Review of Broward County Aviation Department s Procurement Practices

Transcription

1 Review of Broward County Aviation Department s Procurement Practices January 10, 2008 Report No Office of the County Auditor Evan A. Lukic, CPA County Auditor

2 Table of Contents Topic Page Executive Summary...2 Purpose and Scope...3 Methodology...3 Background...4 Findings and Recommendations...7 Appendix I...16

3 Executive Summary This report summarizes our review of the Procurement Practices of the Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD). Our review was initiated to address concerns that staff instructed prime consultants/contractors (Primes) to engage specific subconsultants/subcontractors (Subs) and to perform tasks outside the scope of existing contracts. Our objectives were to identify these occurrences and evaluate compliance with County procurement policies and procedures regarding the use of Subs and work performed under existing agreements. To accomplish our objectives, we judgmentally selected twenty-nine contracts pertaining to twenty Primes. We reviewed the solicitation document (Request for Letters of Interest (RLI)), contract, Notices to Proceed (NTP), invoices, work authorizations, change orders, and other correspondence within each contract file. Based on the information reviewed, we identified the original Subs along with those that were subsequently added to the agreement. We compared the actual work performed to the scope of services established for each contract. Our review disclosed: All work authorizations, change orders and notices-to-proceed reviewed complied with the contract s procedural requirements for authorization. Six instances where work authorized was clearly beyond the scope of services of the contract, Evidence of inappropriate staff influence in the award of three subcontracts, The addition of seventy-seven Subs to existing contracts without the benefit of open and competitive solicitation or negotiation, Program Manager reviews of Subs engaged under Construction Manager@ Risk contracts are insufficient to determine compliance with the competitive solicitation requirements of the contracts. We concluded, the Aviation Department s procurement practices are designed to provide staff with flexibility in responding to operational and project demands. These practices include placing generic scopes of work and undefined optional services in their contracts. Thus, the contracts provide staff with significant latitude in the procurement of goods and services. As a result, staff has the ability to address operational issues without being delayed by the County s procurement processes. While these practices provide expediency in addressing operational issues, they conflict with sound public procurement policy in that a significant amount of procurement can take place without the benefit of open Office of the County Auditor 2

4 competitive solicitation. This also creates opportunities for inappropriate influences in the procurement of goods and services. Our report includes recommendations designed to address our specific findings and improve accountability over procurement at the Airport. However, we believe true remediation will only occur when the County addresses the deficiencies in the existing procurement process. The current procurement process fails to adequately support the business needs and operational objectives of many County agencies. Absent such change, management will continue to find methods that expedite their operational needs but circumvent the County s competitive solicitation and award processes. Purpose and Scope The purpose of our review was to evaluate compliance with County procurement policies and procedures regarding the use of Subs and work performed under existing agreements. Our review encompassed twenty-nine selected contracts receiving payments from the County during the period from June 1, 2005 to June 30, Methodology To accomplish our objectives, we: Reviewed: Twenty-nine contracts comprising twenty vendors (See Appendix 1) Vendor payment history (invoices) for these vendors, over the period under review, as stated above. Work Authorizations, Change Orders and Notices to Proceed totaling approximately $17,795,000 Bid estimates and Program managers approval for selected subcontractors Interviewed: Prime consultants and contractors Project Manager BCAD staff Office of the County Auditor 3

