Review of Selected Contracts Awarded by the Cincinnati Service Office, Department of Housing and Urban Development

Gao ID: CED-79-67 April 12, 1979

GAO has been conducting an ongoing review of the management and disposition of multifamily housing projects owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). During this review, three contracts awarded by the Cincinnati Service Office for grasscutting, interior painting, and floor tiling were identified as warranting the immediate attention of the Secretary, HUD. For these contracts, HUD paid about $920,000 more than appeared reasonable, and may have paid an additional $100,000 for duplicate services or for work not performed.

Project managers were responsible for this work until that responsibility was assumed by the Cincinnati Office. HUD took over contracting for these services because it was dissatisfied with its handling by the project managers, a move which GAO believes was inappropriate because it weakened the managers' responsibility for, and control over, project operation and maintenance. The contracts which GAO singled out for special attention were awarded at inflated prices and the HUD reviews and records of billed invoices and costs were both perfunctory and inadequate for screening duplicate billings. The specification writers contracted for by HUD performed poorly regarding these contracts and there is strong doubt whether specifications were even necessary for such elementary tasks. Furthermore, specifications for grasscutting were already included in the HUD handbook.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: No director on record Team: No team on record Phone: No phone on record


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.