Performance audit, Department of Corrections, prison maintenance and construction

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PRISON MAINTENANCE
AND CONSTRUCTION
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
September 1991
91- 12
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 30, 1991
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Samuel A. Lewis, Director
Department of Correct ions
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Corrections, F a c i l i t i e s Construction and
Maintenance. This report is in response to a June 14, 1989, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee.
The report is a follow- up of two 1985 performance audits of the
Department. We found that the Department has addressed many maintenance
problems identified in our previous audit, that weakened security and
created life- threatening situations for inmates and s t a f f . However,
Arizona's prisons s t i l l need major repairs and renovations which w i l l
require additional funding and effective u t i l i z a t i o n of available
resources. We also found that the prison construction program is
adequately administered. Prisons are being constructed in a timely basis
and at a relatively low cost.
My staff and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
This report w i t I be released to the public on October 1, 1991.
Sincerely, A
DRN: lmn
D O U ~ SR. Norton
Auditor General
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE . SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ' ( 6 0 2 ) 255- 4385 . FAX ( 602) 255- 1251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Department of Corrections' ( DOC) construction and maintenance
programs, pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee. Because the Department of
Administration ( DOA) has been primarily responsible for prison
construction since 1985, this audit also addresses DOA's performance in
constructing Arizona prisons. The audit was conducted under the
authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes
( A. R. S.) $ 541- 2351 through 41- 2379, and is the fourth in a series of DOC
audits.
This report is a follow up of two 1985 performance audits of DOC. The
f i r s t report ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 2) focused on DOC'S
management of prison construction, and cited deficiencies in DOC'S
long- range planning, s i t e evaluation and budget development processes,
scheduling, and controls over construction- related a c t i v i t i e s .
The second report ( Performance Aud i t Report No. 85- 13) revi ewed DOC'S
maintenance of correctional f a c i l i t i e s . In that 1985 report we found
that State prisons were in very poor condition, with unsafe electrical
systems, structural weaknesses, and major plumbing deficiencies. We also
identified problems in DOC'S budget development process for maintenance
and i t s reporting of maintenance expenditures.
Because of the technical nature of the maintenance issues addressed in
this audit report, we solicited the help of a volunteer consultant with
over 20 years of maintenance management experience. The consultant spent
almost 150 hours working with audit s t a f f , v i s i t i n g correctional
f a c i l i t i e s , interviewing maintenance personnel, and reviewing maintenance
requests, justifications, and cost estimates.
Despite Some Serious Onaoin~ Problems
Prison Maintenance Has improved ( see pages 5 through 14 1
State prisons are maintained better than they were at the time of our
1985 audit. Our previous audit identified a variety of maintenance
problems that created l i fe- threatening situations for inmates and staff
and weakened secu r i ty . Many of these prob l ems have been addressed .
However, some major repairs and renovations are s t i l l needed. Serious
maintenance deficiencies, ranging from inadequate electrical and f i r e
alarm systems to leaky plumbing, continue to plague the State prison
system. The Department has not received adequate State funding for
building renewal and capital improvements. For example, only 5 percent
of the Department Is budget request for major maintenance was approved in
fiscal year 1990- 91. As a result, correctional f a c i l i t i e s continue to
deteriorate. Additional funding for maintenance projects is needed to
reverse this deterioration.
Because DOC is not l i k e l y to obtain f u l l funding for maintenance in the
near future, i t is important the agency explore ways to more effectively
u t i l i z e available resources. Our analysis indicates that DOC has not
taken sufficient advantage of cost- saving opportunities. A more
comprehensive review of maintenance issues by DOC'S F a c i l i t y Management
Bureau ( FMB) may identify more cost- effective solutions to maintenance
problems. For example:
The Department requested $ 1.2 mi l l ion for kitchen repairs in the
Central, North, South and Women's units at ASPC- Florence. Rather
than pursue funding for those repairs, our consultant recommends DOC
consider the f e a s i b i l i t y of ( 1) preparing a l l food at the central
kitchen being b u i l t for the adjacent Eyman complex, and ( 2)
converting the Florence f a c i l i t i e s into serving kitchens only. Our
consultant estimates this could result in cost savings of almost
$ 500,000 in construction and equipment. Further study i s needed,
however, to determine whether the operational savings associated with
centralization would offset additional costs resulting from the need
to set up a food distribution system.
The agency should also take steps to more adequately prepare i t s
maintenance budget requests. For example, we found cases in which the
FMB- approved maintenance and renovation projects were unrealistic,
unnecessary or could have been performed more cost- efficiently. Such
requests can only increase WC1s d i f f i c u l t y in obtaining funding for
truly necessary projects.
Althoueh Some Deficiencies
Were Noted. The Prison Construction Proaram
Aweats To Be Adeauatelv Administered ( see pages 15 through 24)
Our review suggests that, in general, the prison construction program is
adequately administered. The Department of Administration ( WA) assumed
responsibility for the prison construction program in 1985. Although
forced by austere appropriations to bui Id prisons with less money than
originally projected, DOA has been able to construct f a c i l i t i e s within
budgets; however, the impact on prison operations was not studied in
detail and i s uncertain.
Overall, the construction costs of prisons b u i l t in Arizona are
substantially less than the costs of prisons b u i l t by other states and
the Federal government. For example, Arizona's average cost per bed is
24 to 44 percent less than the national average for various security
levels. Prison construction has been relatively timely as well, with
only slight delays on three of the last six projects completed since 1988.
However, we did note some deficiencies. Our review indicated that DOA's
oversight of architectural firms and i t s management of inmate- labor
projects can both be improved. We also found that DOA could take steps
to ensure that construction deficiencies and warranty repair items are
addressed in a more timely manner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: DESPITE SOUE SERIOUS
ONGO l NG PROBLEMS. PR 1 SON MA 1 NTENANCE
HAS IMPROVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prison Maintenance
Haslmproved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Despite Improvements, Serious
Maintenance Deficiencies Persist
At Correctional F a c i l i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
More Imaginative Management And
Better Planning Needed To
Mitigate Funding Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING 1 1 : ALTHOUGH SOUE DEFICIENCIES WERE
NOTED, THE PRISON CONSTRUCTION PROGRAU APPEARS
TO BE ADEQUATELY ADUINISTERED. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prisons Have Been Constructed In
A Relatively Inexpensive And
Timely Manner Since 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Although Generally Adequate, DOA Could
Improve I t s Management Of the
Prison Construction Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OTHER PERTINENT INFWTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B AGENCY RESPONSE
LIST OF TABLES
L TABLE 1 Status Of Maintenance Problems
Identified In Auditor General
Report No. 85- 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 Cost Estimates And Appropriations
For New Prison Construction, 1985- 91 . . . . .
b
TABLE 3 Average Construction Cost Per Bed. . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Department of Corrections' ( DOC) construction and maintenance
programs, pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee. Because the Department of
Administration ( DOA) has been primarily responsible for prison
construction since 1985, this audit also addresses DOA's performance in
constructing Arizona prisons. The audit was conducted under the
authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes
( A. R. S.) 9941- 2351 through 41- 2379, and is the fourth in a series of DOC
audits.
This report is a follow up of two 1985 performance audit reports of DOC.
The f i r s t report ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 2), focused on DOC's
management of prison construction, and cited deficiencies in the
Department's long- range planning, budget development processes,
scheduling, and controls over construction- related a c t i v i t i e s .
The second report ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 13), critiqued DOC's
maintenance of correctional f a c i l i t i e s . In the 1985 report, our Office
found that f a c i l i t i e s were in very poor condition. We also found
deficiencies in DOC'S budget development process for maintenance and i t s
reporting of maintenance expenditures.
The Maintenance Proaram
Legislation enacted in 1985 transferred the administration of major
maintenance projects from DOC to DOA. DOC's role in prison maintenance,
however, remains extensive. The Department retains responsibility for
reviewing and evaluating i t s major maintenance needs, and for clearly
articulating those needs in the budget requests i t submits. Moreover,
DOC is s t i I l responsible for budgeting routine maintenance.
In order to determine the adequacy of prison maintenance, our Office
sought to answer several basic questions:
Have previously identified structural, e l e c t r i c a l , and plumbing
deficiencies been addressed since our 1985 audit?
a Has DOC adequately identified, tracked, and requested funding for
major new maintenance problems?
Has DOC received adequate financial support from the State?
Has DOC allocated sufficient operating monies for routine maintenance?
Has the central office of DOC'S Facilities Management Bureau provided
adequate support services to correctional facilities?