5 Background Broward County Procurement Policy The County s procurement policy is based on the fundamentals of public procurement, free and open competition for all. This concept enables the County to maximize to the fullest extent practicable, the purchasing value of public funds by fostering effective broad based competition within the free enterprise system, while ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with County Procurement. 1 It is accomplished through public and competitive solicitation and award practices. Broward County purchasing policy and practices are specified within the Broward County Procurement Code (Administrative Code, Volume II, Chapter 21) and Internal Control Handbook Procurement System Procedures (Administrative Code, Volume XVI). Broward County Competitive Procurement Practices Competitive procurement includes competitive solicitation and award practices designed to provide fair and equitable opportunities for vendors to respond to County procurement needs. Broward County employs the following practices to competitively solicit and award purchases: Table 1 Solicitation and Award Practices Purchase Type Amount Solicitation Award Authority Request Delegated Purchases < $3,500 Verbal Quotes Agency Staff Informal Quotes < $30,000 Written Quotes Purchasing Staff Mandatory Bid Amounts > $30,000 Formal Submittals Director of Purchasing or Board 2 Source: Broward County Administrative Code, Chapter 21 Delegated Purchases The Authority to make purchases under $3,500 is delegated from the Purchasing Division to selected individuals at the agency level. Delegated purchases include delegated purchase orders (PDs) and purchasing and travel cards (p-cards). PDs require obtaining three verbal quotes and are awarded based on the lowest 1 Broward County Administrative Code, Volume II Operational Policy, Chapter 21 Procurement Code Finance and Administrative 2 Purchasing director has authority to approve purchases of general goods and services for $250,000 and under, and professional services for $100,000 and under. Board approves purchases over these thresholds. Office of the County Auditor 4

6 quote. P-cards do not require quotes but are limited to $1,000 per transaction for goods and services and $2,000 per transaction for travel related expenses. Informal Quotes Purchases from $3,500 to $30,000 are generally processed by or through the Purchasing Division. Agencies submit purchase requisitions specifying the requested goods or services to the Purchasing Division. The Purchasing Division advertises a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to the sheltered market. 3 If the sheltered market solicitation does not yield an award, the purchasing division re-solicits the request for quotation to all vendors. The purchase is awarded based on the lowest responsive 4 and responsible 5 quote. Mandatory Bid Amounts Purchases over $30,000 are processed by the Purchasing Division and subject to formalized selection processes. Agencies corroborate with the Purchasing Division to determine the appropriate solicitation vehicle (Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Letters of Interest (RLI), Request for Quotation (RFQ) or Invitation for Bid (IFB)). Contract Award In the case of procurements under the mandatory bid amount ($30,000), contracts are awarded to the lowest priced, responsive and responsible vendor. In the case of RFPs and RLIs, price is generally not the primary or sole basis for award. These procurements involve short listing and selection based on evaluation of each respondent s proposal. Subsequent to selection the scope, price and contract terms are negotiated with the successful vendor. Regardless of the method of solicitation, it is imperative to fair competition that the specifications or scopes of work being sought by the County are clearly defined and communicated. Clearly defining the nature and extent of goods and services to be provided encourages competition by establishing a level playing field for competing vendors and reduces opportunities for influence from outside sources. Likewise, it is imperative that the specifications/scopes of work in the resultant contract are consistent with the specifications/scope of work that was publicly advertised. Failure to do so undermines the integrity of the procurement 3 In April 2004, the Board of County Commissioners enacted the Broward County Business Opportunity Act of 2004 (Act) which mandated that all projects under $250,000 be reserved for Small Business Enterprises (SBE), under the sheltered market program. The Act provides SBE s an opportunity to bid on projects with no competition from larger vendors. 4 Responsive Bidder means a person who has submitted a bid which conforms in all material respects to a solicitation. A bid or proposal of a Responsive Bidder must be submitted on the required forms, which contain all required information, signatures, notarizations, insurance, bonding, security, or other mandated requirements required by the bid documents to be submitted at the time of bid opening. 5 Responsible Bidder or Offeror means an offeror who has the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements, and the integrity and reliability which will assure good faith performance. Office of the County Auditor 5

