So I was all ready to do a blog post about some internal audits when I ran across the interesting graphic below (I highlighted and cropped it to fit my website). Remember what we were told?
The project also is on track to meet the project goal of 85 percent of the work performed by local contractors and suppliers.
Well if you add up the numbers of our own internal audit, it’s not quite 85%, in fact, it’s not even close. If you use just the actuals you will see we spent about $38.3 million on outside (of Sioux Falls and the state) contractors and supplies and about $59.6 million on local contractors.
But there is still some stuff missing. We have NO idea what amount of supplies and outside labor our local contractors used, I couldn’t even began to guess, but let’s lowball it at 25%, that would bring our local numbers to $44.7 million.
Then there is the little discrepancy with MJ Dalsin;
Wall panels/air barrier/roofing  MJ Dalsin Roofing $3.1 million
According to them, they did perform much of this work, but deny ever installing the rippling siding. So who did? That contractor is conveniently left off the audit sheet, and so is the siding settlement.
Secrets, lies, and more secrets and lies. This audit isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
But as our own auditor says about CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk);
The three biggest risks to the City in using the CMAR delivery method for construction projects are these:
• A poorly written contract favoring the CMAR is entered into by the City who may be inexperienced in the nuances of such contracts.
• Criticism of the process of selecting the CMAR. Since the selection is based upon the more subjective measure of best qualified rather than the objective cost criteria in a DBB project, there may be a perception of favoritism.
• A big problem in the field that the CMAR ignores or covers up. Such a big problem is the only way a CMAR is truly at risk.
A big problem in the field? You mean like poorly installed siding that is covered up in a secret settlement? Never happen 🙁
Click to expand graphic
Where are the architect and engineering fees. Add on another 20 percent for design,submittal reviews, inspectors, etc.
Oh yeah they probably scribbled plans on napkins at the bars. No ethical engineer would have signed off on the drawings for the siding and probably rejected the concrete as well
What a mess down the not to distant future.