These questions are addressed in Finding I, page 5.
The Prison Construction Proqram
Much has changed since the 1985 report on prison construct ion. The
Department of Administration ( DOA), not WC, now manages the prison
construction program throughout the State. On January 1, 1985, prior to
the release of our previous report, responsibility for most of the
construction program was transferred to W A because it was believed such
a move would expedite prison construction. Although DOC remains a key
participant in construction planning and development i . . , DOC
establishes the need for new beds, and assists W A in determining the
design, scope, and projected cost of a construction project), once
construction begins, DOA assumes full control.
Since assuming responsibility for prison construction, DOA has
administered a sizeable program. Since 1985, the State has spent over
$ 172 mi l l ion on bui lding correctional faci l it ies, including the
construction of almost 8,000 beds for twenty- four separate projects.
Because of the size and scope of the construction program and our time
constraints, our review focused primarily on answering the following
basic questions about administrative efficiency:
a Are construction appropriations adequately controlled?
a Are projects completed on time and within budget?
How do Arizona's prison construction costs compare with those of
other states and the Federal government?
The answers to . these questions should provide a f a i r indication of
program management. To supplement this review, we also conducted a
detailed examination of the three largest and most expensive prisons
b u i l t i n the State since 1988. This examination enabled our Office to
assess in greater detail the efficiency of the program's day- to- day
operations. The results of our examination are presented in Finding II,
page 15.
Technical Assistance
Because of the technical nature of the maintenance issues addressed in
this report, we solicited the help of a consultant, Leo Mortenson, as
part of our Office's Volunteer Program. Mr. Mortenson has over 20 years'
management experience in institutional maintenance, including directing
the maintenance program for the Boeing Corporation and serving as a
consultant to the Greyhound Corporation. Mr Mortenson spent almost 150
hours working with audit s t a f f , v i s i t i n g correctional f a c i l i t i e s ,
interviewing maintenance personnel, and reviewing maintenance requests,
justifications, and cost estimates. His contributions, in the form of
assessments and recommendations, are identified throughout our finding on
the maintenance program.
This aud i t was conducted in accordance w i th government aud i t i ng standards .
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and
staff of the Department of Corrections, and the staff of the Department
of Administration's F a c i l i t i e s Planning and Construction Office for their
cooperation and assistance during our audit.
FINDING I
DESPITE SOME SERIOUS ONGOING PROBLEMS
PRISON MAINTENANCE HAS IMPROVED
Arizona prisons are better maintained than they were during our 1985
audit although serious problems remain. Substantial improvement in
prison maintenance is evident at most institutions. However, numerous
maintenance deficiencies persist due to inadequate State funding for
building renewal and capital improvement projects. In addition to
increased funding for maintenance, more imaginative management and better
planning by DOC'S central office could help alleviate some of the
Department's maintenance problems.
Prison Maintenance
Has lm~ roved
Prison maintenance has improved substantially since our last review in
- 1985. Numerous structural, e l e c t r i c a l , and plumbing deficiencies
identified in our previous report have been addressed.
Our 1985 audit identified a variety of life- threatening conditions,
ranging from a malfunctioning f i r e alarm system to structurally unsound
buildings. As identified in Table 1, pages 6 through 8, unsafe
structures have been repaired or replaced, and some electrical and
plumbing systems have been upgraded. For example, the cracked and
deteriorated catwalk that posed a life- safety threat in the Central unit
at ASPC- Florence has been repaired.
TABLE 1
STATUS OF MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED
I N AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT NO. 85- 13
Faci 1 i ty Problem Status
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS
ASPC - Florence,
Central u n i t Tunnel
Walls were severe1 y Wall s have been
cracked and deteriorated, repai red and the tunnel
and the tunnel could have has been closed .
collapsed. Potential f o r Conduit has been
electrocution from broken repaired and sewage has
conduit and frayed been removed.
wi res . Standing sewage
i n south tunnel .
Walls and catwalk were Wall s and catwal k have
cracked and deteriorated. been repai red.
creating a l i f e - s a f e t y
threat.
ASPC- Fl orence,
Central u n i t
Wall s and Catwal k
ASP- Safford
New Gym
Anchor bolts were Additional structure
missing. Foundation was has been bui 1 t adjacent
def i c i ent and could have the gym, which should
collapsed i n a strong reduce wind effects.
wind .
Foundation was cracking, Tower has been replaced.
s t a i r s were unsafe, rebar
was exposed, and the
guard station was a f i r e
hazard.
ASPC- Fl orence,
Central u n i t Tower 13
ASPC- Fl orence,
Central u n i t
Maintenance Shop
Beams and columns were Conditions remain
cracked, and the roof and unchanged.
e x t e r i o r were
dilapidated. Building
was s t r u c t u r a l l y unsound
and a l i f e - s a f e t y threat.
ASPC- Fl orence, Wall
of Sal 1 y
Gate 5
Wall was cracked, lacked Wall of Sally Gate 5
r e i n f orcement, and could has been replaced.
have c o l l apsed.
ASP- Saf f ord
Education Building
Building was aged and
deteriorated: water
damage, roof improper1 y
constructed, no f i r e
alarm or emergency
l i g h t i n g .
Bui l d i ng has been
demol i shed.
ASP- Saf f ord
Dorm 3
Dorm 3 has been
demol i shed and repl aced
Foundation was s e t t l e d
and cracked, roof was
deteriorated, and wall s
were out of plumb.
ASP- Saf f ord
Hobby Building
Building had numerous
code v i o l a t i o n s and
o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r a l
deterioration.
Some e x t e r i o r
renovation and roof
repair has been done.
A l l code v i o l ations have
been addressed.
ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS
Conduit has been
p a r t i a1 1 y repl aced.
Leaking plumbing has
a1 ready deteriorated
the repairs that were
made.
ASPC- Fl orence
Central u n i t
Conduit and equipment i n
cellblocks 3 and 4 was
severe1 y corroded from
dripping water, creating
the p o t e n t i a l f o r
electrocution.
TABLE 1 ( Con't)
F a c i l i t y Problem
ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS
Con't
Status
Underground system was
not waterproof.
Potential for power loss
and electrocution existed.
Access manholes have
been raised to prevent
water from c o l l e c t i n g
i n the bottom.
ASPC- Fl orence
East uni t
ASPC- Fl orence
Central u n i t
Switch gear needed to be
rebui 1 t. Sections of the
u n i t could have been
without e l e c t r i c i t y
during a power outage.
Switch gear has been
rebui 1 t .
ASPC- Fl orence
Central u n i t
Telephone system needed
automatic switching.
Telephone system now
has automatic switching.
ASPC- Fl orence
Central u n i t
Cell block 5
E l e c t r i c a l system showed
rust and corrosion.
Conduits were old and
unsafe.
E l e c t r i c a l condui t has
been replaced and made
watertight.
ASPC- Fl orence
East u n i t
Emergency generators did
not have enough capacity.
Emergency generators
now have suf f i c i ent
capaci ty.
ASPC- Fl orence
East u n i t
Back- up power supply
needed f o r security
computer.
Back- up power supply
needs are being met by
emergency generators.
ASPC- Fl orence
East u n i t
Fire alarm system
malfunctioned.
Fire alarm system has
been repai red.
ASP- Saf f ord Cons t ruc ti on of 13KV,
3- phase l i n e needed to be
completed.
Design i s i n
progress as p a r t o f new
project.
ASP- Saf f ord
upper Pump House
Panels were old and
needed to be rewi red.
Pump house has been
demol i shed.
ASP- Safford, Garage
Area
W i r i n g was inadequate and
1 oad requi rements were
unknown.
A project request f o r
renovati on has been
submitted.
ASP- Saf f ord Disconnect swi tches were
improper1 y housed and
inadequate.
Dormitory has been
demol i shed.
PLUMBING PROBLEMS
Two- thi rds of p i ping
has been rep1 aced.
ASPC- Fl orence,
Central uni t
Underground pipes 1 eaked
profuse1 y and 1 ayout was
unknown.
ASPC- Fl orence,
Central u n i t
Systems severe1 y
deteriorated i n
cellblocks 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Systems i n cellblocks 1
and 2 have been
renovated. Systems i n
cellblocks 3 and 4 are
s t i l l deteriorated but
funding has been
a1 located f o r repai r
ASPC- Phoeni x,
Women's Center
Enti re Complex
Pipes leaked and were
uninsulated. Fixtures
were inadequate.
Pipes i n east section
have been replaced. The
rest of the complex i s
s t i l l deteriorated.