7 system thereby discouraging competition and eroding public confidence in the procedures followed in public procurement. Subcontractors and Subconsultants (Subs) Frequently, Subs are included in County contracts. Subcontracting may be necessary to meet the County s goals for CDBE participation or to augment the skills necessary to complete the scope of work requested by the County. In these cases, the nature, extent and cost associated with the Subs participation is identified in the cost proposals submitted or agreed to during contract negotiations. The participation of Subs, therefore, is part of the open, competitive process. County contracts generally preclude the addition of Subs without the prior approval of the contract administrator. Examples of subcontracting in County contracts include: County service contracts. Subs are listed in the original agreement. Those subs contributing to CDBE goals are separately identified within the contract. County service contracts generally require written approval of Contract Administrator prior to changing or modifying the list of the subconsultants submitted by [the prime] consultant. County CM@Risk GMP construction contracts. Subs are not listed in the original agreement with the exception of those used to meet W/MBE, DBE or CDBE goals. However, the contracts require the prime contractor to obtain bids from a minimum of three (3) such subcontractors for each [selected] subcontract and contract administrator / program manager approval. Office of the County Auditor 6

8 Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - Work authorized under six agreements was beyond the contracted Scope of Our review disclosed the following six instances involving authorization of work beyond the scope of services of the agreement: Table 2 - Summary of Work Authorized Beyond the Contract Scope Vendor / Scope per solicitation / Expansive scope No. Contract Procurement Price performed / Price method 1. Weekley Asphalt Paving Inc Bid No. H M1 Bid 2. Cummings-Centex Rooney RLI No AV-01 RLI -CM@Risk: Master agreement - civil repairs and maintenance contract. $2,097,795 CM@Risk construction services for building pedestrian bridges and parking revenue control plaza facility and parking administration building. Construct new cell phone parking lot and installation of new noisemonitoring equipment off airport property, in Tree Top Park. $146,157 Installed rolling grill gate, life safety systems, and lighting for Concourse E security checkpoint in Terminal 3. Method used to change scope Work Authorization, WA and WA executed by the contract administrator, authorized construction of the Cell Phone parking lot and noise monitor, respectively. Change Order No. 2 executed by the contract administrator created the new line item needed to complete the Cell Phone parking lot. Change Order No. 1 executed by the contract administrator authorized the added scope. Funds transferred to project from security checkpoint improvements budget. Description of inconsistency and concerns Contract labeled civil repairs and maintenance used to implement new construction. No competitive price solicitation Loss of potential Sheltered market program procurement This change authorized work in an area not related to the original scope of contract. No competitive price solicitation or sub selection Loss of potential sheltered market program procurement $10,712,486 $177,027 Office of the County Auditor 7

9 Vendor / No. Contract Procurement method 3. Skanska USA Building Inc: RLI No AV-01. RLI- CM@Risk Scope per solicitation / Price CM@Risk construction services for Terminal 4 vertical circulation and remodeling of the federal inspection services (FIS), customers, border patrol areas, airline ticketing offices including baggage handling and utilities. $34,878,676 Expansive scope performed / Price Provide 24-hour, 7- days maintenance (24/7 capability) of the new baggage handling systems in Terminal 3 - north, Terminal 3 - south and Terminal 4 for a period of one year. $185,366 Method used to change scope Change Order No. 5 executed by the contract administrator authorized the added scope. Change financed by funds transferred from BCAD s Terminals 2, 3 & 4 capital budget to the construction project. Description of inconsistency and concerns The change, later rescinded due to subcontractor s issues, authorized work on the T3 baggage handling systems not related to the original scope for T4 building modifications. No competitive price solicitation or sub selection Added unnecessary cost (CM fees) Qualifications not considered in solicitation process Loss of potential Sheltered Market program procurement 4. Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville, Inc (PGAL) RLI No AV-02 RLI Architect / Engineering Terminal 4 architectural, engineering and other design related services for new international terminal, FIS expansion, and aesthetic design criteria manual for the airport. $7,992,272 Perform business analysis, develop technical specifications, provide support for the vendor request for proposal and oversee modifications for the Airport Information Management System (AIMS). $351,186 Work Authorization, WA T R2 and WA T4O 05-23, issued under optional services, executed by the contract administrator authorized the scope change. The administration suggests that this was authorized by the BOCC in Amendment No. 1, Section we differ with their opinion. BOCC approval of Amendment No. 2 retroactively approved replenishment of the funds that were used for the AIMS. The additional scope is not related to, is independent of the initial contract and is outside of the expertise of an architectural firm and the team assembled for the project. A subconsultant, not formerly a part of the team was added via Department request. No competitive price solicitation or sub selection Stand alone project Qualifications not considered in solicitation process Office of the County Auditor 8

