INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Operational Audit Capital
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
January 2020 June 2023
Issue Date: June 16, 2023
Report No. 2023-08
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Background............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Audit Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 5
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A: Risk Ratings ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix B: GC/CM Project External Audit Review Summary ......................................................................... 9
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
3
Executive Summary
Internal Audit (IA) completed an audit of the Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project (Project) for
the period January 2020 through June 2023. The audit was performed to provide an independent
assessment of performance, with the purpose of determining how goals and objectives were achieved
and to determine if there were opportunities for improvement.
The Project was the first at the Port to use the Heavy Civil General Contractor/Construction Manager
(GC/CM) project delivery method. Scarsella Brothers Inc. was selected to be the GC/CM in August of
2020 with a cost of $14,211,077, with a Maximum Allowable Construction Cost (MACC) of $10,378,373.
Washington State Law (RCW 39.10.908) requires an independent audit for heavy civil GC/CM projects.
In addition to this audit, the Port contracted with the firm, Branch, Richards & Co., P.S. (Branch
Richards), to perform an independent construction cost control and cost verification audit. A summary
of Brach Richards work to date is reflected in Appendix B. Construction began in 2020 and the project,
named the Duwamish River People’s Park, opened in the summer of 2022.
Our audit focused on a review of bid package procurement processes and expenses, self-performed
work, and Negotiated Support Services (NSS), including COVID-19 expenses. In general, Port
management’s monitoring aligned with policies, procedures, and the unique state law requirements of
GC/CM projects. However, our audit identified opportunities where internal controls could be enhanced
or developed. These opportunities are listed below and discussed in more detail beginning on page six
of this report.
1. (Low) The GC/CM did not include a notification of their intent to bid on the public solicitation for
subcontract work, as required by state law (RCW 39.10.390). Additionally, the Trucking bid package
was competitively bid for Site 25, but not for Site 23. Since the time of these solicitations in 2020,
the Central Procurement Office has updated their processes to assure future solicitations comply
with state laws.
2. (Low) The Port was overbilled by approximately $44,728 for Street Sweeping and $122,385 for
Traffic Control subcontract expenses. Payments were made on a percentage of completion basis
rather than actual hours, as required by the contract. The Construction Management project team
were aware of the overbilling and correction needed, prior to the start of the audit.
Glenn Fernandes, CPA
Director, Internal Audit
Responsible Management Team:
Nora Huey, Director, Central Procurement Office
Stephanie Jones Stebbins, Managing Director, Maritime
Sandra Kilroy, Senior Director, Engineering, Environment, and Sustainability
Jonathan Ohta, Senior Construction Manager, Construction Services
Janice Zahn, Director of Engineering
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
4
Background
Between 1937 to 1993, the Duwamish Manufacturing Company and Malarkey Asphalt Company used
the site for asphalt shingle manufacturing which left the site with contaminated soil and sediments. The
Port acquired the land in 1999, which was designated as an Early Action Area (EEA) as part of the
Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Port and the City of Seattle worked together to conduct multiple large-scale cleanups with EPA oversight.
The large-scale cleanups were done in two phases. The first phase was for the uplands and sediments
cleanup which included the removal of pavement, derelict structures, and about 60,000 tons of soil and
sediment. Following that, another round of cleanup was done for streets and stormwater. This work
included storm drainage pipes under the streets, sidewalks, environmentally friendly landscaping,
installation of art, signage, and rain gardens which will improve the stormwater quality. These two
phases were completed in 2015 and 2016.
Beginning in 2020, the Port broke ground on the Duwamish River People’s Park. This Project began in
2020 with the purpose of restoring 14 acres of habitat and shoreline access on the west bank of the
Lower Duwamish Waterway in South Park, Seattle. This Project contributes to salmon recovery in the
region, which can also support the endangered Southern Resident orca population. This area along the
river is also used by tribal fishers to harvest chinook, coho, pink, chum, and steelhead salmon as they
practice their Treaty Fishing Rights during the salmon migration season.
This Project was unique in that it established the Port’s first “habitat credit bank” which enabled third
parties to invest in habitat projects, as mitigation credits, to comply with the Clean Water Act and the
Endangered Species Act. Any revenue generated by the Port will help fund additional habitat restoration
projects in the Green-Duwamish Watershed and Elliott Bay. In addition, the site serves as a learning lab
for environmentalists seeking skills training and hands-on experience with careers in habitat restoration
and marine wildlife conservation.
Some of the park’s features include:
Pathway and bridge to 275-foot-long pier
Gathering area, seating, and entrance to shoreline pathways and viewpoints
Public art and interpretive features
Interpretive trail to 0.5 acre restored marsh and riparian area
Marsh platform and steppingstone pathway
Hand-carried boat launch
5.5 acres of restored marsh and native riparian shoreline
750 feet of lighted pathway to viewpoints and interpretive information
Access stairway to 35-foot-high waterway and habitat viewing platform
The Port contracted with Scarsella Brothers Inc. to be the GC/CM of the project in August of 2020. The
original contract amount was $14.2 million. Considering executed change orders and the closing of open
change order trends, the final contract amount is projected to be approximately $14.9 million.
