jer nifti tatenf - new jersey legislature · 2016. 7. 18. · 2016 is now being projected by shc to...

tate nf Nifti jerCHRIS CHRISTIE OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER

Governor P0 Box 002KIM GUADAGNO TRENTON, NJ 08625-0002

FORD M. SCUDDERLt. Governor

July 15 2016Acting State Treasurer

The Honorable Chris ChristieGovernor of New Jersey

The Honorable Stephen M. SweeneyPresident of the Senate

The Honorable Vincent PrietoSpeaker of the General Assembly

INTEGRITY OVERSIGHT MONITOR OUARTERLY REPORTS

As required by k. 2013, c. 37 (Integrity Oversight Monitor Law — A60, the “Law”), attached are the quarterly reportsdue July 1, 2016 for the period January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016. Pursuant to the Law, reports are due to theGovernor and the Legislature within ten (10) business days of the due date of the report.

The Law requires engaged monitors who have been working for three (3) months to provide reports for the provision ofservices during the three (3) month period second preceding the due date of the report, which shall include, but not belimited to, detailed findings concerning the integrity oversight monitor’s provision of services and recommendationsfor corrective or remedial action relative to findings of malfeasance and inefficiency. The Law also provides that thequarterly reports must not include any information which may compromise a potential criminal investigation orprosecution or any proprietary information. Thus, consistent with the Law, the reports have been carefully reviewedfor any such information and cleared for dissemination.

The attached reports represent the provision of services for integrity oversight monitoring of contracts related to thefollowing programs/projects:

- Addx — Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority- Brown and Company — Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency- CliftonLarsonAllen — Departments of Transportation and Environmental Protection Route 35 Contracts- CliftonLarsonAllen — Economic Development Authority Sandy Contracts- CohnReznick — NJ Transit Emergency Operations Center- Grant Thornton - Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority- KPMG — Middlesex County Utility Authority- Navigant — Department of Community Affairs Housing Programs- Thacher Associates, LLC — NJ Transit Gladstone Line Poles and Foundations Replacement

The reports can be accessed on-line at http://www.state.ni.us/treasury/news-sandy.shtml

The next reporting period will be for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 and reports are due to the Department of theTreasury by October 1, 2016.

Ford M. ScudderActing State Treasurer

Attachmentsc: Amy Cradic, Chief of Staff to the Governor

Thomas Scrivo, Chief Counsel to the GovernorLori O’Mara-Van Driesen, Director of Public Information, OLSPeter J. Mazzei, Manager of OLS Library ServicesMary L. Chute, State Librarian

New Jersey is An Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable

State of New Jersey

Department of the Treasury

Integrity Oversight Monitoring Reporting Model

Firm Name: Addx Corporation

Engagement: Integrity Oversight Monitor

For Quarter Ending: 03/31/2016

No. Recipient Data Elements Response Comments

A. General Info

1. Recipient of funding Bayshore Regional Sewage Authority (BRSA)

2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA)

3. State Funding (if applicable) N/A

4. Award Type Public Assistance - Category G

5. Award Amount Stone Hill Contracting inc., Doylestown, PA $16,445,977

6. Contract/Program Person/TitleBayshore Regional Sewage Authority (BRSA), Union Beach,NJ

Robert Fischer, Executive Director; George Rolon, Project Manager, New Jersey

Environmental Infrastructure Trust (NJEIT)

7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/ProgramDue to high winds, heavy rain, subsequent flooding and storm surge from

SuperStorm Sandy, the BRSA sustained major damage to two incinerators; the

Dorr Oliver as well as the Niro incinerator, in addition to its adjacent equipment.

The Project Worksheet (PW) relates to the demolition and reconstruction of

these two incinerators and adjacent equipment.

8. Contract/Program Location BRSA, Union Beach, NJ

9. Amount Expended to Date $10,576,399.40 expended by Stone Hill Contracting

10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities None

11. Completion Status of Contract or Program Project is approximately 60% complete.

12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period 12/31/2016

B. Monitoring Activities

Reports required under A-60 will be submitted by Integrity Monitors on the first business day of each calendar quarter to the State Treasurer and will contain detailed information on the projects/contracts/programs funded by

the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.

Page 1 of 4

State of New Jersey









13. If FEMA funded, brief description of the status of the project worksheet

and its support.Stone Hill Contracting (SHC), has reported seven different delivery dates of Motor

Control centers (MCC) 4/6 & 9/10 with the latest delivery date being promised

for April 1, 2016. Equipment delivery of the Induced Draft Fan VFD has been

promised for May 11, 2016. Total contract float to date is -68 CCDs. Project

Milestone #4, Completion of Incinerator Preliminary Acceptance Testing, is

projected by SHC to be achieved on May 25, 2016 (delayed from March 2).

Project Milestone #5, Substantial Completion, originally scheduled for March 30,

2016 is now being projected by SHC to be achieved on July 25, 2016. On March

30, 2016, SHC advised that the new permanent power tower supports for the

electrical cable running from the existing 480V Switchgear to on the exterior of

the NIRO and Dorr Oliver building to MCC 9/10 will arrive on April 18, 2016

(milestone 4). What remained unscheduled is the temporary power connection

that Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority (BRSA) has twice previously

authorized SHC to bid, construct, and schedule. Resident Engineer, Hazen and

Sawyer (Hazen), directed SHC to incorporate this activity into its revised schedule

update.

