My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/30/1980
>
6/30/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/28/2016 3:35:54 PM
Creation date
11/17/2016 3:49:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
FISCAL AUDITS
Meeting Date
06/30/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
81-3-F-1035 <br /> -5- <br /> Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts <br /> Explanation of Audit Adjustments <br /> Project Application No. FEMA-546-96 <br /> Reference Explanation Amount <br /> (a) The $1,341 overrun is attributed to (i) the <br /> higher unit price of $21.20 per ton paid to <br /> the low bidder for concrete as contracted to <br /> the $15.50 estimated on the Damage Survey <br /> Report (DSR) and (;Li) the need for 112 tons <br /> of concrete compared to the 95 tons estimated <br /> on the DSR. There was no change in the scope <br /> of the work as certified by the final inspection <br /> report. <br /> (b) The Applicant claimed $14,789 under this item <br /> for the paving of South Beach lot. The work <br /> was performed under a lump sum agreement for <br /> $12,990 awarded to the low bidder. Additional <br /> costs of $1,799 were incurred by the Applicant <br /> for performing surface treatment, fine grading <br /> and compacting work. In this regard, the <br /> specifications put out for bid covered all. <br /> necessary work on the.-DSR,. including the work <br /> subsequently performed by the Applicant for.. - <br /> surface treatment, fine grading and compacting. <br /> The contractor, in s_ubai:tting_fus bid stated that <br /> the price of_$12,9.90 included "performing all <br /> work on the above referenced project in - <br /> accordance with the specifications". <br /> Since there was no formal contract entered into <br /> between the parties, we could not determine <br /> whether any changes were made to the work <br /> requirements as identified in the specifications. <br /> The Applicant could not provide an explanation <br /> as to why the contractor did not perform all the <br /> required work and stated that the Town officials <br /> who were responsible for the project were no <br /> longer employed by the Town. Lacking additional <br /> information to support the Applicant's assumption ' <br /> of the responsibility to perform a portion of the <br /> work requirements, we have questioned the additional <br /> costs C$1,799) claimed which are in excess of <br /> the lump sum agreement with the construction <br /> contractor. In our opinion, the Applicant's <br /> additional:charge for the $1,799 represents a <br /> duplication of costs because the costs of <br /> performing all work are included in the lump <br /> sum amount paid to the construction contractor. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.