Times are changing and so are the driving forces behind each generation. The youngest generation, the Millenials, are driven by technology and efficiency, and require facilities such as schools and workplaces to be modernized in order accommodate their lifestyle.
In 2001, the Los Angeles Community College District, LACCD, felt the need to upgrade their campuses to revitalize current infrastructure and construct new buildings with future generations in mind. In doing so, the on-going $5.7 billion project has managed to become a spectacle of thorough investigation by many news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, to determine if they have been wasting tax dollars or if the “green” projects across their 9 campuses were ahead of their time. The real question is not whether they frivolously spent money, which they have, or if the plan was unrealistic, but what allowed this costly mistake to happen? The problem was a result of poor oversight and the lack of proper procedures and regulation.
The issue should have first been known when the 7 members on the board of trustees were accepting guidance from the very contractors who stood to make a profit from their decisions. Contractors such as FTR International and URS Design were amongst this group and have been long time donors to the LACCD board, so why not trust them, right?
Well, that’s where the issue started. The LACCD decided to reject construction bids from several construction firms to allow FTR to head the project. Not only did FTR “win” the bid, but they ran the show. FTR demanded money up front, worked on their own schedule, caused millions of dollars in damages due to shoddy work, and on top of that, sued the LACCD for over a million dollars.
The issue escalated to this level due to a lack of oversight and the ignorance of proper hiring procedures. Larry Eisenberg, executive director of facilities planning and development at LACCD, stood to benefit from the contracts awarded to the construction firms who were donors to the LACCD, rather than hiring contractors based on experience, capabilities and previous track record.
Successfully completing a project of this magnitude requires strict procedures and regulations to protect the intended outcome. In this case, it was easy to see that the focus was not on providing the greater public good, but instead to help those few groups involved.
It seems, that more often than not, when local governments are faced with large public projects, some sort of scandal arises.
The solution: follow the footsteps of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government is king when it comes to procedures and yes the long, lengthy, and lackluster procedural documents are often advantageous. In order to prevent such problems like those that arose between the LACCD and the “qualified” contractors, the General Services Administration, GSA, implements the Federal Acquisitions Regulation, which serves as standard for federally managed projects.
The Federal Acquisitions Regulation puts forth a couple simple procedures and regulations that could have prevented such a fiasco.
1)Advertise construction opportunities
2)Award the contract on predetermined weighted factors
By advertising the construction projects, a larger group of contractors could have bid on the project, other than the few that had some relation or another to the LACCD board members. This eliminates the conflict of interest aspect of the bidding process and in result prevents this type of scandal.
More importantly, “award the contract on predetermined weighted factors.” This mandate requires all contractors to register with the GSA, and pass a background check which examines the contractor’s capabilities, track record of prior projects, their ability to adhere to budget and lastly disclose any relation to the parties involved in the project.
If simple measures were taken by the LACCD when formulating the search for possible contractors, a majority of issues would have been avoided. The call of greed and rule bending to narrow the playing field probably seemed like a fail-safe idea in the eyes of the LACCD members, but look where it got them. With the addition of proper oversight and the implementation of procedures and regulations in the hiring process, the LACCD community college project could have very well been successful.
Maybe its time for local government to look up to Uncle Sam for advice.
Maybe its time for local government to look up to Uncle Sam for advice.
I think this is a very interesting topic. I am intrigued as to why they would spend all that money on fixing the infrastructure when they could be spending some of that money on educational programs such as the arts that are being cut from so many schools. I do understand that the buildings need to be fixed and children can not be learning in atrocious conditions but $5.7 billion seems a bit excessive
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic that I am not used to encounter, but it is still so so valid to everyones life! very interesting!
ReplyDeleteA contribution and decision to spend billions of dollars to such a cause displays how important it is to us that we have better and more convenient buildings around us, but by cutting corners, we're ultimately going to suffer from that.
The construction business works to find solutions in their cheapest way to build a house or building in the fastest way as possible, and sometimes they commit faults or cut corners in order to check of those criteria. I know that this is very common but "karma is a bitch" and soon enough people will realize which companies work for the right reasons and who works for their own self-good. So, establishing a law against this may actually be the only and the right solution!
great read.