Training workshops were held in February covering E&H Instrumentation,

Measurement and Monitoring, and, NIRO Fluidized Bed Instrumentation (FBI)

Control System. As a result, on March 8, 2016, BRSA Executive Director, Bob

Fischer, requested that Industrial Furnace Company (IFCO) provide an overall

NIRO FBI “System Troubleshooting” section to the Operations and Maintenance

Manual. Hazen added that it would also be a good idea to add the NIRO FBI

Function & SOPs to the document.

Monitor’s visit inside the NIRO/Dorr Oliver buildings on March 1, 2016 confirmed

that all the major critical systems, less the MCCs, and Inducted Draft Fan are on

site. Monitor queried random workers who acknowledged that they received 2

breaks and one lunch break per day and that they are satisfied with their wages

and benefits.

14. Quarterly Activities/Project Description (include number of visits to meet

with recipient and sub recipient, including who you met with, and any

site visits warranted to where work was completed)

The Addx Monitor attended Schedule Update Meeting No. 8 on March

29, 2016 and revealed further delays and slippage to project milestones.

The Addx Monitor attended weekly progress meetings with BRSA, SHC &

Hazen on 1/5, 1/12, 1/19, 1/26, 2/2, 2/9, and 2/23/16, 3/1, 3/8, and

3/22/2016

The Addx Monitor attended monthly scheduled update meeting 1/26/16,

2/23/16, and 3/29/2016.

On 3/1/16 the Addx Monitor performed NIRP/Dorr site construction

inspection.

15. Brief Description to confirm appropriate data/information has been

provided by recipient and what activities have been taken to review in

relation to the project/contract/program.

As previously noted, the NJEIT and BRSA have been very cooperative as

part of this review. Addx compliance examiners have been able to review

all project related documents to include contract, drawings, bonds,

invoices and supporting documentation.

Page 2 of 4

State of New Jersey









16. Description of quarterly auditing activities that have been conducted to

ensure procurement compliance with terms and conditions of the

contracts and agreements.

In addition to continuing to analyze and review all invoices and materials

as set forth in the project and review of certified payroll rates and hours

compared with books and records, the Addx Monitor appears on site

every single week to do monitoring, site inspections, and help ensure

compliance with requirements.

17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been

reviewed? Please describeYes, payment requisitions are reviewed. Data analytics are performed

during the review to ensure all claims for payments are supported with

adequate documentation.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud and

abuse.

Appear on site every single week to do monitoring, site inspections, and

help ensure compliance with requirements.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findingsNone

20. Provide details of any work quality or safety/environmental/historical

preservation issue(s).

Project Milestone #5 incurred a delay because SHC’s vendor had been

incorrectly manufacturing internal MCC components despite Hazen and

Saywer’s (Hazen) numerous shop drawing reviews and verbal direction to

SHC to ensure that the vendor fabricates the MCCs with the correct

internal components. An unanticipated discovery occurred on January

14, 2016 when Industrial Furnace Company, (IFCO) conducted an on-site

inspection of existing NIRO Fluidized Bed Incinerator System (FBIS)

instrumentation not previously shown to be replaced. IFCO discovered a

50-60% failure rate among existing instrumentation.

21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred in the past

quarter Project Milestone #4, Completion of Incinerator Preliminary Acceptance

Testing originally scheduled for March 2, 2016 has been delayed due to

equipment receipt delays but was then projected for May 25, 2016. Both BRSA and Addx are closely monitoring SHC to determine progress.

22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste, fraud and abuse

noted in past quarters

Addx has been monitoring the procurement process, to include providing

due diligence and a review of the solicitation documents. No

irregularities were noted. Addx representatives continue to attend

regularly scheduled weekly or bi-weekly meetings between BRSA and

SHC representatives.

C. Miscellaneous

23. Attach a list of hours and expenses incurred to perform your quarterly

integrity monitoring review Quarterly – 57.5 hours; $6,444.30 labor and $132.99 of the Other Director

Costs (ODCs). Totaling $6,577.29 for the quarter ending 3/31/16.

24 Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous sections but

deemed pertinent to monitoring program. None

Name of Integrity Monitor: Jennifer Sirois

Page 3 of 4

State of New Jersey









Name of Report Preparer: Allison Kennett

Signature:Date: 7/1/16

Page 4 of 4

1

Firm Name:

Brown & Company CPAs and Management Consultants, PLLC

Engagement: EQ2014‐009‐P1‐HMFA

For Quarter Ending: 3/31/15 Reports required under A‐60 will be submitted by Integrity Monitors on the first business day of each calendar quarter to the State Treasurer and will contain detailed information on the projects/contracts/programs funded by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.

No. Recipient Data Elements Response Comments A.

General Info

1.

Recipient of funding

NJ Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency (NJHMFA)

2.

Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA)

HUD

3.

State Funding (if applicable) Not applicable

4.

Award Type HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) - Disaster Recovery

5.