TABLE 1 ( Con't)
Faci1 i t y Proble m Status
PLUMBING PROBLEMS
( Con1 t )
Hot and cold water
d i s t r i b u t i o n l i n e s were
old, leaky, and poor1 y
insulated. Some fan c o i l s
needed to be repl aced.
ASPC- Phoeni x, Problem s t i l l exists.
Women's Center North
Complex
ASPC- Phoenix,
Womenls Center
Admi n i s t r a t i v e
Mechani cal Room
B o i l e r and stack needed
t o be replaced. Asbestos
needed to be removed from
p i ping, and r e f r i g e r a t i o n
compressor needed repai r.
Boiler and stack have
been repai red.
ASPC- Phoeni x,
Womenls Center Main
B o i l e r Room
B o i l e r needed to be
repl aced, pi ping needed
to be insulated, and a
new cold water control
system needed to be
i n s t a l l e d .
Boiler i s s t i l l i n the
same condi ti on.
LOCKING SYSTEM
PROBLEMS
ASPC- Fl orence
Central u n i t
Cellblocks 2, 3,
and 4
System did not allow
individual c e l l doors to
be opened. Doors could
be opened on1 y i n
mu1 t i p l e s . Locking
control panels were
accessible to inmates.
Systems i n a l l three
c e l l blocks have been
repai red. Control
panels are no longer
accessible to inmates.
ASPC- Fl orence,
Central u n i t
Cellblocks 5, 6, and
7
Electronic control panels
ma1 f uncti oned and
comnuni c a t i ons were
inadequate.
Electronic control
panel and comnuni c a t i on
problems have been
r e c t i f i e d .
ASPC- Perryville
A l l u n i t s
Locking system control
panel s had elect ri cal
problems. Inmates could
jam deadbol ts open.
Condition remains
unchanged.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ASPC- Perryvi 11 e System lacked adequate
capacity.
Problem resolved by
connecting system to
C i t y o f Goodyear
wastewater treatment
HEATING, center.
VENT1 LATION. AND
AIR CONDITIONING
ASPC- Phoenix
A1 hambra
Sys tem capaci t y was
reduced by clogged
g r i l l s , damaged ductwork,
and the lack of adequate
control s .
System requi red balancing.
Condi ti ons remain
unchanged.
Repai r estimates are
being compi 1 ed.
serious ~ Sntenance Deficiencies
Persist At Correctional Facilities
Despite improvements, major repairs and renovations are s t i l l needed at
the State's prison complexes. Our audit identified numerous ongoing
maintenance deficiencies, some l i f e threatening, at the State's
correctional f a c i l i t i e s . These ongoing deficiencies appear to be the
result of limited funding for building renewal and capital improvements.
Onaoina maintenance deficiencies - Despite the improvements cited in the
previous section, serious maintenance deficiencies continue to plague
DOC'S correctional f a c i l i t i e s . The Department has repeatedly identified
a wide range of maintenance problems including the following:
ASPC- Douqlas - Deficiencies in one u n i t ' s electrical system present
a serious threat to l i f e and safety. Electrical panels, breakers,
and wiring short- circuit and burn out.
a ASP- Fort Grant - The kitchen faci l i t y is in violation of applicable
life- safety, and health codes. Electrical and plumbing systems are
deteriorating. Adequate f i r e exits and extinguishing systems are
needed to reduce the life- safety threat.
8 ASP- Safford - The e l e c t r i c a l distribution system is operating beyond
capacity, which i s a violation of the electrical code. Potential
danger was confirmed by audit staff who observed melted electrical
insulation due to system overload, which caused a small f i r e in
several of the electrical manholes.
8 ASPC- Florence - F i re alarms, a spr i nk l e r sys tem, a smoke evacuat i on
system, and electronically operated exit doors are a l l needed to
reduce the life- safety threat in the Women's housing units.
ASPC- Florence - The support bu i l d i ng at the Women ' s pr i son con ta i ns
inadequate electrical wiring and the lack of a f i r e alarm system,
creating a life- safety threat.
8 ASPC- Florence - Deteriorating electrical and plumbing systems have
l e f t the Central u n i t ' s kitchen in violation of electrical and
plumbing codes.
State funding - Serious maintenance deficiencies persist at DOC
f a c i l i t i e s because funding has not kept pace with the prisons'
mai ntenance needs. Pr i son maintenance is f i nanced through a var i ety of
funding mechanisms, including ( 1) building renewal and capital
improvement appropriations, ( 2) Endowment Fund appropriations( l), and ( 3)
operating appropriations. Combined, a l l of these funding sources have
not provided sufficient monies to forestall continued deterioration of
the State's prison f a c i l i t i e s .
For example, in 1986 the Legislature i n i t i a t e d the building Renewal
Program, a formula- driven funding program designed to ensure continued
maintenance of the State's capital assets, including correctional
f a c i l i t i e s . However, funding for the program has decreased steadily
since i t s inception, and in fiscal year 1990- 91, Statewide funding for
the program was less than 25 percent of the formula amount. DOC was
allocated nothing for building renewal during that fiscal year.
The Department has also had d i f f i c u l t y obtaining funding for capital
improvement projects. Since fiscal year 1986- 87, DOC has never received
more than 27 percent of i t s requested appropriation. Moreover,
appropriations have been as low as 1 percent of the requested amount.
Although our analysis on page 13 indicates that DOC'S requests for some
projects may be inflated, recent funding levels demonstrate the State's
reluctance to fund major maintenance projects.
Additionally, i t appears that funding for maintenance w i l l become even
more r e s t r i c t i v e . DOC has h i s t o r i c a l l y had the freedom to use almost $ 1
m i l l ion a year in Endowment Fund monies to address maintenance
p r i o r i t i e s . However, the fiscal year 1991- 92 budget limits DOC'S a b i l i t y
to use these monies for maintenance. The recently enacted budget
subst i tutes $ 936,000 in Endowment Fund mon i es for agency expenses
t r a d i t i o n a l l y funded with a general appropriation.
Even i f DOC substantially increased i t s commitment of operating monies
for maintenance, i t is doubtful the agency could offset the lack of
building renewal and capital improvement appropriations, and the loss of
( 1) Earnings on State lands and interest on the investment of the permanent land funds are
appropriated i n compliance with Section 25 of the Enabling Act and the Constitution to
be used for the support of State penal institutions and reformatories.
monies provided by the Endowment Fund. Moreover, there is a l i m i t to the
amount of operating monies that can be diverted to maintenance. The
Department already a1 locates a larger port ion of i t s operating budget to
maintenance than i t did at the time of our previous audit. At some
point, increased reliance on operating monies w i l l negatively impact the
other a c t i v i t i e s these monies support.
Ultimately, the State risks higher costs by deferring major maintenance
and renovation projects. With the help of our volunteer consultant, we
identified several cases in which continued deterioration and higher
anticipated costs for labor and materials appear to have increased total
renovation costs. For example:
Estimated costs for housing repairs at ASP- Fort Grant have increased
12 percent since fiscal year 1989- 90, from $ 491,000 to $ 550,000 in
fiscal year 1991- 92.
Cost estimates for inmate housing renovations at ASP- Safford have
also increased 12 percent, from $ 260,000 in fiscal year 1988- 89 to
$ 292,000 in fiscal year 1991- 92.
Arizona's prisons w i l l continue to deteriorate in the absence of major
repairs. Since the costs of making these repairs is also l i k e l y to
increase as needed work i s deferred, the Legislature should consider
options for providing additional maintenance funding.
More lmaainative Manaaement And
Better Plannina Needed To Mitiaate
Fundina Constraints
Because DOC is not l i k e l y to obtain f u l l funding for maintenance in the
near future, i t is important that the Department ( 1) explore ways to more
effectively u t i l i z e i t s present resources and ( 2) take steps to more
adequately prepare maintenance budget requests.
DOC needs to minimize costs - Given the current fiscal environment and
the scope of i t s maintenance needs, i t is necessary for DOC to maximize
available resources through innovative solutions to i t s maintenance
problems.
Commendably, DOC responded to the criticism contained in our previous
audit report that i t was not adequately identifying maintenance
requirements. The Department has included at least 90 maintenance policy
issues in i t s capital improvement plan in each of the last five fiscal
years. Moreover, since the time of our last review, DOC has commissioned
a study of the 55 most- used buildings at ASPC- Florence and identified
over $ 19 m i l l ion in maintenance deficiencies.
