•I�ervpurpescs•of subdivisiori�bj%of'Se�jari• i 933,as to each grand jury finding,the responding person.or entity shall indicate one ojthe following: c „.>-._....�.._....(.1).TlterespDndcrtt.agrees..wittt..the:finding..•-;.= I (2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding,in which case.the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed arid shall include w.I an-explanation of tltcxeasons therefor. I, j (b)For purposes of subdivision(b)of Section j 933,as to each grand jury recommendation,the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1)The recommendation has been implemented, jwith a summary regarding the implemented action. (2)The recommendation has not;.yet.beeff implemented,but will be implemented in the future,with a timeframe for implementation. I I . (3)The recommendations requires further analysis,with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study,and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the I agency or department.being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. i I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REPORT NO. 0107 Contra Costa County Capital Facilities Design and Construction of Capital Facilities BACKGROUND Design and construction of small and medium sized capital facilities for the County are managed either directly by the Architectural Division of the General Services Department or by using professional contract services where the in-house capabilities of the Division are exceeded. Large capital projects are directly managed by the County Administrator's Office (CAO). Over the past 15 years, the CAO has utilized one project management firm almost exclusively. FINDINGS 1. Responsibility for managing the selection, negotiation and supervision of architecture, design, construction and project management contracts is divided between the Architectural Services Division of the General Services Department and the County Administrator's Office. If a capital facility is thought to be too large for the Architectural Services Division to handle, the County Administrator assigns responsibility for the accomplishment of the architecture, design and construction to one of his immediate staff. 2. For small and medium sized projects, the Architectural Services Division is responsible for designing, constructing, remodeling and managing new capital construction and alteration projects, using contract services where in-house capabilities are insufficient. 3. For large projects, the County often uses contract services of Project Management firms. These firms provide a full range of services from development of facility concept, detailed engineering and architectural design, preparation of construction contract bid documents and-management of construction. 4. The Architectural Services Division, through public advertisement, normally solicits interest in contracts for architectural and engineering design of facilities. Selection of a specific firm to execute the contract is normally then made through a review and interview process by a County committee of knowledgeable persons and a contract is then negotiated with the selected firm, normally on a firm fixed- price basis. 5. The County Administrator's Office sometimes conducts a formal solicitation of interest in Project Management contracts similarly to that done for architectural contracts. Most of the times, these Project Management contracts are given to the same firm without seeking interest or competition from other qualified firms. 6. The processes used in the selection of a successful firm for Project Management contracts differs between the two offices responsible for the activity. The Architectural Services Division follows a process of obtaining a list of interested firms, selecting one firm by a committee of key County personnel, negotiating a contract with that firm and managing the activities and performance of that firm by qualified architects. However, the County Administrator's Office repeatedly selects the same firm, negotiates a cost-reimbursable contract with that firm and manages the firm's performance with its own staff. (Note: a cost-reimbursable contract is defined as one in which the contractor is paid for services on the basis of time spent on the project at pre-determined man-hour rates rather than a firm fixed price.) 7. The County Administrator's Office has repeatedly hired one firm over the past 15 years for management of major projects. Contracts awarded to this firm over the last eight and one-half years total approximately $8.5 million and include consulting work on the new Martinez Health Center, the Juvenile Hall Tamalpais Addition and the New Juvenile Hall. This firm has also been selected to manage design and construction of the new Permit Center. No documentation exits explaining the reasons for this repeated selection without a competitive process. 8. Documents from the Architectural Services Division describe the selection process for individual projects. Other documents show unexplained departures from the publicized process. In one instance, the initial solicitation of interest was sent to 35 firms, resulting in 14 responses. The solicitation letter indicated that a County committee would develop a short list of 6 "best qualified" firms for further evaluation and discussion. The final list contained 7 firms. 9. The Architectural Services Division Selection Committee's documents for this project showed that 6 of the 14 responding firms received the highest number of votes by the committee and were listed as"best qualified." The 7th firm appearing on this"best qualified" list received only a single vote. This firm ultimately was awarded one of the contracts. 10. Contracts for architectural and engineering services are negotiated, both firm fixed price and cost reimbursable. Most, if not all, Project Management contracts are cost reimbursable. It is not known how the agreed upon fixed price or the "payment limit" amount for cost reimburseable contracts were determined. 11. In one cost reimbursable contract, the contractor provided no substantiating documentation supporting periodic contract payments. One contract payment request identified the contractor's personnel along with the number of hours worked in the intervening period and the corresponding man-hour rate for that individual. No information was provided on work performed during this 2 intervening period nor any evaluation of actual versus scheduled progress on the project. Validity of the payment request cannot be judged from this minimal data submitted. 12. County audits of the contract performance and expenditures for cost reimbursable contracts, normally a requirement on this type of contract, are not performed on projects managed by either the County Administrator's Office or the Architectural Division. 13. A performance Audit, directed by the County Administrator of the General Services Department was conducted in 1998 by a team chaired by the County Administrator's Office. The Audit report, dated November 2, 1998, is critical of the performance and management of the Architectural Services Division suggesting inadequate organization, poor supervision, lack of accountability and initiative, poor coordination, and lack of training in project management skills. Recommendations included hiring a General Services Department Deputy to manage the Architectural Services Division along with several other units. The audit stated that this Deputy should possess experience in architectural design and capital project management. 14. County staff assigned to specific projects by the County Administrator are in career fields unrelated to architecture, engineering and construction activities, but yet are responsible for the design and construction management of major new capital facilities projects. 