Award Amount $103,101,114

6. Contract/Program Person/Title Director, NJHMFA Division of Credit & Business Development

Quarterly Status Report Brown & Company CPAs and Ending December 31, 2015 2 Management Consultants, PLLC


7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program

The Department of Treasury (Treasury), on behalf of the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (NJHMFA) engaged Brown & Company CPAs and Management Consultants, PLLC (Brown & Company) pursuant to the “Prequalification Pools: Auditing and Other Related Services in Support of Disaster Recovery” contract (T2939) from prequalified contractors. The State retained the services of Brown & Company to provide a Program and Process Management Auditor to NJHMFA to audit the Fund for Restoration of Multi-Family Rental Housing (FRM) and associated contracts and the Sandy Special Needs Housing Fund (SSNHF) programs, for the purpose of minimizing risk and preventing or rectifying duplication of benefits, process and payment errors, waste, fraud, abuse, malfeasance and mismanagement of funds. The NJHMFA FRM program assists in the creation of rental projects in the nine most impacted New Jersey counties and provides the funding for forgivable subordinated mortgages. Those counties have been identified as Atlantic, Bergen, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Union. The program awards subsidies in the form of loans to both not-for-profit and for-profit developers; owners capable of managing large multifamily housing developments; and low- and moderate-income households.

As of this report, NJHMFA has approved 16 loan contracts (Attachment A).

8. Contract/Program Location Various counties in New Jersey

9. Amount Expended to Date $85,738,623

10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities

Not applicable

11. Completion Status of Contract or Program

83% of funds have been expended

12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period

Funds should be expended by October 31, 2016.


No. Recipient Data Elements Response Comments B. Monitoring Activities

13. If FEMA funded, brief description

of the status of the project worksheet and its support.

Not applicable

14. Quarterly Activities/Project

Description (include number of visits to meet with recipient and sub recipient, including who you met with, and any site visits warranted to where work was completed)

No site visits. Brown & Company received information from NJHMFA. We received an update on the contracts from NJHMFA. Brown & Company reviewed the status of funds for the 16 contracts. (See Attachment A).

15. Brief Description to confirm appropriate data/information has been provided by recipient and what activities have been taken to review in relation to the project/contract/program.

Brown & Company’s integrity oversight monitoring activity for the fourth quarter (January 1, 2016 – March 31, 2016) focused on Tasks C, D, and Task E.

Brown & Company reviewed the status of funds for the sixteen contracts. We discussed the status of the contracts with NJHMFA.

16. Description of quarterly auditing activities that have been conducted to ensure procurement compliance with terms and conditions of the contracts and agreements.

Under Task D, Integrity Oversight Monitoring, Brown & Company tracked, tested, and reviewed contractor invoices submitted to NJHMFA. We reviewed updated schedules that reported activity. Booker T Washington Apts. and Keyport Legion Apts. closed and had drawn funds.

17. Have payment requisitions in

connection with the contract/program been reviewed? Please describe

Yes, payment requisition were reviewed during the quarter ending March 31, 2016. We requested the itemized list of disbursements or “CDBG Construction Disbursement Summary Disbursement from Inception to Date” report. We


No. Recipient Data Elements Response Comments selected disbursement samples from each contract for testing. We obtained and examined supporting documentation. The test results noted no exceptions.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse. The first essential step in preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse in

government programs is to review and evaluate the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of existing policies, procedures, and controls in place to manage and mitigate the risks inherent in government loan programs. Brown & Company’s monitoring activities this quarter included reviewing updated FRM-PHA report and reviewing and testing the “CDBG Construction Disbursement Summary Disbursement from Inception to Date” report.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings

We selected payment requisition for testing during the reporting period, there were no findings to report.

20. Provide details of any work quality

or safety/environmental/historical preservation issue(s).

None

21. Provide details on any other items

of note that have occurred in the past quarter

None

22. Provide details of any actions taken

to remediate waste, fraud and abuse noted in past quarters

Not applicable

C. Miscellaneous

23. Attach a list of hours and expenses

incurred to perform your quarterly integrity monitoring review

See Attachment B



24 Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous sections but deemed pertinent to monitoring program.

None

Name of Integrity Monitor: Brown & Company CPAs and Management Consultants, PLLC

Name of Report Preparer: Gail Jenifer, CPA

Signature:

Date: July 1, 2016

Brown & Company CPAs and 6 Management Consultants, PLLC

ATTACHMENT A – APPROVED LOAN CONTRACTS VALUED AT $5 MILLION OR MORE

The 16 loan contracts listed in the table below make up Brown & Company’s Task C Scope of Work.

FRM-PHA as of 4-1-2016 CDBG-DR Funding

HMFA ID #

Project Name County Municipality Type FRM FRM

Expended to Date

Commit Date

00369 Keyport Legion Apts. Monmouth Keyport Borough Rehab $4,567,315 $0 07/01/14

02927 Booker T. Washington Apts. Hudson Jersey City Rehab $8,253,624 $2,262,371

11/14/2013 Recommitted:

5/21/2015

02704 Conifer Village at Rittenberg / Rittenberg Manor Atlantic Egg Harbor City New $5,412,163 $5,412,163 01/27/14

02861

Egg Harbor Hotel Conversion / Atrium Apartments at Egg Harbor Atlantic Egg Harbor City Rehab $5,549,899 $5,549,899 05/15/13

02859 Carolina Crescent and Connecticut Crescent Atlantic Atlantic City New $5,145,721 $5,145,721 01/27/14

02683 The Beachview Residence Atlantic Atlantic City New $5,642,518 $5,642,518 11/14/13

02772 The Meadows (Atlantic City HOPE VI) Atlantic Atlantic City New $5,783,923 $5,783,923 08/29/13

02869 Wesmont Station Bergen Wood-Ridge Borough New $5,477,486 $5,477,486 05/15/13

02837 Meadow Lark Run Cape May Middle Township New $5,086,261 $5,086,261 01/27/14

02508 Green Heron Pointe Cape May Middle Township New $5,102,748 $5,102,748 01/27/14

02844 Heritage Village at Bloomfield Essex Bloomfield Township New $5,310,554 $5,310,554 01/27/14

02599 Willows at Waretown Ocean Ocean Township New $9,097,970 $9,097,970 10/03/13

02885 Franklin Manor Essex Belleville Township New $10,118,157 $7,174,139 12/03/13

02853 Catherine Todd Senior Living Center Hudson Jersey City Rehab $5,692,775 $5,692,775 05/15/13

02878

The Residences at Willow Pond Village (formerly Delaney Homes) Middlesex Perth Amboy City New $5,840,000 $5,840,000 05/15/13