DOC needs to bui Id upon this achievement by more actively pursuing
innovative ways to minimize maintenance costs. According to personnel
within DOC'S F a c i l i t y Management Bureau ( FMB), they have sought to
minimize maintenance costs, but time and resource constraints have
prevented a more concerted e f f o r t . Our analysis indicates a more
comprehensive review and evaluation of maintenance proposals would enable
DOC to take greater advantage of cost- saving opportunities. FMB staff
agreed with the assessment. For example:
The Department requested $ 1.2 mi l lion for kitchen repairs in the
Central, North, South and Women's units a t ASPC- Florence. Rather
than pursue funding for those repairs, our consultant recommends DOC
consider the f e a s i b i l i t y of ( 1) preparing a l l food at the central
kitchen being b u i l t for the adjacent Eyman complex, and ( 2)
converting the Florence f a c i l i t i e s into serving kitchens only. Our
consultant estimates this could result in cost savings of almost
$ 500,000 in construction and equipment. Further study is needed,
however, to determine whether the operational savings associated with
centralization would offset additional costs resulting from the need
to set up a food distribution system.
The Department requested over $ 1.7 million for roofing repairs in
1992. Rather than pursue funding for these repairs, our consultant
recommends DOC hire a permanent three- man crew and make a one- time
expenditure of approximately $ 80,000 for a roofing truck equipped
with foam spray and hot tar equipment. Annual repairs would be
limited to those roofs in the worst condition. Material costs would
be approximately $ 150,000 a year. Labor costs could be minimized by
using inmates.
DOC'S F a c i l i t i e s Maintenance Bureau is in the best position to identify
and coordinate cost- saving measures such as those described above. A l l
major maintenance and renovation projects must be processed through and
approved by the Bureau. DOC should take steps to insure the Bureau plays
a leading role in maximizing available resources through cost- effective
solutions to maintenance problems.
Evaluation of maintenance proposals - In some cases maintenance and
renovation projects endorsed by FMB overstate the Department's needs, are
unnecessary or could be performed more cost effectively. The FMB is
responsible for evaluating proposals for major maintenance and renovation
projects. However, we found FMB does not always screen these proposals
adequate l y .
For example, we found that a small percentage of the maintenance projects
approved by the FMB each year are either not necessary or overstate the
Department's need. According to our consultant, nearly $ 3.7 million or
10.5 percent of DOC'S fiscal year 1990 capital request consisted of these
kinds of maintenance projects. The same was true for almost $ 1.2 million
or 3 percent of DOC'S fiscal year 1990- 91 capital request.
Although many of these projects were dropped from subsequent budget
requests, our analysis indicates, and FMB staff agree, that some
maintenance needs continue to be overstated in budget requests. For
example, the following are included in DOC'S fiscal year 1991- 92 budget
request :
A $ 210,000 budget request for I ightning rods at ASPC- Winslow.
Although lightning rods might be ideal, our analysis indicates that
for a substantially lower cost, surge protectors would service almost
as well.
An $ 815,000 budget request to completely re- roof a l l buildings at
ASPC- Perryville. Rather than re- roof the entire f a c i l i t y , DOC should
consider repairing only those few roofs currently leaking, while
placing the rest of the f a c i l i t y ' s roofs on a cyclical routine
maintenance program.
Likewise, with the help of FMB staff we found instances in which proposed
maintenance projects could be performed at lower cost than the FMB's
approved estimates. For example, our analysis determined the following:
A fiscal year 1991- 92 request of $ 745,000 to upgrade the electrical
system at the Gila unit at ASPC- Douglas could be completed for about
$ 425,000. According to our consultant, costs for replacing breakers,
panels and wiring were a l l overstated by the Department.
A fiscal year 1991- 92 request of $ 238,000 to identify leaks to
underground storage tanks at various sites could be completed for
about $ 150,000. This estimate is based on the prior experience of
our consultant, as well as a phone estimate given by a local
contractor.
By ove res t i mat i ng ma i n t enance costs and app rov i ng need l ess ma i n t enance
and renovation projects, the FMB increases DOC'S d i f f i c u l t y in securing
State funding for truly necessary maintenance and renovation projects.
Therefore, i t is important that the Department take steps to ensure FMB
adequately reviews and evaluates proposals for maintenance projects
before presenting them to the Governor and the Legislature.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider providing sufficient monies to
adequately maintain State prisons.
2. DOC should take steps to ensure FMB plays a leading role in
maximizing available resources through cost- effective solutions to
maintenance problems.
3. DOC should ensure FMB specifically reviews the justifications for
each maintenance project requested, and analyzes proposed budgets to
ensure requests are reasonable and cost e f f i c i e n t .
FINDING I1
ALTHOUGH SOME DEFICIENCIES WERE NOTED,
THE PRISON CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM APPEARS TO BE
ADEQUATELY ADMINISTERED
Although the prison construction program appears to be adequately
administered, construction management could be improved in some areas.
The Department of Administration ( DOA) has b u i l t new prisons in a
relatively inexpensive and timely manner since assuming responsibility
for the prison construction program in 1985. However, our review did
reveal several management problems in constructing Arizona's prisons.
Prisons Have Been Constructed In A
Relativelv Inexpensive And Timely
Manner Since 1985
Since DOA assumed responsibility for the prison construction program, new
f a c i l i t i e s have been b u i l t at low cost and generally on time. Arizona's
prison construction costs are less than those of other states. Moreover,
new f a c i l i t i e s have been completed on or close to designated completion
dates.
Construction costs - Prison construction costs in Arizona appear low.
Forced by legislative appropriations to construct prisons for less money
than originally projected, DOA has conformed to these austere budgets,
although the impact on prison operations is uncertain. As a result,
prisons in Arizona are b u i l t for substantially less than prisons b u i l t by
other states and the Federal government.
Legislative appropriations have generally necessitated that WA build
prisons at a lower cost than i n i t i a l l y estimated. We found that for
projects completed since 1985, legislative appropriations have averaged
18 percent less than the original construction estimates submitted by
DOC. In one instance, the appropriation was 22 percent less. Table 2,
page 16, shows the original construction estimates, the legislative
appropriations, and the percentage of difference between the estimates
TABLE 2
Loca t i on
- COST ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS
FOR NEW PRISON CONSTRUCTION
1985- 1 991 ( a)
ASPC- Douglas
ASPC- Phoenix- ACW
ASPC- Phoenix- Flamenco
ASPC- Tucson, Winslow,
Yuma, Florence
ASPC- Florence- SMU
ASP- Saf ford
ASPC- Winslow
ASPC- Winslow
ASPC- Winslow
ASPC- Perryvi I l e
ASPC- F l o rknce-~~ ni nng
TOTAL
Original
Estimate
Percentage
Legislative o f
Ap~ ropriation Difference
( a) Neither DOC nor DOA were able to provide o r i g i n a l estimates and l e g i s l a t i v e
appropriations for some of the older construction projects completed between 1985 and
1991-- two Safford projects, 48 and 100 beds; ASPC- Tucson, 208 beds; two Florence
projects, 118 and 104 beds; and three Douglas projects, 620, 800, and 48 beds.
Therefore, we excluded these projects from the table.
( b) Preliminary estimates f o r the individual sites were not prepared. The estimate i s as
of June 1984, subsequent to receiving the January 1984 appropriation of $ 72 m i l l i o n
f o r construction of the four f a c i l i t i e s . Legislation did not specify individual
project 1 imi ts.
( c) Additional funding of $ 1.6 and $ 2 m i l l i o n was appropriated f o r Winslow and Rynning,
respective1 y, a f t e r construction bids demonstrated that these f a c i l i t i e s could not be
constructed with the i n i t i a l appropriations. These amounts are not included i n the
tab1 e.
Source: Prepared by the Office of the Auditor General s t a f f , based on
information obtained from the Department of Corrections and the
Department of Administration.
and appropriations for projects constructed by DOA since the agency
assumed this responsibility in 1985. As shown in Table 2, by
appropriating at lower levels, the Legislature is forcing DOA and DOC to
construct f a c i l i t i e s at a lower cost.
DOA has largely b u i l t prisons within budgets specified by legislative
appropriations. . Original appropriations totaled $ 130,681,070 for 14
completed projects overseen by DOA.(') Since 1985, DOA has spent
$ 134,216,152, only 3 percent more than original out lays. Additional
funding was requested in only 2 of the 14 projects-- a 400- bed,
med i urn- secu r i ty fac i l i ty at W i ns low and an 800- bed, med i um- secu r i ty
f a c i l i t y at Florence. In reviewing these cases, additional funds were
requested only after construction bids made i t clear that the f a c i l i t i e s
could not be constructed within the appropriated amount. However, these
f a c i l i t i e s were constructed within budget as augmented by the additional
funding. In one other instance, DOA managed to return approximately
$ 73,000 of unused money. Thus, DOA has managed to bu i Id pr i sons
remarkably close to legislative appropriations.