15. No written County policy guidance, manuals or regulations governing the procurement of professional engineering and project management contracts exits. CONCLUSIONS 1. The process for architecture, engineering, design and construction of County capital improvements appears to be poorly managed. The Architectural Services Division, charged with the responsibility for these activities, has not been able to perform because of a lack of qualified personnel. The result has been to add specific project management responsibilities to the County Administrator's Office. This gets the job done but at uncertain costs and questions the County's reputation for equitable distribution of available project management work. 2. Continuous use of one project management firm for large contracts, combined with the use of cost reimbursable contracts, inadequate periodic billing documentation and lack of contract audits creates the potential for irregularities in contract performance and payments. 3 3. The"payment limit" amount contained in cost reimbursable contracts is considered to be the cost controlling mechanism by itself, but it certainly does not lend to productivity or initiative. This is particularly true when the"payment limit" amount is normally the same as the firm's proposal. 4. The recommendations of the Performance Audit of the General Services Department sought to strengthen the management and performance capability of the Architectural Services Division to enable it to do the job it is assigned. Very few of the recommendations therein relating to the Architectural Services Division appear to have been implemented. Instead, the County continues to allow responsibilities for project management to be split, resulting in the divergent and distorted processes it now experiences. 5. The current system of project management procurement for large projects allows for selection of the firm, contract negotiations, contract performance management and authorization of payments to be performed without adequate checks and balances. 6. The reason for relieving the Architectural Services Division of the responsibility for numerous major capital improvement projects was the Division's limited capabilities. It is noted that this limited capability was replaced with staff from the County Administrator's Office. One or more qualified persons could have been added to the Architectural Services Division office instead to perform this function. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Contra Costa County Administrator: 1. Develop standardized and uniform County regulations prescribing required processes for procuring engineering and design services by contract, to include: . a. selection of firms, type of contract to use and negotiation of contract scope and price, specifically identifying the requirements justifying repeated use of one firm. b. written documentation requirements to include explanation for any divergence from the regulation requirements. 2. Develop County regulations prescribing required processes and standards for cost reimbursable contracts, to include: a. detailed project schedule by major component of work. 4 b. amount of supporting information to be provided with periodic payment requests. C. requirements for periodic County audits. 3. Re-evaluate the November 2, 1998 Performance Audit of the General Services Department with a view toward strengthening the Architectural Services Division so it can perform the County's total design and construction management function by December 2002. 5 GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO A GRAND JURY REPORT Penal Code section 933.05 governs how to respond to a Grand Jury Report. Any response not in compliance with section 933.05 will be returned by the Grand Jury for revision. To help you avoid having to revise your response to comply with section 933.05, the Grand Jury provides the following guidelines. Grand Jury reports include Findings and the Recommendations. Penal Code section 933.05 requires you to respond to each Finding and each Recommendation. 1. You are required to respond to each FINDING in one of the following three ways: 1) Agree with the finding. No further explanation is required. 2) Wholly disagree with the finding. The reasons for your dispute must be explained. 3) Partially disagree with the finding. The portion disputed must be specified. The reasons for your dispute must be explained. Note the following examples of acceptable responses: Example 1: Finding: The [agency] employs 208 workers and has offices in three areas of Contra Costa County. Response: Agree. Example 2: Finding: The [agency] owns the building and the surrounding land. Response: Wholly disagree. The [agency] leases the building and the surrounding land. [Another entity] owns the building and surrounding land. Example 3: Finding: All employees are required to attend training seminars every year to keep current on changing laws. Response. Partially disagree. All employees but supervisors are required to attend training seminars every year. Supervisors are required to attend training seminars once every two years. 2. You are required to respond to each RECOMMENDATION in one of the following four ways: 1) The recommendation has been implemented. A summary of the implemented action must be stated. 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A time frame for implementation must be stated. 3) The recommendation requires further analysis. An explanation, the scope, and the parameters of the future analysis or study must be set forth. The time frame for preparation of the matter for discussion (including by applicable governing bodies) must be stated. The time frame may not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and/or not reasonable. The reasons for not implementing the recommendation must be explained. Note the following examples of acceptable responses: Example 1: Recommendation: Yearly training should be made mandatory for all employees. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Last month, this [agency] adopted and distributed new written policy requiring yearly training for all employees. Example 2: Recommendation: The [agency] should hire additional bilingual employees. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented. The [agency] is currently interviewing employment applicants who are bilingual. We expect to extend employment offers to two such ., a applicants by the end of the current month. Assuming the employment offers will be accepted, this will bring the total of bilingual employees to seven. Example 3: Recommendation: The [agency] should implement security measures for the protection of staff and clients during nighttime hours. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The [agency] has begun a study of the feasibility of providing nighttime security. The study is analyzing our security needs, the use of security guards versus security systems, the costs involved, and the potential sources of funding. We will complete the study by the end of this month and it will be discussed and acted upon by the end of next month. Example 4: Recommendation: The [agency] should acquire the property north of the current parking lot to provide additional parking for staff and clients. Response:. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The property north of the current parking lot is not for sale. The property is owned by [another agency] that plans to begin construction of an office building on the site in the next two months. However, we are currently negotiating our purchase of the property east of the current parking lot to provide additional parking for staff and clients.