02874 Heritage Village at Oakhurst Monmouth Ocean Township New $11,020,000 $7,160,095 10/03/13

Total $103,101,114 $85,738,623

Brown & Company CPAs and 7 Management Consultants, PLLC

ATTACHMENT B – Level of Effort and Expenses

Quarter ending March 31, 2016.

Hours Incurred For Quarterly Activities

Member 38

Manager 0

Supervisor 23

Seniors (3) 106

Total Hours 167

Expenses Incurred For Quarterly Activities

Travel $ 0

Other Direct Costs $ 0

State of New Jersey CliftonLarsonAllen ‐ DOT/DEP Route 35 Sandy ContractsDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Monitoring Reporting ModelEngagement: Task Order #: DOT 1‐1A‐E; Contract # 88364For Quarter Ending: 3/31/2016

No. Recipient Data Elements Response CommentsA. General Info

1. Recipient of funding New Jersey Department of Transportation and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) FHWA and FEMA3. State Funding (if applicable) Yes4. Award Type FHWA and FEMA5. Award Amount Approximately $242 million excluding change orders6. Contract/Program Person/Title Ahmad Qureshi is the Project Manager for DOT projects and Erick Doyle is the Project Manager for

the DEP project7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program NJDOT and NJDEP received funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for contracts in connection with damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. NJDOT procured the services to 3 contractors for 3 different projects for restoration repairs along Route 35. Those 3 contractors are Union Paving and Construction Company (DP 13130), George Harms Construction Company (DP 13120), and Agate Construction Company (DP 13114). NJDEP procured the services of EIC Associates to construct and install a four‐mile long steel seawall to help protect sections of Mantoloking, Brick and Route 35 from future natural disasters.

8. Contract/Program Location NJ Department of Transportation, Trenton NJ and NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Toms River, NJ

9. Amount Expended to Date All DOT projects as of 3/31/16 and including change orders: DP 13130 = approximately $85.1 million; DP 13120 = approximately $125.3 million; DP 13114 = approximately $43.2 million. NJDEP = approximately $24.5 million.

10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities $0 11. Completion Status of Contract or Program DP 13130 substantially complete; DP 13120 approximately 94%; DP 13114 approximately 96%; EIC

substantially complete.12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period DP 13130 ‐ substantially complete ‐ awaiting closeout; DP 13120 ‐ substantially complete ‐ awaiting

closeout; DP 13114 ‐ substantially complete ‐ awaiting closeout; EIC substantially complete.B. Monitoring Activities

13. If FEMA funded, brief description of the status of the project worksheet and its support.

All the projects assigned (EIC Associates, DP 13130, DP 13120, and DP 13114) to CLA have been substanitally completed as of 3/31/16. All projects are in the closeout phase.

14. Quarterly Activities/Project Description (include number of visits to meet with recipient and sub recipient, including who you met with, and any site visits warranted to where work was completed)

Transactions and expenditure testing were performed this quarter for all four projects and ongoing review and testing of the expendituress as deemed necessary.


Management has been cooperative in making themselves available to help move our monitoring of the contracts.


Testing of of the EIC Associates expenditure/payment testing was conducted and completed this quarter with no issues noted. Testing of expenditures/payments for the 3 DOT projects have been conducted and continue to perform ongoing review activities. No issues noted to date.

17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been reviewed? Please describe Yes, see item #16.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse. See #19 below

Reports required under A‐60 will be submitted by Integrity Monitors on the first business day of each calendar quarter to the State Treasurer and will contain detailed information on the projects/contracts/programs funded by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.

Page 1 of 3

State of New Jersey CliftonLarsonAllen ‐ DOT/DEP Route 35 Sandy ContractsDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Monitoring Reporting ModelEngagement: Task Order #: DOT 1‐1A‐E; Contract # 88364For Quarter Ending: 3/31/2016



19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings No such findings were noted this quarter.20. Provide details of any work quality or safety/environmental/historical

preservation issue(s). See #19 above21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred in the past

quarter See #19 above22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste, fraud and abuse

noted in past quarters None notedC. Miscellaneous

23. Attach a list of hours and expenses incurred to perform your quarterly integrity monitoring review SEE ATTACHMENT ‐ NEXT TAB IN SPREADSHEET

24. Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous sections but deemed pertinent to monitoring program. N/A

Name of Integrity Monitor: CliftonLarsonAllen LLPName of Report Preparer: Gregory J. Bussink, III, Principal


Page 2 of 3

State of New JerseyDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Monitoring Reporting ModelEngagement: Task Order #: DOT 1‐1A‐E; Contract # 88364For Quarter Ending: 3/31/2016

HOURS

Principal 7.35

Program manager 20.60

Project manager 141.00

Supervisor/senior consultant 8.00

Associate/staff -

Total Hours 176.95

Expenses

Travel and other -$

State of New Jersey CliftonLarsonAllen ‐ NJ Economic Development Authority Sandy ContractsDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Monitoring Reporting ModelEngagement: EQ2014‐003‐P1Quarter ended 3/31/2016


1. Recipient of funding NJ Economic Development Authority (NJ EDA)2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) HUD HUD award to State of NJ, State of NJ awarded to NJ DCA as a subrecipient.