10 Vendor / No. Contract Procurement method 5. TYLin International RLI No AV-1 RLI Architect/Engineering 6. Reynolds Smith & Hills Inc RLI No AV-03. RLI Architect/Engineering Scope per solicitation / Price Provide professional engineering design and construction management for airfield and ramp rehabilitation. $3,997, Development and preparation of a Design- Build Criteria Package (DCP) in order to obtain design/build proposals for the Terminal Exit Roadways Improvement Project Expansive scope performed / Price Prepare studies on future airport master planning and engineering issues. $232,155 Prepare full set of plans and specifications for the relocation of the revenue collection plaza including construction administration services. Method used to change scope Work Authorization WA TYL OPT3-1A and TYL OPT3-3A issued under optional services, executed by contract administrator each for $29,547 and WA #TYL OPT3-2A issued under optional services authorized by the BOCC for $173,061 authorized this change in scope Work Authorization WA R3O issued under optional services, executed by the contract administrator, approved by the BOCC in amendments 1 and 2 authorized this additional scope. Description of inconsistency and concerns These services are outside the original scope of services and not the criteria used for selection of consultant. No competitive solicitation/selection Qualifications not considered in solicitation process. These services are outside the original scope of services and not the criteria used for selection of this consultant. No competitive solicitation/selection Stand alone project Qualifications not considered in solicitation process $4,836,974 $682,529 Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis Office of the County Auditor 9

11 It should be noted, all work authorizations, change orders and notices-to-proceed reviewed complied with the contract s procedural requirements for authorization. However, the above instances are of concern because they circumvented the objectives of the County s competitive solicitation and award processes. As such, the activities may result in: Non-competitive pricing Prices are accepted via pass-through to the County for additional services without a requirement for competitive solicitation or negotiation under existing contracts. This results in lost opportunities for public scrutiny and financial savings from competitive procurement. Non-competitive vendor selection Vendor selection (further discussed in Finding 2) provides opportunities for staff and other influences to impact the vendor selection process. Circumvention of the County Sheltered Market Program Smaller stand-alone projects, fitting the requirements for award through the disadvantaged sheltered market programs may be incorporated into existing projects. This activity reduces opportunities for the sheltered market program. We noted the annual civil repairs and maintenance contract was used for new construction of a parking lot and installation of noise monitoring station off airport property at a cost of $146,000. The project appears appropriately suited for a sheltered market program solicitation. Unnecessary costs Use of the CM@Risk contracts for out of scope services results in a markup by the CM on the subconsultant fees without any discernable added value. For example, a fully executed change order to the Skanska CM@Risk contract to obtain maintenance services on a none-related area resulted in a 4% mark-up on the cost of maintenance. It should be noted this change order was later rescinded for other reasons. Potential state law violations The Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) (F.S ) requires public announcement and qualitative procedures and competitive selection of consultants. Awarding work beyond the scope of an existing agreement may represent a violation of the CCNA. Transfer of procurement functions to third parties. Stand-alone projects are combined with larger projects (for example, tasks unnecessary for the completion of the original scope solicited under the contract are added as optional services or through work authorizations). Office of the County Auditor 10