Over the years, DOA and DOC have managed to stay within budget by
employing several cost- cutting strategies:
Reduced proiect sco~ e - A uni t may be reduced in total square footage
for housing, support, and program space to lower construction costs.
For example, to meet budget requirements, three buildings at Winslow
( the library, prison industries, and vocational training buildings)
were reduced in square footage.
Other cost reduction measures - Other cost reduct ion measures, such as
using lower quality or alternate materials in place of those
originally prescribed, have been u t i l i z e d in a number of projects.
For example, t o i l e t s at three housing units in Rynning at
ASPC- Florence were changed from stainless steel to porcelain to
reduce construction costs.
Buildina ~ rioritization - DOC and DOA may choose to pr i or i t i ze bu i l d i ngs
to be constructed i f i n i t i a l construction estimates appear to exceed
appropriations. When construction documents are released for bid,
lower p r i o r i t y buildings are specified as an alternate to the base
bid. This allows WA the f l e x i b i l i t y of constructing or not
constructing the building depending upon the budget.
( 1 ) Legislative appropriations could not be obtained from DOC or DOA for 8 of 22 projects
completed since 1985. Only the 14 projects i n which appropriations and total cost
could be determined are discussed.
DOC o f f i c i a l s note that these cost- saving measures have the potential to
impact prison operations adversely. Two such impacts were noted.
Scooe reduction at SMU - The original square footage at the Special
Management Uni t ( NU) in Florence was reduced as a cost- saving
measure. SMU was originally designed to contain 768 single- cell
units. However, one wing of 192 beds was double bunked to save
money. By changing the configuration, the required 768 beds were
constructed within budget. Maximum- level inmates currently account
for 41 percent of the 192 double- bunked beds. According to a DOC
o f f i c i a l , double bunking maximum- security, special management inmates
is very inappropriate and dangerous. However, DOC has yet to have
serious management problems at SMU.
Rvnninq lockup buildina not constructed - The Rynn i ng lockup bu i Id i ng
was bid as an alternate to base bids and, due to lack of funds, was
not constructed. DOC is using 5 to 10 beds at SMU for Rynning
inmates requiring lockup f a c i l i t i e s . Thus these beds are not
available for SMU inmates.
Additionally, cost reduction measures were used extensively throughout
the $ 72 m i l lion program. The $ 72 m i l lion program was a series of four
construction projects for a total of 2,412 beds at Tucson, Winslow, Yuma,
and Florence. Intense cost- cutting measures were u t i l i z e d at
Florence- SMU and Winslow in an attempt to bring bids within budget.
Costs were reduced at F lorence- SMU by $ 680,000 and at Wins low by about
$ 430,000. According to a DOA o f f i c i a l , this program set the tone for
low- budget f a c i l i t i e s . While i t does not appear that these cost- saving
measures have significantly impacted prison operations to date, the
long- term consequences of these actions are less certain and were not
studied in detail.
Arizona's a b i l i t y to build low- cost prisons is being noted by a
soon- to- be- released national study by the United States General
Account i ng Off i ce ( GAO) . GAO i s conduct i ng a cost compar i son study of
Federal and state prisons. The study reviews the construction and
operational costs of prisons in 28 states and 4 Federal prisons. A case
study compared construction costs between the Federal C~ rrectional
Institution in Phoenix and ASPC- Winslow. The GAO study concludes that
Arizona builds " no f r i l l s N prisons at costs below that of the Federal
system and Western states specifically. As shown in Table 3, page 19,
Arizona's average construction cost per bed is 24 to 44 percent lower
than the national average for various security levels. Thus, as a result
of the fiscal constraints under which the construction program has been
operating, Arizona prison construction is relatively inexpensive compared
to other states and the Federal government.
Timeliness - Prison construction has become more timely in recent years.
Although the f i r s t series of projects administered by DOA, mainly the $ 72 0
million program described earlier, did not meet designated completion
dates for individual projects, a l l projects were completed by July 1988,
the date specified in the original appropriation. According to DOC and
DOA o f f i c i a l s , the original $ 72 million program schedules were very
optimistic given the size of the projects. Contract negotiations with
the project management firm and the architects were the primary reason
for the delay on the $ 72 mi l lion program. Moreover, construction bids on
three of the four projects in the $ 72 mi l lion program came in over budget
requiring additional time to make sensitive cost- cutting decisions.
Although these projects were late, the reasons for the delay appear
j u s t i f i a b l e , and projects were s t i l l completed prior to the legislative
dead I i ne .
Moreover, DOA's timeliness has improved s l i g h t l y since completion of the
$ 72 mi l lion program in 1988. Although minor delays occurred in three of
six projects completed since 1988, a l l three projects were substantially
completed two months after the originally scheduled completion date.
I n i t i a l contract negotiations with the architect and general contractor
were the main reason for the delay in the three projects. Delays due to
weather were also granted on two projects, thus extending the completion
date.
According to a DOA o f f i c i a l , the completion time for recent projects is
s l i g h t l y less than the completion time for the $ 72 mi l lion program. A
comparison of the more recently completed Rynning Level 4, 800- bed
project and the Tucson Level 4, 744- bed project demonstrates this
improvement. Construction of the Tucson f a c i l i t y , at a cost of $ 22.9
m i l lion for 744 beds, took 35 months from the date of legislative
appropriation to the date of the Certificate of Substantial
~ o m ~ l e t i o n . ( ' ) The recently completed Rynning project, at a cost of
$ 28.5 million for 800 beds, was completed in only 31 months. Thus,
overall the timeliness of recent prison construction projects has
improved even though individual projects may be delayed s l i g h t l y .
Althou~ h Generallv Adequate,
DOA Could Improve Its Manaqernent
Of The Prison Construction Proaram
Although DOAts performance appears generally adequate, some shortcomings
in the management of the prison construction program were noted. For
example, a review of several recently completed projects revealed some
weaknesses in the construction process, such as inadequate oversight of
the architect, inadequate monitoring of inmate construction, untimely
follow up on outstanding construction items, and limited involvement in
warranty issues.
As part of our audit, we reviewed in detai l three of the nine faci 1 i t ies
completed by DOA since 1988: an 800- bed, medium- secur i ty faci l i ty and a
960- bed, maximum- security f a c i l i t y , both b u i l t at Florence; and a
400- bed, medium- security f a c i l i t y at Winslow. These f a c i l i t i e s comprise
64 percent of the beds b u i l t and 88 percent of the dollars spent for
projects completed since 1988.
lnadeauate o v e r s i ~ h t - DOA did not adequately oversee the on- site
performance of the architectural firm managing one of the three
construction projects we analyzed. During our review, we found that DOA
may have paid one firm for up to 1,600 hours of on- site services that had
not been provided, because the Department does not routinely track and
verify that firms are providing the levels of service specified in the
contract.( 2) Instead, payments are made monthly at a predetermined rate.
( 1) The date of a Certificate of Substantial Completion i s the date c e r t i f i e d by the
architect that construction i s s u f f i c i e n t l y complete i n accordance with contract
documents so the owner can occupy for the intended purpose.
( 2) DOA i s currently negotiating a p a r t i a l refund from the architect. However, DOA notes
a refund w i l l not compensate for the lack of needed construction oversight.
Our review revealed an additional weakness in WA's oversight of
architectural fi- rms. DOA has no formal mechanism for evaluating an
architect's past performance and incorporating i t into the agency's
selection process for upcoming projects. Consequently, an architectural
firm with a history of poor performance could be rehired by the State,
because no record of the firm's past effectiveness is available to those
reviewing proposals.
Inadequate monitorin9 of inmate construction - DOA also needs to review
i t s procedures for managing inmate- labor projects to ensure proper
supervision.
A lack of supervision and monitoring of the inmate- labor program at the
Florence- Rynning unit resulted in structurally deficient buildings.
Three inmate- constructed buildings overseen by DOA lacked sufficient
steel reinforcement bars ( rebar). These bui ldings were approximately 45
to 50 percent complete before WA f u l l y addressed the problem, even
though DOA had prior knowledge of the deficiencies. Two of the three
deficient bui ldings required remedial repairs, and the third was
demolished and reconstructed.