3. State Funding (if applicable) n/a4. Award Type CDBG‐DR5. Award Amount $9 million6. Contract/Program Person/Title Fred Cole, Senior VP Operations for NJ EDA Mr. Cole acts as the State Contract Manager in relation to the

administration of the PFM contract.7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program EDA is a subrecipient of DCA and is responsible for the administration of $300 million in

funding for economic revitalization through grants or loans to small businesses. EDA procured the services of PFM to administer the grant/loan program.

8. Contract/Program Location Economic Development Authority, Trenton NJ9. Amount Expended to Date $6,929,523 10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities $0 11. Completion Status of Contract or Program Ongoing12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period 7/31/2016 estimatedB. Monitoring Activities


N/A


Page 1 of 4





Performed testing offsite at CLA offices for the quarter ending 3/31/16. Testing of invoices associated with ITS Services related to Salesforce.com for Loans and ERB (Sept 28‐Oct 11 2014), (Oct 12‐Oct 24 2014), (Oct 26‐Nov 8 2014) and (May 24‐June 6 2015). Testing of invoices associated with ITS Services related to Salesforce.com for Loans and ERB (Nov 9‐Nov 22, 2014), (Mar 3‐Mar 14, 2015), (Mar 15‐Mar 28, 2015), (Jun 7‐Jun 20, 2015), (Jun 21‐Jul 4, 2015). Testing of 3 invoices associated with ITS Services related to Salesforce.com for Loans and ERB (Aug 31‐Sept 13, 2014), (Sept 14‐Sept 27, 2014) and (Mar 29‐Apr 11, 2015). Testing of retainage release invoice #3. Performed ongoing integrity monitoring services, which included review of invoices/payments and follow‐up questions/resolution. We review the invoices submitted to DCA and provide any observations and recommendations for improvement to help ensure compliance with relevant regulations/guidelines. The Program Manager then incorporates these comments/suggestions into a revised invoice if necessary.


Management has been cooperative in providing appropriate data/information to perform our monitoring of the contract.


Testing of selected invoices and payments through the end of the quarter for compliance with the contract and relevant regulations/guidelines.

17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been reviewed? Please describe Yes, as noted above in item #16.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse. Testing of procurement process and invoices as noted above. Interviews with EDA staff.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings No findings have been noted. 20. Provide details of any work quality or safety/environmental/historical

preservation issue(s). None noted.21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred in the past

quarter Nothing to note that has not already been stated elsewhere.22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste, fraud and abuse

noted in past quarters not applicable ‐ no issues noted in previous quarters.C. Miscellaneous

23. Attach a list of hours and expenses incurred to perform your quarterly integrity monitoring review SEE ATTACHMENT ‐ NEXT TAB IN SPREADSHEET

24 Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous sections but deemed pertinent to monitoring program. N/A

Name of Integrity Monitor: CliftonLarsonAllen LLPName of Report Preparer: Gregory J. Bussink, III, Principal

Page 2 of 4





Page 3 of 4

State of New JerseyDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Monitoring Reporting ModelEngagement: EQ2014‐003‐P1For Quarter Ending: 3/31/16

HOURS

Principal 4.00

Program manager 2.00

Project manager 89.25

Associate/staff -

Total Hours 95.25

Sumbitted by CliftonLarsonAllen LLP - 7/1/16 along with our monthly status report

State of New Jersey



Firm Name: CohnReznick, LLP

Engagement: New Jersey Transit Emergency Operations Center (EOC)



A. General Info

1. Recipient of funding New Jersey Transit Corporation

2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) Federal Transit Administration

3. State Funding (if applicable) Not applicable

4. Award Type Federal Transit Administration- Public Transportation Emergency Relief

Program

5. Award Amount $8,682,000

6. Contract/Program Person/Title James Schworn / Chief Procurement Officer, Procurement & Support

Services

7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program The EOC will be a pre-identified location for designated NJ TRANSIT

personnel and, if required, emergency responders from outside agencies

to meet and develop strategies for coping with emergencies and major

planned events. A major objective of the EOC will be to support Incident

Command (IC). The EOC shall be staffed with the personnel necessary to

make emergency management policy decisions. NJ TRANSIT has

determined that the EOC will be located at its existing General Office

Building (GOB).

8. Contract/Program Location NJ Transit General Office Building

Maplewood, New Jersey

9. Amount Expended to Date $380,201

10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities None

11. Completion Status of Contract or Program In Progress

12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period December 31, 2016


13. If FEMA funded, brief description of the status of the project worksheet

and its support.

Not applicable

14. Quarterly Activities/Project Description (include number of visits to meet

with recipient and sub recipient, including who you met with, and any

site visits warranted to where work was completed)

1/7/16 attended Construction kickoff meeting with members of various NJ Transit

departments and Alna Construction at the NJ Transit Maplewood, NJ GOB.

1/26/16 attended Construction Progress Meeting #1 with members of various NJ Transit


3/24/16 attended Construction Progress Meeting #5 with members of various NJ Transit


Preparation and submission of monthly Form E and provide status updates.



Page 1 of 3

State of New Jersey









15. Brief Description to confirm appropriate data/information has been

provided by recipient and what activities have been taken to review in

relation to the project/contract/program.