12 The prime contractor then serves as the procurement agent to acquire the goods and services to complete the out of scope work. This may involve direct purchases of goods or hiring of Subs. We found it difficult to identify work activities exceeding the contractual scope of work because many contracts contain generic statements of work and undefined optional services provisions. The instances in Table 2, on the previous page, are those that were clearly inconsistent with the contract scope. Management indicated that the general statements of work and undefined optional services coupled with the Contract Administrator s authority to issue work authorizations and approve changes orders, provides much needed flexibility to address unforeseen issues which facilitates the timely completion of projects. However, this flexibility also provides opportunities to circumvent the County s competitive solicitation and award processes. Finding 2 - Aviation s procurement practices do not ensure open competitive solicitation As indicated in Table 3 below, our review disclosed seventy-seven Subs added to the twenty-nine contracts reviewed. These Subs were added to existing contracts without the benefit of competitive solicitation contrary to the objectives of the County s procurement code. We were unable to identify the dollar amounts paid to these Subs because BCAD does not track payments to Subs. Table 3: Summary of Subs added to contracts reviewed Added Subs Contractor/Contract Original Subs Approved by Contract Administrator and included in Amendment Approved by Contract Administrator Total Subs 1 TLC Engineering For Architecture Inc CH2M Hill Inc Spillis Candela & Partner Inc DMJM & Harris Inc Gresham Smith & Partners Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville Inc Leigh Fisher Associates Inc Singer Architects Inc Tetra Tech Inc Total Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis Office of the County Auditor 11

13 Without an open competitive selection process, all vendors do not have a fair opportunity to compete for public contracts. Further, the County lacks assurances that awards are based on appropriate qualifications and fair prices. We did not identify the reasons or need to add the seventy-seven Subs to the agreements. We recognize circumstances may justify adding Subs to an existing agreement. For example, a new Sub may be needed to replace an existing, non performing Sub, or to address unforeseen circumstances requiring special skills. However, we concluded that the general statements of work and undefined optional services contained in many of the agreements created the need and opportunity to add Subs subsequent to the initial contract award. We believe better defined statements of work and optional services will reduce the number of Subs added to contracts after the initial competitive award process and provide greater assurance that the County s procurement objectives are met. Finding 3 - We found evidence of inappropriate staff influence in the award of subcontracts Aviation s procurement practices lack adequate safeguards to prevent inappropriate influences from affecting subcontract awards. The Sub selection process lacks transparency. The lack of an open competitive process for selection and award of subcontracts provides a mechanism for inappropriate influences in the award of subcontracts. We found the following: o BCAD staff directed DMJM Harris, a general engineering consultant for the Airport, to specifically engage PGS Graphics, as a sub-consultant. Staff wanted PGS to provide CAD/GIS consulting services at a cost of $175,078. Following concerns expressed by DMJM and inquiries by this Office, staff rescinded the request. o At the direction of the BCAD staff, PGAL sub contracted with Convergent Strategies Consulting (CSC) to provide information technology services. PGAL, an architectural consultant was engaged by the County to provide architectural, engineering and other design related services for Terminal 4 construction. Subsequent approved work authorizations expanded their scope to include performance of a business analysis, development of technical specifications, and support for a request for proposal and oversight of modifications for an Airport Information Management System (AIMS) at a cost of $351,186. This additional work was beyond the contract scope and the expertise of PGAL s architectural and engineering capabilities. BCAD staff subsequently processed an amendment to the PGAL contract to replenish the $351,000 used to fund the AIMS consulting services. However, the amendment did not request approval of the change in scope of services in accordance with County policy. Office of the County Auditor 12