Source: Duwamish River People's Park | Port of Seattle (portseattle.org)
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
5
Audit Scope and Methodology
We conducted the engagement in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards
and the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Those standards
require that we plan and conduct an engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our engagement objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
engagement objectives.
We used a judgmental method to determine the samples selected for our audit test work. The results of
this work cannot be projected to the population as we did not select a random sample.
The period audited was January 2020 through June 2023 and included the following procedures:
External Audit Review
We met with the external audit firm: Branch, Richards & Co., P.S. to understand their processes
and areas reviewed during their audit.
We obtained a copy of their draft audit report and workpapers.
We reviewed their recommendations, including corrections on billing errors and confirmed that
corrections had been made.
Bid Packages and Self Performed Work
We interviewed the Central Procurement Office (CPO) personnel to understand subcontract
bidding oversight internal controls.
We reviewed the Contract Agreement’s criteria for bidding, self-performed work, applicable
Washington State Laws, and the Subcontract Plan.
We obtained supporting documentation and verified that the Port and the GC/CM complied with
criteria established in the Contract, Washington State Law, and the Subcontract Plan.
We reviewed Related Parties to determine if any of Scarsella’s related parties were awarded bid
packages.
Negotiated Support Services (NSS)
We interviewed the Construction Management personnel to understand procedures and internal
controls.
We reviewed the contract’s criteria for NSS.
We selected five NSS areas to focus our testing.
We reviewed Construction Bulletins, related to each NSS area.
We obtained and reviewed supporting documentation for compliance with NSS.
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
6
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations
The GC/CM did not include a notification of their intent to bid on the public solicitation for
subcontract work, as required by state law (RCW 39.10.390). Additionally, the Trucking bid
package was competitively bid for Site 25, but not for Site 23. Since the time of these solicitations
in 2020, the Central Procurement Office has updated their processes to assure future
solicitations comply with state laws.
Total estimated subcontract costs were approximately $4.8 million. We reviewed the procurement
process for compliance with Washington State laws for the four subcontract bid packages in which the
GC/CM was a bidder, listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Subcontract scope and contractual estimate amount
Subcontract Scope
Estimate
Street Sweeping
$ 212,160
Traffic Control
$ 213,354
Trucking
$ 458,019
Water Treatment
$ 474,080
In all four subcontract bid packages, the GC/CM did not include a notification of their intention to bid in
the public solicitation, as required by state law (RCW 39.10.390). Additionally, we determined that one
of the four subcontract bid packages, Trucking, did not meet the requirement of RCW 39.10.380 which
states in part, “All subcontract work and equipment and material purchases shall be competitively bid
with public bid openings and require the public solicitation of the bid documents.”
Trucking work for Site 25 was performed first and we verified the public solicitation procurement process
was followed. The GC/CM was the successful bidder in the amount of $206,100. However, for Site 23,
Trucking subcontract work did not follow the required public solicitation process. During interviews, we
were told the project’s Resident Engineer (at the time) directed Scarsella to move forward with continuing
the Trucking work for Site 23. Without going through the procurement process, outside subcontractors
did not have the opportunity to bid on the Trucking bid package for Site 23.
We discussed these items with the Central Procurement Office (CPO) personnel and the Construction
Management project team. CPO personnel explained that these bid packages were awarded in 2020
and since then, their procurement processes were updated, and current processes now address the
concerns we identified. We reviewed CPO procurement documents, established in May 2022, and
concur our concerns have been addressed.
Recommendations
Continue using procurement processes that assure compliance with state laws.
Management Response/Action Plan
Engineering Construction Management (CM) appreciates the updated CPO processes to help identify
these issues earlier. CM will focus on implementing training for awareness of GC/CM processes
including CPO management of bid packages when the GC/CM is bidding the work.
1) Rating: Low
OPPORTUNITY
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
7
The Port was overbilled by approximately $44,728 for Street Sweeping and $122,385 for Traffic
Control subcontract expenses. Payments were made on a percentage of completion basis rather
than actual hours, as required by the contract. The Construction Management project team were
aware of the overbilling and correction needed, prior to the start of the audit.
The contract estimates total subcontract costs of $4,792,308 for the project. We reviewed expenses
associated with a sample selection of four subcontract bid packages, listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Subcontract scope and amount paid, as of Pay Application 15
Subcontract Scope
Street Sweeping
Traffic Control
Trucking
Water Treatment
We reviewed supporting documentation in the form of bid proposals, third-party invoices, and labor
hours. We identified two instances in which the Port overpaid for subcontract work.
Street Sweeping
During our testing, we noted the amount paid through Pay Application 15 was $169,728. We were able
to verify $125,000 with third party invoices, provided by Scarsella. The overpayment occurred because
Pay Applications were paid as portions of a lump sum, rather than based on actual labor hours incurred.