CR periodically requests information required as part of our monitoring

procedures. Information requested is applicable to the fraud risk areas

under our review. As the NTP for the contractor was not obtained until

2/3/16, insufficent information was available as of 3/31/16 to begin

substantial work in each of our monitoring areas. Some preliminary work

with regards to Procurement has been done as noted in Item #16 below.

16. Description of quarterly auditing activities that have been conducted to

ensure procurement compliance with terms and conditions of the

contracts and agreements.

To monitor whether Alna's construction contract was procured in

compliance with applicable requirements, CR requested and reviewed

the following procurement documentation:

- Alna prequalification questionnaire

- Alna contract and Notice to Proceed

- Alna list of proposed DBE subcontractors

- Contractor policies and procedures related to materials/supplies;

QA/QC; Safety; Environmental Compliance; and site access/security

- Insurance/bonding

- Project Bid set

- Bids submitted by prime contractors

17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been

reviewed? Please describe

CR had recently received and was in the process of reviewing the

contractor's first requisition as of 3/31/16.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud and

abuse.

CR has attended the construction kickoff meeting as well as two

construction progress meetings during the quarter. Initial review of

Procurement documentation received as noted in Item #16.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings None

20. Provide details of any work quality or safety/environmental/historical

preservation issue(s).

None

21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred in the past

quarter

None

22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste, fraud and abuse

noted in past quarters

Not applicable

C. Miscellaneous

Page 2 of 3

State of New Jersey









23. Attach a list of hours and expenses incurred to perform your quarterly

integrity monitoring review

For the period January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016, the following

individuals have expended a total of 22.5 hours:

Name

Gerard Frech

Carolyn Newcomb

Anna Fomina

Hugh Donaghue

Ibrahim Onaral

No billable expenses were incurred.

24 Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous sections but

deemed pertinent to monitoring program. None

Name of Integrity Monitor: CohnReznick, LLP

Name of Report Preparer: Paul Raffensperger

Signature:

Date: July 1, 2016

Page 3 of 3

State of New Jersey



Firm Name: Grant Thornton LLPEngagement: PVSC Integrity Oversight Monitor EQ2015-001-PS



A. General Info

1. Recipient of funding Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (PVSC)

2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) FEMA

3. State Funding (if applicable) N/A

4. Award Type FEMA 406 Restoration and 406 Mitigation Funding

5. Award Amount $446.1 million

6. Contract/Program Person/Title E. David Barth, Grant Thornton Project Manager

7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission has received federal FEMA funding in the amount $446.1

million through 48 different Project Worksheets (PW). The scope of Grant Thornton's work is

limited to 12 specific contracts whose value exceeds $5 million. As of March 31, 2016 only three

contracts exceeded the integrity monitoring threshold: 1) Temporary By-Pass Cabling - Travis

Contract; 2) Administration Controls Building - Fine Wall Contract; and 3) Program Management

Services - AECOM/HDR Contract

8. Contract/Program Location PVSC, 600 Wilson Avenue, Newark, NJ

9. Amount Expended to Date As of March 31, 2016 the following payments (associated with the three contracts) have been

made: 1) Travis - $15,198,758; 2) Fine Wall - $1,014,496; and 3) AECOM/HDR - $2,576,780.

10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities $0

11. Completion Status of Contract or Program The Completion Status for each of the three contracts, currently subject to our review, is as

follows: 1) Travis - Temporary By-Pass Cabling. The work authorized under this contract has been

completed. A replacment contract was awarded on March 22, 2016. 2) Fine Wall - Administration

Controls Building - This construction project was advertised on March 4, 2015 and awarded on

June 4, 2015. PVSC issued the Notice to Proceed on September 14, 2015. As of March 31, 2016

approximately 25.8% of the contract work had been completed. 3) AECOM/HDR - Program

Management Services. The AECOM/HDR contract was awarded on February 13, 2015. The initial

contract period is for two years. PVSC issued the Notice to Proceed on April 2, 2015. As of March

31, 2016 approximately 46% of the contract work had been completed.

12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period The contract end dates for the three contract currently subject to our review are as follows: 1)

Travis - March 22, 2016; 2) Fine Wall - September 13, 2016; and 3) AECOM/HDR - February 13,

2017




Page 1 of 4

State of New Jersey








13. If FEMA funded, brief description of the status of the project

worksheet and its support.

Grant Thornton is currently monitoring three projects. Funding is provided through two Project

Worksheets (PW):

PW 4701 (Substations and Cables) supports the Travis Inc. (Temporary By-Pass Cabling) and

AECOM/HDR (Program Management Services) contracts . The authorized/eligible amount for PW

4701 is $406.9 million.

PW 4803 (Administration Controls Building) supports the Fine Wall (Administration Controls

Building) contract. PW 4803's authorized amount is $10.6 million.

In addition to the specific work of these contracts, the PWs also fund other work not currently part

of our review either because the contract values are less than the $5 million threshold or the

proposed projects have not been initiated.