14 o Although outside of the time frame of our review, we noted that Carol R. Moore, dba as Carol R. Moore, Original Fine Art, was hired to provide certain artwork, alternatively described as wall finishing in the Rental Car Center (RCC) sometime during Mrs. Moore s hiring is of concern because: 1) Mrs. Moore is the spouse of the then URS Deputy Director for the Airport Expansion Program. The URS Deputy Director approved the change proposal acceptance letter for the work performed by Mrs. Moore, his wife. 2) We were advised by Mrs. Moore that she participated in developing Rental Car Center (RCC) aesthetic ideas at no cost to the County. Mrs. Moore was subsequently hired to provide the art work/wall finishing at the RCC. The County paid approximately $70,000 for her services via a joint check payable to TLMC Enterprises, Inc and C.R.M. Fine Art. 3) Mrs. Moore indicated no contract was executed for her services. The nature and extent of Mrs. Moore s Scope of for TLMC is not well documented. As a result, we were unable to determine who paid for the materials used. Further, we were unable to assess if a change in the method of installing the art work/wall finishing should have resulted in a reduction in costs. 4) The artwork/wall finishing was procured outside of the County s established policy for art in public places. Based on a review of correspondence and interviews with the principals involved, the hiring of Mrs. Moore was reviewed by a County Attorney prior to her engagement. BCAD staff, after receiving a County Attorney opinion, concluded that Mrs. Moore s marital status did not create a conflict. Finding 4 - Reviews of Subs engaged under Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) contracts are insufficient to determine compliance with the contract requirements for competitive solicitation. We requested, as a part of our review, documentation from the program manager evidencing review of the solicitation and selection of Subs by the construction manager (CM). The materials provided were limited to the CM s recommendation memos and tabulation of the Subs submittals. These documents lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate competitive solicitation as required by the contract. Office of the County Auditor 13

15 The County s CM@Risk construction contracts provide for competitive selection of subcontractors and require the contractor to submit a tabulation of subcontractor submissions for review. When requested, the contractor must also provide the program manager with a copy of each subcontractor's bid sheet or tabulation, any other documentation in its possession pertaining to such bids, and a full copy of the resulting subcontract. Recommendations: We recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator and the County Attorney, as applicable, to implement procedures to improve controls over contract procurement to include: 1. Enhanced reviews of future contracts and subsequent amendments to ensure the scope of services (including optional services) is: clearly defined, consistent with the solicitation documents and, in compliance with County policies and state laws. 2. Reviews to ensure that all work authorizations are specific and clearly within the contracted scope of services. 3. Requiring all future work authorizations for optional services be approved as follows: All work authorizations under $30,000 approved by Contract Administrator Work authorizations for professional services from $30,000 to $100,000 approved by the Purchasing Director Work authorizations for goods and general services from $30,000 to $250,000 approved by the Purchasing Director Work authorizations above the Purchasing Director s authority approved by the Board. 4. Ensuring all future contracts extend the audit and documentation provisions of the Prime s contract to all Subs. Office of the County Auditor 14

16 5. Ensuring all future contracts require Primes to maintain detailed records of payment to Subs on a cumulative, per contract basis. 6. Drafting an amendment to the County Code of Ethics explicitly prohibiting County Officials from directing or recommending engagement of specific individual firms except when the direction or recommendation is the result of and consistent with the County s established procurement procedures. 7. Requiring changes (additions or deletions) of subs in County contracts (except for competitively bid contracts) to be reported to the Purchasing Director. Such reports should include the reasons for the changes, the financial impact of the change and the record of negotiations with the prime related to the change in Subs. Office of the County Auditor 15