Since these i nc i dences , a temporary qua l i ty con t ro l pos i t ion has been
established to monitor the repair and reconstruction at Rynning and
oversee the new Safford 250- bed, inmate- construction project. However,
this position is funded out of the individual construction budget, and
once construction is complete, the position w i l l be terminated. Due to
the statutory requi rement ( A. R. S. 541- 1651) to ut i l ize inmate labor to
the fullest extent, DOA needs to evaluate these t r i a l projects to
determine i f the quality control position should be continued on future
inmate- construction projects and whether the position should be permanent.
Untimelv follow UD on outstandina construction items - " Punch l i s t "
i terns(') identified on the Certificate of Substantial Completion were not
( 1) A " punch l i s t " i s created by the a r c h i t e c t and general contractor a t the completion of
the construction phase. The l i s t i s attached to a C e r t i f i c a t e o f Substantial
Completion that c e r t i f i e s the building i s substantially complete f o r i t s intended
purpose, except for the items on the punch l i s t . DOA allows the contractor no longer
than 30 days t o complete the items on the punch l i s t .
addressed by the general contractor in a timely manner at SMU. Various
punch l i s t items- were outstanding five months a f t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in one
bui lding.
DOA has had two options to remedy a contractor's lack of performance:
( 1) revoke the Certificate of Substantial Completion and assess
liquidated damages against the general contractor, or ( 2) terminate the
contractor and require the bonding company to ensure that the work is
completed as specified in the contract. However, according to a DOA
o f f i c i a l , due to the demand for beds, these time- consuming options are
not feasible.
As a solution to the problem, DOA has begun to include a clause in the
contractor's agreement stating that liquidated damages w i l l be assessed
i f f i n a l completion can not be declared due to outstanding punch l i s t
items. To date, DOA has used this statement in only one contract, early
s i t e grading at the Florence- Cook unit; however, according to a DOA
o f f i c i a l , future prison construction contracts w i l l contain the clause.
Limited involvement in warranty issues - The State appears limited in i t s
a b i l i t y to obtain warranty repairs and corrections. DOA does l i t t l e to
ensure that contractors honor their warranties. A l l projects contain a
one- year warranty beginning on the date of the Certificate of Substantial
Completion. DOA's only contractual role in warranty matters is to
inspect the faci l i ty at the eleventh month. Otherwise, DOA is involved
only as a last resort i f DOC is unable to get the general contractor to
perform warranty repairs. Thus, DOC must t r y to address a l l warranty
problems even though the Department has no contractual relationship with
the builder. Due to DOC'S on- site presence, DOA believes that DOC is in
the best position to address warranty issues. However, DOC lacks the
contractual relationship with the contractor to enforce contractor
per f o rmance .
To address this problem, o f f i c i a l s i n both departments would l i k e a
percentage of monies set aside up front in contract negotiations to
address warranty issues. This would enable DOA and DOC to enforce
general contractor performance in a timely manner by
threatening nonpayment of warranty monies upon expiration of the warranty
period. However, DOA o f f i c i a l s warn that this would probably result in
contractors submitting higher bids, thus increasing construction costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. DOA should consider ways to regularly review on- site service levels
provided by the architect in order to ensure the adequacy of the
architect's performance.
2. DOA should consider creating a formal mechanism for evaluating an
architect's past performance and incorporating i t into the selection
process for future projects.
3. DOA needs to evaluate whether the temporary quality control position
created to monitor the inmate labor program should be made permanent.
4. DOA should continue i t s plan to incorporate a liquidated damages
clause in future prison construction contracts to address timely
completion of punch l i s t items.
5. DOA and DOC should consider including in the contractor's
construction agreement a fixed percentage to be retained to ensure
warranty repairs are made.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During our audit, we compiled data on DOC'S use of standardized design
and construction.
A. R. S. 641- 1651 requires DOC to u t i l i z e standardization in design and
construction wherever i t is economically feasible. Constructing
prototypical buildings has a number of advantages over individually
designed f a c i l i t i e s . California has u t i l i z e d prototypes in i t s prison
construction program and claims several benefits. For example:
You know what YOU are aettinq - Once a prototype bui lding has been
designed, b u i l t , and u t i l i z e d , flaws are identified. These problems
can then be corrected in subsequent projects.
Reduced desisn fees - Once the i n i t i a l design fee is paid, the only
future costs for design are to adapt buildings to the specific s i t e .
Reduced schedule - Since project design often requi res as much time
as construction, the use of prototypes can substantially reduce
design time. Because of i n f l a t i o n , the time saved can also mean cost
sav i ngs .
a Reduced construction costs - Because the prob Iems encountered the
f i r s t time can be corrected before a f a c i l i t y is b u i l t again, the
likelihood of cost and schedule overruns can be reduced. In
addition, the risk factor for contractors is decreased the second
time the same design is constructed.
Staffina familiarity - I f many bui Idings of the same design are
constructed throughout the system, staff f a m i l i a r i t y with the
operation of buildings and procedures is f a c i l i t a t e d .
California appears to be the only state with written procedures on
standardized design and construction.
The development and use of standard design and construction in Arizona
has evolved over time. The Tucson- Rincon housing unit, completed in
1979, appears to be one of the earliest examples of prototypical design
usage. Arizona's approach to prototypes has been to select certain
bu i Id i ng p l ans and enhance or adapt them i n subsequent cons t ruct ion
projects. For example, the Level 4 housing units have been through three
adaptations. These units were f i r s t b u i l t in Tucson's Cimarron f a c i l i t y .
The same plans were then used in constructing the Winslow housing units.
The newly completed Rynning unit is the latest application of this
design. As DOC becomes aware of operational inefficiencies, enhancements
are incorporated into the design for subsequent construction projects.
For example, the Rynning housing units were modified to strengthen
control- room security, v i s i b i l i t y over inmates, and staff safety.
Use of prototypes - To date, DOC has used standard des s and
construction only to a limited degree. The majority of DOC construction
projects have involved the expansion of current f a c i l i t i e s where f u l l
usage of prototypical designs is not always possible. When expanding a
s i t e , buildings have to be tailored to the existing structures.
Moreover, prototypical designs may not be operationally feasible. For
example, a prototypical plan was recommended for the design of the
administrative and support f a c i l i t i e s at Florence- SMU. However, based on
s i t e constraints and security requirements, i t was determined that the
prototypical design was unusable. Thus a new design was developed.
According to a DOA o f f i c i a l , savings from the use of prototypes is not
readily apparent in Arizona's prison construction program because much of
the new construction has been the expansion of older f a c i l i t i e s .
However, with the construction of the Eyman complex at ASPC- Florence, DOC
is approaching the point where i t can more extensively use prototypical
design and construction. Prototypes may produce greater design savings
i f used for construction of entire complexes because no adaptation to
existing f a c i l i t i e s is required. Thus, the construction of future
complexes should be able to f u l l y u t i l i z e the standard design of the
Eyman Complex. By constructing entirely new f a c i l i t i e s , the benefits of
prototypical designs could be more f u l l y realized.
One drawback in using prototypical designs may be that other, possibly
more economical designs are not used. For example, during the design
stage of the Florence- Cook and Safford f a c i l i t i e s , DOC and DOA o f f i c i a l s
reviewed prison designs in other states to determine i f a cheaper, more
e f f i c i e n t Level 3 f a c i l i t y could be constructed. A Connecticut " bow- tie"
design was found to be a possible alternative for the DOC prototype. A
cost- savings analysis showed that construction of the bow- tie design cost
approximately 3 to 4 percent less than the construction of DOC'S original
prototypical design. For planning purposes, DOC also developed a
compressed design of the prototype plan as a possible construction
alternative. This compressed design cost approximately 1 percent less to
construct than the Connecticut bow- tie design. Moreover, the operational
costs associated with the bow- tie design were 23 percent less than both
DOC designs. However, according to DOC and DOA o f f i c i a l s , due to
construction budget constraints and the statutory mandate to use standard
designs, the bow- tie design option was abandoned and the reduced
prototypical design was used.
FIFE SYMINGTON
GOERNOR
1601 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007
( 602) $ 42- 5538
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
DIRECTOR
Dougl~ s R. Nortan
Auditor General
210U North Central, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arlzona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
The attached comments are provided for inclusion in the text of the
publisned performance Audit of the Eepartment oi Corrections,
Facilities Construction and > laintenance.