14. Quarterly Activities/Project Description (include number of

visits to meet with recipient and sub recipient, including who

you met with, and any site visits warranted to where work

was completed)

Grant Thornton's activities during this quarter included attendance at the Bi-Weekly FEMA

Coordination Meetings and Monthly Construction Progress Meetings for the Administration

Controls Building. During the quarter Grant Thornton communicated on a monthly basis the status

of its' monitoring activities to the Treasury Integrity Monitor Liaison. During the quarter Grant

Thornton met with PVSC on the following dates: January 6, 2016 - PVSC Administration and

Engineering; January 13, 2015 - PVSC Finance and Administration Staff; January 19, 2016 -

Construction Progress Meeting; January 27, 2016 - PVSC Engineering; February 4, 2016 - PVSC

Engineering and AECOM-HDR; February 16, 2016 - Construction Progress Meeting; February 24,

2016 - PVSC Purchasing Agent; March 22, 2016 - Construction Progress Meeting; and March 23,

2016 - PVSC Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Chief Financial Officer and Purchasing Agent. In

addition Grant Thornton met with Treasury Integrity Monitor Liaison and NJOEM - Recovery

Bureau staff.

15. Brief Description to confirm appropriate data/information

has been provided by recipient and what activities have been

taken to review in relation to the project/contract/program.

PVSC has provided Grant Thornton copies of Travis, Fine Wall and AECOM/HDR invoices and

supporting documentation With this information Grant Thornton was able to confirm PVSC's

compliance with FEMA and/or State administrative grant requirements and processes; and identify

any issues that represented potential loss of Federal reimbursements.

16. Description of quarterly auditing activities that have been

conducted to ensure procurement compliance with terms

and conditions of the contracts and agreements.

During the Quarter Grant Thornton continued its in depth review of the Travis invoices paid

between November 2015 and February 2016. Grant Thornton identified two areas of incomplete

documentation: Subcontractor's invoices supporting Travis' billings and missing Certified Payroll

on a few invoices. PVSC obtained the subcontractors' invoices and certified payrolls.

Page 2 of 4

State of New Jersey








17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the

contract/program been reviewed? Please describe

During the Quarter Grant Thornton reviewed 1) 17 invoices submitted by Travis and paid by PVSC

for the Temporary By-Pass Cabling; 2) 3 invoices submitted by Fine Wall and paid by PVSC for the

Administration Controls Building; and 3) 8 invoices submitted by AECOM/HDR for Program

Management Services. In aggregate, as of March 31, 2016, Grant Thornton has reviewed 106 of

133 Travis invoices, 3 of 3 Fine Wall invoices and 10 of 11 AECOM/HDR invoices. The total value of

the 133 Travis invoices represents $15.2 million. The total value of the 3 Fine Wall invoices is $1.0

million. The total value of the 11 AECOM/HDR invoices represents $2.6 million.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste,

fraud and abuse.

During the Quarter Grant Thornton has worked with PVSC Engineering staff to collect supporting

documentation that was not included in the electronic copies of the invoices under review. PVSC

has been providing Grant Thronton the requested documentation.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings None noted

20. Provide details of any work quality or

safety/environmental/historical preservation issue(s).

During this quarterly period Grant Thornton's construction oversight was limited to the

Administration Controls Building Construction. Based on our site visits we did not observe any

work quality, health and safety, environmental or historical preservation issues.

21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred

in the past quarter

PVSC has provided Grant Thornton access to its procurement, financial and administrative files

necessary to perform our reviews.

22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste,

fraud and abuse noted in past quarters

PVSC developed new bidding and contracting language to address ambiguous language used in a

previous bid process. PVSC asked Grant Thornton to review draft RFQ/RFP documents to confirm

that the contracting meets FEMA requirements; and Grant Thornton has provided several

examples of FEMA approved contracting mechanisms.

C. Miscellaneous

23. Attach a list of hours and expenses incurred to perform your

quarterly integrity monitoring review

See Attached Time and Expense Report. During the quarter Grant Thornton provided a total of

249.5 hours for a cost of $38,484.44

24 Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous

sections but deemed pertinent to monitoring program.

Based on our review of PVSC’s financial and administrative processes, we concluded that PVSC’s

processes are appropriate for complying with FEMA grant management requirements and NJOEM

standards. PVSC’s financial and administrative processes provide the framework for ensuring that

the functions adhere to grant program guidelines, procurement rules and reporting requirements.

Proper controls appear to be in place to minimize the risk of deobligation of federal funds;

duplication of benefits; process and payment errors; and waste, fraud and abuse.

PVSC’s financial and administrative processes provide the framework for ensuring that the functions adhere to grant program guidelines, procurement rules and reporting requirements. Proper controls appear to be in place to minimize the risk of deobligation of federal funds; duplication of benefits; process and payment errors; and waste, fraud and abuse.

Name of Integrity Monitor: Grant Thornton LLPName of Report Preparer: Jack Reagan

Page 3 of 4

State of New Jersey








Signature:

Date: 1-Jul-16

Page 4 of 4

State of New JerseyDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Monitor ReportMiddlesex County Utility Authority ‐ Pumping Stations Contract # T‐2939; EQ2014‐004‐P2&P3For Quarter Ending: 3/31/2016

The reporting period for this report is January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016


A. General Info1. Recipient of funding Middlesex County Utility Authority (MCUA)

2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD,FEMA)

FEMA

3. State Funding (if applicable) Not Applicable

4. Award Type Grant5. Award Amount Cruz Contractors, LLC (Cruz) ‐ $9,593,000

Allied Construction Group, Inc. (Allied) ‐ $8,038,156Total ‐ $17,631,156Sayreville and Edison Pumping Stations Mitigation Contracts ‐ TBD (2016)

6. Contract/Program Person/Title Standby Contract for Forced Mains and Gravity Sewers ‐ CruzRehabilitation and Upgrade of the Sayreville Pumping Station ‐ AlliedFuture mitigation work on Sayreville and Edison Pumping Stations ‐ Contracts anticipated to be awarded in May 2016Program Person: Richard Fitamant, Executive Director

Under Section A‐60, this report must be submitted by Integrity Monitors on the first business day of each calendar quarter to the State Treasurer and will contain detailed information on the projects/contracts/programs funded by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.