17 Appendix I Summary of Contracts Reviewed No. Contract Contract Amount 1 Type of Contract 1 TLC ENGINEERING FOR ARCHITECTURE INC $223,075 Consultant 2 DEROSE DESIGN CONSULTANTS INC $280,000 Consultant DEROSE DESIGN CONSULTANTS INC $336,000 Consultant 3 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL $3,997,302 Consultant 4 CH2M HILL INC $2,773,000 Consultant 5 SPILLIS CANDELA & PARTNER INC $13,493,426 Consultant 6 DMJM & HARRIS INC $4,282,577 Consultant 7 GRESHAM SMITH & PARTNERS $5,984,282 Consultant 8 LEA & ELLIOTT INC $3,548,207 Consultant Master Agmt. WEEKLEY ASPHALT PAVING INC $2,097,795 (Bid) 9 WEEKLEY ASPHALT PAVING INC $390,124 Low Bid 10 PIERCE GOODWIN ALEXANDER & LINVILLE, INC 11 FLORIDA BLACKTOP INC $3,783,887 $7,992,272 Consultant Master Agmt. (Bid) 12 GENERAL ASPHALT CO INC $2,387,103 Low Bid Description Replacement of a cooling tower and four chillers at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No AV- 01), Air Handler Replacement located at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No RB) Replacement of escalators at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Broward County, Florida (RLI No AV-01) Engineering design and construction administration for the Taxiway and Ramp Rehabilitation Program at FLL (RLI No AV-1) Airfield Development Program at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Broward County, Florida (RLI No RB) Design Rental Car Facility, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No RB) General Engineering Consultant at FLL (RLI No AV-01) Design of Terminal 1 Concourse A for the Aviation Department (RLI No AV-01) Consultant services relating to an Airport-Seaport People Mover System and Intermodal Center (RLI No AV-04) Annual Civil Repairs and Maintenance Contract (Bid No. H M1) Rehabilitation of Taxiway A East at Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (Bid No. H CF) Consultant services for the redesign of Terminal 4 at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No AV- 02) Generalized line items for landscaping, electrical, sewer, pavement, water, interior finishes. (H-X B1A) Rehabilitation of Runway 18R-36L and Taxiways L, L3, J, M2, D and D2 at North Perry General Aviation Airport (Bid No. H CF) Office of the County Auditor 16

18 No. Contract Contract Amount 1 Type of Contract 13 REYNOLDS SMITH & HILLS INC $4,836,974 Consultant LANDRUM & BROWN INC $10,309,558 Consultant LANDRUM & BROWN INC $523,814 Consultant LEIGH FISHER ASSOCIATES INC $1,438,052 Consultant LEIGH FISHER ASSOCIATES INC $391,858 Consultant LEIGH FISHER ASSOCIATES INC $1,235,000 Consultant LEIGH FISHER ASSOCIATES INC 2 $2,108,080 Consultant 16 SINGER ARCHITECTS INC $7,861,400 Consultant TETRA TECH INC $3,137,284 Consultant 17 TETRA TECH INC $3,506,435 Consultant Description Compliance Review Consultant for Design Criteria for Airport Roadway Exit System (RLI No AV-03) Completion of the revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed airport runway expansion at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No AV-01) Airport planning and programming services related to Broward County owned airports (RLI No AV-01EB) Airport planning consulting services for preparation of the Master Plan Update Phase II and Airport Layout Plan (RLI No AV-01) Airport planning and programming services related to Broward County owned airports (RLI No AV-01EB) Completion of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (Part 150 Study) for the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No AV-01) Consulting related to Broward County owned airports at Broward County, Florida (RLI No RB) Architect, engineering and interior design services at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No RB) Consultant for Runway 9L-27R Overlay at FLL Consultant for General Engineering at FLL 18 JAMES A CUMMINGS INC $10,933,204 Risk Terminal 4, Federal Inspection (FIS) Expansion Phase 1A at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (RLI No AV-01) 19 CUMMINGS-CENTEX ROONEY $10,712,486 Risk Pedestrian Bridges, Revenue Control Plaza and Related Work CUMMINGS-CENTEX ROONEY $166,469,391 Risk Consolidated Rental Car Facility SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC $34,878,676 Risk Terminal 4 Federal Inspection (FIS) and Airline Ticket Offices (ATO) Expansion Phase 1B at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 20 International Airport (RLI No AV-01) SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC $21,153,091 Lump Sum (Low Bid) Terminals 2 & 3 Interim Baggage Solution Notes: 1. Contract amount including the latest amendment issued before June 30, Shown in 7 th Amendment, fiscal year for a total amount not to exceed $2,108,080. Office of the County Auditor 17