The Department concurs with most of the findings and
recommendations contained within the report. Our responses are
directed at those areas in wnich we either did not agree with your
recommendations or wanted to add clarification to the information
presented in the report.
Since the primary responsibility for administration of prison
zonstruction belongs to the Department of Administration ( DoA), we
addressed only a 1imit. ed number of items in Finding 11. You may
wish to obtain comments directly fr~ m the Director of DOA on this
area c~ f your audit report.
Director
Attachment
Summary Paqe ii
Paragraph 2; Bullet 1; The concept of using the ASPC - Eyman
Central Kitchen facility to feed the ASPC - Florence prisons has
been under study by the Department ever since the legislature
funded the kitchen construction. While such a concept may save
some renovation costs within the existing Florence prisons, the
Department concurs with the Auditor General that a more in- depth
analysis needs to be completed before this concept is initiated.
Following are some of the reasons the Department feels this
recommendation may be premature:
o Operational issues such as transportation of food to the other
units increase operating costs. Additionally, other costs
would be incurred to purchase vehicles and the hot/ cold carts
to keep food at proper temperatures. A staffing analysis
would reveal a need for additional staff to transport the
prepared food, as it would be unwise to allow inmate drivers
into and out of several level 4 and 5 facilities. The
likelihood of an inmate escape would increase with the several
additional trips needed daily to deliver the food.
o Operationally, it may not be wise to provide food services to
the six kitchens at ASPC - Florence and the four kitchens at
ASPC - Eyman from one location. Should an inmate disturbance
occur at the Central Kitchen or the unit that supplies the
inmate workers to the one Central Kitchen facility, it would
become difficult to supply food to all ten prisons. However,
if more than one full production kitchen was operational in
the Florence area, food preparation could be temporarily
increased at the other production kitchens.
o The Department believes the Auditor General's cost saving
estimate may be overstated because the majority of all
associated construction costs involve life/ safety improvements
to roofing, electrical, plumbing and fire systems, which must
be completed regardless of whether the kitchen is used as a
production or service kitchen.
Page ii
Paragraph 3; Sentence 1; The Department maintenance budget requests
are adequate, accurate, and justifiable for its current building
system of over 3.6 million square feet. However, given the future
expansion of the system, coupled with the increasing complexity of
environmental and life/ safety codes, the Department requires and
will continue to request additional staff to adequately analyze
needs at facilities and prepare the requests. At the time of the
1985 audit, the Department had approximately 2.1 million square
feet of buildings and utilized one staff part time to prepare the
requests. Currently nearly all of the time of one staff is used to
prepare the budget requests.
Paqe ii
Paragraph 3, Sentence 2; The Department adamantly disagrees with
the statement that . . . FMB approved maintenance and renovation
projects that were unrealistic, unnecessary . . . " None of the
examples given in this report substantiate this statement. The
Department requested that the ~ uditor General provide specific
examples and they did not. The ~ uditor General's consultant cites
two examples regarding lightning protection and roof repair which
are discussed in detail in our response to pages 12 and 13 of the
Auditor General's report and do not represent unrealistic or
unnecessary projects.
Summary Page iii
Paragraph 1; The Department agrees with the Auditor General that
the impact on prison operation was not studied in detail. The
issue, however, of the impact of not fully funding prison
construction is certain. By not fully funding all construction
needs such as water softening equipment at ASPC - winslow, the life
expectancy of all built- in equipment such as hot water heaters/
boilers and related kitchen equipment is significantly reduced.
This would further increase the maintenance costs of the prison.
Suinmary Page iii
Paragraph 2; The Department concurs with the ~ uditor General's
findings that the average cost per bed is significantly less than
the national average. The Department, however, believes the
Auditor General is remiss in not pointing out that the primary
reason the costs are reduced is that the Department double bunks a
significantly higher percentage of Level 3, 4 and 5 beds than does
other jurisdictions.
Other contributing factors are:
o ADC defines the scope of work.
o ADC has reduced the gross square footage of all prison
facilities.
o Clear ADC direction to design austere, but functional prison
facilities which maximizes security and minimizes long term
operational costs.
o Double bunking reduces construction costs, yet requires
additional staffing, which historically has not been funded.
o Arizona is a " right to work" state.
Page 6
Table 1; The Department has completed 20 projects of the 32
projects referenced in Table 1. All of the deficiencies were
included in subsequent Capital Renewal Budget Requests from FY 1986
on, however, funding has not been provided for 12 of these
projects. The continued reduction of renewal funds coupled with
the legislatively mandated use of Endowment Funds for line item
capital or operating use have removed all departmental
discretionary funds. Corrections to deficiencies at the ACW unit
have been kept to a minimum due to the passage of HB 2502 in FY 86
which requires that the prison and property be sold. All immediate
problems have been handled using other operating, endowment or
renewal funds when and as available.
Page 10
Paragraph 2; The Department disagrees with the statement that some
requests for funding may be inflated. Estimates of construction
costs are typically prepared using specialized consultants or
historical data of construction costs. Variables such as changing
building codes, inflation, and the economy will always impact the
accuracy of these estimates. A reasonable practice is to budget
such that funding will be provided to accomplish a project,
regardless of the unforseen future conditions. If a project is
funded and is completed under budget, the funds remaining will
simply revert to the General Fund.
Paqe 11
Paragraph 3; The Department agrees with the Auditor General's
recommendations that more imaginative management will mitigate
costs and will add into its future Operating Budget requests
sufficient staff to ( 1) properly and more effectively utilize its
present resources and ( 2) will take steps to more adequately
prepare maintenance budget requests. The quantity of these staff
do need to be increased as the number of buildings and facilities
increase in future years. Outside factors that influence and have
a direct bearing on staff requirements must include and consider
the increased restrictions being placed upon existing facilities
due to environmental ( asbestos, fuel tank testing, P. C. B., etc.,)
more stringent life, safety and health codes and increased state
regulatory agency requirements.
Page 12
Bullet 1; As was stated earlier, this concept needs a more in- depth
analysis and may be ill advised from an operational perspective.
The use of a Central Kitchen may have some savings in construction
dollars, but the Department questions the level of savings
mentioned by the Auditor General.
Paqe 12
Bullet 2; The Auditor General's recommendation includes three staff
to be hired to supervise an inmate crew. The Auditor General fails
to mention the Department would need approximately $ 150,000 per
year in additional Personal ~ ervices/ Employee Related, In- State
Travel, Other Operating and WIPP funds to support this program. If
these funds were available, the Department could correct the
majority of those roofing issues that do not involve asbestos or
structural damage.
Page 13
First Paragraph
Bullet 1; he Department concurs that surge protectors would
provide some protection against lightning strikes, but does not
concur that the Auditor General's proposal would provide service
almost as well as lightning rods. he iightning prdtection systems
utilizing lightning rods provide a much higher level of protection.
This is especially true for perimeter detection systems which are
the major security system at a prison facility. The Department's
approach to this issue is based upon the recommendation of a
nationally reputable security electronic system consultant and a
local electrical consulting firm. Surge protectors, as recommended
by the Auditor General, are installed at Tucson, Winslow and
Perryville and do not provide the level of protection required for
security. Should the Auditor General's recommendations be followed
and the system not operate during an electrical storm, the
likelihood of a successful escape from a secure prison would be
increased.
Paqe 13
Second Paragraph
Bullet 1; The Department concurs with the Auditor General that all
ASPC - Perryville buildings could be re- roofed on a cyclical basis.
The issue that raises concern, however, is that the funding
required ($ 815,000) represents 83.6 percent of ASPC - Perryville's
annual operating expenditures for all maintenance. In order to
meet the Auditor General's request, significant other maintenance
would have to be deferred and, in turn, could increase maintenance
needs and costs in other areas.
Page 13
Last Paragraph; The Department's request of $ 745,000 was obtained
from a registered electrical engineer. In light of such
information, the Department would be remiss in using a budget
request figure which may not have considered the full scope of the
project.
Paqe 14
First Paragraph
Bullet 1; The Department does not disagree with the cost factors
presented by the Auditor General. The Department, however, must
point out that the budget request was an estimate based upon
unknown information as to the precise number of leaking tanks or
the extent of repairs needed. The actual costs to test and re~ air
leaking underground tanks more closely approximated the $ 150; 000
estimate by the Auditor General, but the actual number of leaking
tanks and the types of repairs needed were less than was initially
estimated by Facility Management staff almost two years before
actually testing and repairs were conducted.