Our testing confirmed current amounts should be 924 hours at $125/hour, plus the $9,500 for premiums,
totaling $125,000. The Construction Management project team already identified this discrepancy, prior
to the audit, and agreed with the correction needed. The project is currently on hold, but the correction
will be made on the next Pay Application, crediting an amount of $44,728 for this subcontract work.
Traffic Control
During the cost development phase, and prior to a Competitive Bid package, Scarsella coded designated
traffic control work to Traffic Control and Coordination. After traffic control work went to bid, Scarsella
was awarded the work by having the lowest bid of two proposers. The total traffic control and
coordination work was budgeted at $317,429.
We performed a reconciliation and identified $122,385 as an overpayment. The Port’s CM team also
performed a reconciliation and identified the same overpayment amount.
Recommendations
CM should continue with their plans to move forward with collection of overpayment.
Management Response/Action Plan
Engineering Construction Management (CM) and Central Procurement Office Construction
Contracting (CPO) recognize this as a training and oversight opportunity for project teams to further
understand the set-up of Heavy Civil GC/CM contract items for proper payment and tracking. We will
be doing the training on the processes that are in place that allowed us to catch this in advance of this
audit.
2) Rating: Low
OPPORTUNITY
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
8
Appendix A: Risk Ratings
Findings identified during the audit are assigned a risk rating, as outlined in the table below. Only one
of the criteria needs to be met for a finding to be rated High, Medium, or Low. Findings rated Low will be
evaluated and may or may not be reflected in the final report.
Rating
Financial
Stewardship
Internal
Controls
Compliance
Public
Commission/
Management
High
Significant
Missing or not
followed
Non-compliance
with Laws, Port
Policies,
Contracts
High probability
for external audit
issues and / or
negative public
perception
Requires
immediate
attention
Medium
Moderate
Partial controls
Not functioning
effectively
Partial
compliance with
Laws, Port
Policies
Contracts
Moderate
probability for
external audit
issues and / or
negative public
perception
Requires
attention
Low
Minimal
Functioning as
intended but
could be
enhanced
Mostly complies
with Laws, Port
Policies,
Contracts
Low probability
for external audit
issues and/or
negative public
perception
Does not
require
immediate
attention
Terminal 117 Sites 23 25 Restoration Project
9
Appendix B: GC/CM Project External Audit Review Summary
Branch, Richards & Co., P.S. (Branch Richards) overall scope of work was to perform sufficient testing
and attest procedures on Pay Applications submitted by Scarsella to allow conclusions to be made on
whether any costs invoiced were not reimbursable due to a lack of accounting support or unallowable
per contract terms.
As of the date of this report, Branch Richards review is mostly complete, however, there are a few
remaining items to complete on the project. Once Branch Richards completes their review, they will
issue a final report which we will provide to the Audit Committee. Table 3 details the work performed.
Table 4 details their preliminary results.
Table 3: Areas reviewed
Area
Description
Negotiated Self-Performed Work
Tested underlying cost support for a sample of labor, materials,
supplies, and equipment that were invoiced.
Labor Costs
Traced labor hours to Scarsella’s Burdened Labor Reports and verified
billed labor costs were properly supported.
Equipment Costs
Agreed equipment hour use to Scarsella’s supporting documentation
and verified that equipment rates did not exceed the Equipment Watch
Blue Book report.
Materials Costs
Reviewed supporting vendor invoices, agreed the invoiced cost to
Scarsella’s Job Cost Report and verified that the cost totals were equal
to the posting of materials on the Job Cost Report summary and
ultimately to the pay applications.
Other Costs
Obtained invoices and logs to test the accuracy of the quantities and
costs from invoices to job cost postings.
General Conditions
Determined whether accounting records supported, on a reasonable
basis, the total costs invoiced under the cost items making up the
General Conditions.
Source: Branch, Richards & Co., P.S.
Table 4: Preliminary results
Source: Branch, Richards & Co., P.S.
Contract Labor Equipment Material Other Total Total Billed
Cost (Under) Over
Item Description Amount Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Thru Aug VS. Billed
103.001
Temp Erosn&Sdmnt Controls
232,393 69,904 12,986 243 58,371 141,504 185,914 44,410
106.001 Excavation to Subgrade 775,782 154,101 105,714 9,612 218 269,645 775,782 506,137
108.001 Off-site Dispsl-Subtitle D 892,215 62,935 75,001 2,165,589 2,303,525 2,022,977 (280,548)
109.001 Log Edge 223,737 66,006 42,121 138,361 2,024 248,512 223,737 (24,775)
110.001 Log Footer 131,265 22,626 16,528 18,309 57,462 106,306 48,844
111.001 Log Toe 145,980 55,669 31,541 16,275 1,734 105,218 145,980 40,762
112.001 Log Crib Wall 157,683 39,563 38,703 16,320 111 94,698 157,683 62,985
705.001 Environmental Clean-Up - 29,788 24,739 2,476 57,003 - (57,003)
2,559,055 500,592 347,331 199,120 2,230,523 3,277,566 3,618,379 340,812
Actual Costs Incurred per System