This is a little abstruse, so don’t continue if you are not willing to exercise your brain a little.

Making a construction project down at the Richmond City Hall is like that proverbial sausage, something you really don’t want to watch.

On April 3, 2007, staff brought to the City Council for approval a contract with Best Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. for $518,900 to repair or replace roofs at seven branch libraries and community centers.

I took a look at the contract documents, including the technical specifications, for the project and had some questions and concerns.

• I noted that there was no warranty requirement for work on the Westside Branch Library. According to City sources, leaks from this roof are the only reason the library has been closed so long. It would be shame to spend over $30,000 repairing it and have no recourse if the repairs were ineffective.
• The entire instructions for repairing the Westside Library roof are contained in three sentences: (a) Remove metal roof panels from north and south ends of building, save panels; (b) Install peel and stick membrane over entire area. Use 2 plies at all angles, turn-ups, valleys; (c) Replace panels. What caught my attention was the description of a self-adhering waterproofing membrane as “peel & stick,“ sort of construction slang and not a technical term. There are all kinds of “peel & stick” products, some of which are garbage and some of which are high quality. They come in a variety of thicknesses and have different types of adhesives with specific properties. For example, it is important to use a product that stands up to the kind of heat that occurs under a metal roof. I was puzzled why there was no actual specification for the membrane.
• I also noted that the intent of the contract was to be complete by June 15, but there are no liquidated damages. There is no way to enforce the completion date.
• There were no drawings or graphic details showing how the new roofs are to be constructed.

I then asked who prepared the specifications. My attention was directed to the staff report, which stated:

“John Bennett, a member of the Construction Specifications Institute and National Roofing Contractors Association and local representative of the US Communities roofing contractor, assessed the condition of nine City properties and submitted his report and estimated replacement and repair cost on February 14, 2007. His report indicated that no major roof repair or replacement was required at the Nevin Community Center or the Main Library. Mr. Bennett then prepared specifications for the project and provided a list of contractors that could be expected to have the capacity to do this large job by June 14^th.”

I was curious about Mr. Bennett’s qualifications and how the City came to engage him. I knew that anyone with a few hundred dollars can join the Construction Specifications Institute and National Roofing Contractors Association, so that didn’t help. It turns out that the City found Mr. Bennett through an organization called U.S. Communities, an organization that provides information to local government procurement agencies.

The theory is that if some government agency somewhere in the United States has competitively bid some commodity, such as toilet paper, other public agencies can avoid soliciting their own bids by simply using the vendor and price under contract to another agency.

That may work well for a discrete product like toilet paper, but how does it work for roofing seven unique buildings in Richmond, CA? Well, U.S. Communities has just the thing! The Wichita, KS, public schools solicited a Roofing Supplies and Services proposal for which a contract was awarded on July 6, 2006, to HCS (Hickman Community Services., LLC), a company in Solon, OH 44139.

Richmond contacted HCS (Hickman Community Services., LLC) and was referred to John Bennett, their “local representative,” who was subsequently engaged to inspect the seven building, write a report and prepare the City’s roofing specifications.  The U.S. Communities website provides handy information about how to use their services:

How To Use the Contract - To utilize the contract you will contact Hickman Community Services (HCS) and request information about the program or a quotation for your entity’s project. HCS will assign you an account representative who will meet with you and discuss how your entity can benefit from the program. If you have a particular project in mind they will complete a site inspection and review any plans that you have for the building. Then, using the itemized, proposed pricing, they will provide you with a budget quotation for your entity’s project. This contract is structured to allow “discussion" regarding the price and construction process. You may still be able to utilize local contractors, professional firms or suppliers through the program.

With specifications that include three sentence instructions for a $31,000 roof repair and terms like “peel & stick,” I was curious about Mr. Bennett’s credentials. I asked the City Council staff support person to contact Mr. Bennett. In response, Mr. Bennett doesn’t reported that he doesn’t have resume. I looked him up in the State of California database, and it appears he has no professional licenses. He is not an architect, engineer or contractor. But he’s good enough to tell Richmond how to spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money for roof replacements and repairs.

I also inquired as to who the project manager is for the City, who will be inspecting the work and when the pre-roofing conference will be held. No one could provide that information.

The City of Richmond has always struggled with the management of capital projects, and it still is. Back in 2001, I wrote and the City Council adopted a set of minimum administrative procedures for managing and keeping records on capital projects. Unfortunately, it has been lost in the sands of time, but City Manager Bill Lindsay appears committed to revive it.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING MINIMUM INTERIM CAPITAL PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

(RESOLUTION 117-01 (JULY 31, 2001)

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is embarking on a major Capital Improvement Program effort; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond currently has no documented procedures for the management of capital projects and dissemination of public information regarding those projects; and

WHEREAS, the city manager and staff are accountable to the city council, the taxpayers, and the citizens of Richmond; and,

WHEREAS, It is prudent that the City of Richmond have in place minimum requirements for the documentation and management of capital projects;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richmond City Council adopts the following interim minimum requirements for managing capital projects and providing accurate and up to date information about capital projects to the City Council and to the public:

1.    A capital project is defined as an undertaking wherein labor and/or materials are used to construct, alter, append or replace a building or an item of infrastructure or a component of a building or an item of infrastructure. Not considered as a capital project is routine maintenance, for example, the periodic scheduled renewal of finishes or the replacement of minor components or equipment. Any outside contract, or interrelated group of contracts, for a single item of building or infrastructure-related work exceeding $10,000, shall automatically be considered as a capital project.

2.    The Public Services Director shall have responsibility and accountability for implementation of all City of Richmond capital projects, including those of the Redevelopment Agency, the Housing Authority and the Port.

3.    For each capital project, there shall be a single delegated project manager, designated by the public services director, who has complete delegated responsibility and accountability for the implementation of the project. The project manager shall have full information about the project and shall be responsible for its successful implementation.

4.    Each project shall be individually identified with a name and a reference number that is recognized by the SAP system.

5.    All staff hours expended for the implementation of a capital project shall be recorded and allocated a cost as appropriately determined by the finance director in conjunction with the public services director.

6.    An analysis shall be prepared for each project that includes an estimate of any additional annual cost or savings, compared to the most recent annual budget, related to requirements for staffing or maintenance as well as a description of the impact on the City’s ability to provide services to the public.

7.    The City Manager shall maintain and post on the City’s web site a comprehensive list of all budgeted or partially budgeted capital projects, including estimated cost, projected start date, projected completion date, and name of project manager.

8.    For each project, there shall be a readily accessible “project file,” which shall include, at a minimum, the following items:

a.    Name, address, phone number and email address of project manager.

b.    Current budget, including all in-house and contract costs, both expended and projected.

c.    Current updated implementation schedule, including completion of each phase of design, CEQA review, discretionary design review, plan check and permitting, bid solicitation, award of contract and completion.

d.    A list of dates that the City Council approved implementation steps for the project, including release of RFP, award of contract, change orders and acceptance of completed project.

e.    Summary of all revenue sources to match the budget, including reference to page and line item numbers of approved City of Richmond budgets. Where budget items have been appended since the adoption of the current Budget, show date and resolution number adopted by City Council.

f.     Copies of all contracts with outside contractors and consultants and pre-contract documents, including RFPs, if applicable, and full documentation of the selection process.

g.    Copy of all contract documents, including but not limited to drawings, specifications, addenda and change orders.

h.    A current compilation of the contract cost and any approved change orders.

i.      Documentation of CEQA determination, if applicable, including that required for historic resources.

j.      Documentation of Design Review or other discretionary approval, if applicable.

k.    For building-related projects, the building permit and record of plan check.