Paae 14
Recommendation # 2 & 3; The Department agrees with the Auditor
General's recommendations. To accomplish those more detailed
needs, additional staff would be needed to meet current needs and
those staff will be requestedin future operating budgets. Factors
that influence current and future staff needs are:
Building health, life, safety code provisions
Environmental code requirements
Number of prison buildings/ facilities to be maintained and/ or
improved
Infrastructure to be maintained/ improved.
Page 16
TABLE 2, IvCost Estimates & Appropriations for New Prison
Construction 1985 - 1991"
The table incorrectly states the values of the " Original Estimatet'
vs the " Legislative Appropriationt1 for the ASPC- T, ASPC- W, ASP- Y,
and ASPC- F- SMU projects that originally appropriated $ 72,000,000 to
construct a combination of 2412 cells and beds. The correct
comparison is $ 88,675,146 for the " Original Estimate" vs
$ 76,300,000 for the " Legislative Appropriation."
" Footnote ( a) - The Arizona Department of Corrections did not
administer the construction/ design of these projects as the
authority was transferred legislatively to the Arizona Department
of Administration, who should be able to provide the information
requested relative to cost estimates and appropriations for these
projects.
Paqe 23
Paragraph 2; The current set of A. I. A. contract documents, general
conditions and supplemental general conditions have been
successfully used for years with the liquidated damages clause and
will continue to serve the state if they are administered properly.
Page 25
Paragraph # 2 & 3; ADC is currently developing a new prison manual
which standardizes design and construction of new prison facilities
for all security levels. For each prison the appropriate
prototypical buildings are detailed along with the process for
developing the new prison. The Department will standardize the
details for buildings, staffing and equipment for the new prison
which will substantially decrease the changes and redevelopment of
prison design and construction. The project began in 1989 and
should be complete this year. This is one example of the
initiative Arizona Department of Corrections1 staff have
undertaken.
FIFE SYMINGTON
Governor
GERARD W. TOBIN
Deputy D~ rector
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
1700 WEST WASHINGTON . ROOM 801
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
September 18, 1991
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Office of the Auditor General
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
RE: Prison Construction Program
Performance Audit
Dear Mr. Norton:
I have reviewed the performance audit preliminary draft for the
prison construction program, administered by the Department of
Administration. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the
improvements in the prison construction program since the
transfer of responsibility, by the Legislature, in 1985. I
believe the improvements are the result of two ( 2) factors:
1) The dedication of DOA employees and 2) the cooperation of the
Department of Corrections.
The performance audit has appropriately noted four ( 4) areas ,
which require refinement or improvement and has provided five ( 5)
recommendations. The following addresses, by area,
clarifications of the four ( 4) areas and implementation of the
five ( 5) recommendations.
Inadequate Oversight:
The Department of Administration has negotiated a refund from the
architectural firm in the amount of $ 16,695.00 for services not
provided on the project referenced in the audit and a return of
$ 9,783.00 not expended out of the relocation allowance.
The 1,600 hours referenced in the audit are extracted from a
September 4, 1990 letter to the project architect. The letter
Prison Construction Program Performance Audit
September 18, 1991
Page Two
states a minimum of 600 hours and a maximum of 1,600 hours as the
level of services not provided. The majority of this time is
comprised of on- site clerical services.
This instance has highlighted the necessity to develop a more
accurate methodology to ensure the delivery of contracted
architectural services. The approach will include the tracking
and verification of the services specified in the contract.
Inadequate Monitorinq of Inmate Construction:
The task of constructing buildings utilizing an unskilled,
untrained inmate work force poses a considerable challenge. The
challenge is to impart highly technical skills to the inmate work
force and coordinate that instruction into the systematic
placement of work for a complete building within a predetermined
schedule.
The inmate- constructed buildings at the ASPC- Eyman Rynning Unit,
which had structural deficiencies, are the result of a failure to
communicate and demonstrate the proper masonry construction
techniques. This failure, combined with a lack of supervision,
as described in the audit, resulted in structurally inadequate
buildings.
The inmate construction program has completed many successful
projects and is currently constructing a major facility. The
$ 72 Million Program contained inmate construction activities at
each of the four ( 4) sites, all were successfully completed. The
400 Bed Expansion Program of ASPC- Winslow contained three ( 3)
major buildings, all successfully completed. The inmate
construction program is currently constructing the 250 Bed ASPC-Safford
facility. The project is 45% complete and is progressing
satisfactorily.
While we have encountered difficulty with the ASPC- Eyman Rynning
Unit project, the inmate construction program is a viable
program. We will continue to improve the program through quality
control procedures and effective supervision at the foreman,
superintendent and management levels.
Untimely Follow- up on Outstanding Construction Item:
The timeliness of the completion of " Punch List" items, by the
general contractor, is a measure of the quality of that general
contractor. The Department of Administration, generally, doesn't 0
Prison Construction Program Performance Audit
September 18, 1991
Page Three
have difficulties with the prudent general contractor who desires
to complete his contractual obligations. The Department of
Administration has had difficulties with general contractors who,
without sometimes intense persuasion techniques, are reluctant to
complete their " Punch List" items.
The Department of Administration maintains a retainage on all
projects until the completion of all " Punch List" items. This
retainage, on occasion, does not seem to be of sufficient
importance to the general contractor to speed his completion of
the " Punch List" items.
In an effort to express the importance the Department of
Administration places on the completion of " Punch List" items, we
have incorporated a liquidated damages clause for the timely
completion of all " Punch List" items, in the current contract.
A new general contractor's contract, currently being drafted, .
will include the liquidated damages clause for " Punch List"
items. This contract is scheduled for completion and
implementation prior to the end of 1991. The new contract will
be utilized on all the Department of Administration construction
projects.
Limited Involvement in Warranty Issues:
The Department of Administration and the Department of
Corrections have established warranty procedures. These
procedures outline the general contractor's responsibilities.
The procedures are incorporated in the project specifications and
therefore become contract requirements. Both agencies have
agreed that for the one- year warranty period the primary contact
is the on- site Department of Corrections presence, with the
Department of Administration being the secondary contact. his
arrangement has been successful with the Department of
Administration becoming increasingly involved in the resolution
of outstanding warranty issues.
The difficulties with the enforcement of the contract warranty
procedures is not with the prudent contractor. The task is to
find a mechanism which will prompt the reluctant general
contractor to comply with the warranty procedures. One method
may be the withholding of a certain percentage of the contract
funds to accomplish warranty repairs if the general contractor is
not timely or refuses. Another method may be the requirement
that on major projects, the general contractor must maintain, on-
Prison Construction Program Performance Audit
September 18, 1991
Page Four
site, an individual who coordinates warranty issues with the
Department of Corrections for the one- year warranty period.
It is likely that the incorporation of such methods will increase
the cost of construction. The value of the increased cost must
be measured against the warranty service received. The
Department of Administration will determine, in conjunction with
the Department of Corrections, a method which will better serve
the Department of Corrections' needs.
Recommendations:
1. The Department of Administration will develop a methodology
to ensure that the contracted architectural services are
rendered and that all contract provisions are complied with.
2. The Department of Administration will investigate and
implement, if appropriate, a mechanism which evaluates an
architect's performance on a particular project and makes
that information available to the selection committee
considering the same architect on another project. his
will be reviewed in accordance with applicable statutes
regarding the selection of architects.
3. The Department of Administration will consider the
establishment of a permanent quality control position, or
other permanent positions, in the inmate construction
program. This consideration will evaluate the current
- program, future involvement and legislative intent in the
utilization of inmate labor.
4. The Department of Administration has incorporated a
, liquidated damages clause for completion of " Punch ~ ist"
items in the current contract. The new construction
contract, currently being drafted, contains the clause,
which will be utilized on all the Department of
Administration construction projects.
5. The Department of Administration and the Department of
Corrections will consider alternate approaches to ensure the
general contractor's compliance with warranty procedures.
The approaches considered will include the retainage of a
fixed sum, the requirement of the general contractor to
maintain an on- site presence for the one- year warranty
period and the reevaluation of the warranty procedures and
the respective roles of the Department of Administration and
the Department of Corrections.
Prison Construction Program Performance Audit
September 18, 1991
Page Five
In conclusion I would like to thank you and your staff for the
favorable review. The audit has acknowledged the improvements
made since the transfer of responsibility in 1985 and recognized
the accomplishments of the program on a national scale. Equally
important, the audit has highlighted some areas that we are
currently striving to improve and which we believe can be
resolved. By refining the systems, we will improve the level of
service to our clients.
Sincerely,
Gerard W. Tobin
Deputy Director