During the ongoing incident period of Post Super Storm Sandy, beginning on October 26, 2012, the Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) suffered substantial damage to its Sayreville Pump Station which utilizes six (6)‐50 MGD (Million Gallons Daily) pumps and four (4)‐40 MGD pumps to pump anywhere from 70 MGD of dry weather sanitary flow to 300 MGD of wet weather sanitary flow from 30 municipalities in Middlesex and Somerset counties to the central treatment plant. The storm surge inundated and damaged its onsite electrical substation and controls. Also, due to salt water intrusion the pumps, pump fittings, and pump motors were compromised and rendered inoperable. These damages prompted the sub‐grantee to immediately secure emergency contracts to prevent further damage to the existing infrastructure and prevent raw sewage from being discharged into the waterways.

Prior to Super Storm Sandy, Cruz was issued a standby contract for forced mains and gravity sewers which included provisions for dewatering and by‐pass pumping. This standby contractor was utilized after Super Storm Sandy to perform emergency clean‐up and restoration activities for both the original Sayreville Pumping Station and the Sayreville Relief Pumping Station resulting from storm damage.

In June 2011, Allied was contracted to perform the rehabilitation and upgrade of the Sayreville Pumping Station. This contract has a provision for unforeseen circumstances which allows payment for any items that are above and beyond the original contract. In this case, the dewatering of the facility, emergency site preparation, and temporary repairs to electrical systems were not in the original contract but were addressed as change orders following the storm.

On March 27, 2013, the Integrity Oversight Monitor Act (“the Act”) was enacted for the purpose of authorizing the deployment of Integrity Oversight Monitors for recovery and rebuilding contracts resulting from Super Storm Sandy and subsequent major storms in New Jersey. The Act authorizes the State Treasurer to require integrity oversight monitor services on any State or non‐State, federally funded, recovery and rebuilding contract of $5 million or more.

KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) was engaged by the Department of Treasury (“DOT”) on June 20, 2014 to serve as the Integrity Oversight Monitor (“IM”) for MCUA Sayreville Pumping Station given that both Cruz and Allied's contracts which exceeded the $5 million threshold required by the Act.

Currently, MCUA is in the process of advertising the upcoming permanent mitigation projects on Sayreville Pumping Station and Edison Pumping Station. Details on the anticipated timeline of this work are provided in Question #14 below.

Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program

7.

Page 1 of 5

KPMG - Middlesex County Utility Authority





8. Contract/Program Location Middlesex County Utility Authority2571 Main Street Sayreville, NJ 08872

9. Amount Expended to Date Cruz Contractors, LLC ‐ Task 1 (Bypass Systems to CTP): $7,498,901.27 Task 2 (HSR Temporary Wet Weather Overflow Facilities): $1,670,176.15

Allied Construction Group, Inc. ‐ $8,281,546.39Total ‐ $17,450,624

10. Amount Provided to other State orLocal Entities

Not Applicable

11. Completion Status of Contract orProgram

Emergency Work for Sayreville Pumping Station‐ 100% Complete.Sayreville and Edison Pumping Stations Hazard Mitigation Projects ‐ Design and Approval Stage Completed. Contract award in July 2016

12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period

Cruz Contractors, LLC ‐ 4/30/15Allied Construction Group, Inc. ‐ 4/30/15Sayreville and Edison Pumping Stations Mitigation Work ‐ 2018

B. Monitoring Activities13. If FEMA funded, brief description of

the status of the project worksheet and its support.

Funding for the approved Hazard Mitigation Proposals (HMP) was obligated under the respective FEMA PWs for Sayreville and Edison Pump Station.

• For Sayreville Pump Station PW 5061, the HMP represents $61,659,218.32 of the project worksheet’s total value of $73,877,840.25.• For Edison Pump Station PW 5075, the HMP represents $11,799,830.00 of the project worksheet’s total value of $15,760,971.59. Pursuant to the approved project worksheet, this HMP includes the construction of a floodwall surrounding the Edison Pump Station, the construction of an isolation vault with a bypass pumping system, and the construction of a riser ring to elevate the Northwest Access Shaft & Tunnel top slab above the design 500‐year flood elevation.

Page 2 of 5






KPMG issued a detailed document request list on July 10, 2014 which outlined all documentation to be provided to KPMG as part of the review. Throughout this review, KPMG prepared an inventory and assessment of documentation provided by MCUA, R3M, contractors and their subcontractors. In addition, KPMG drafted a detailed project work plan that clearly outlined the areas of our review and included detailed test steps to complete our analysis.

This quarter KPMG reviewed Front End documentation regarding the permanent restoration and mitigation work on the Sayreville Pump Station and the Edison Pump Station.

16. Description of quarterly auditing activities that have been conductedto ensure procurement compliance with terms and conditions of the contracts and agreements.

In the previous quarters, KPMG performed a detailed assessment of the procurement process in order to monitor and assess if contracts with Allied and Cruz were procured in accordance with program requirements.

This quarter, KPMG reviewed and made recommendations to MCUA and R3M Engineering on the Front End documentation regarding future permanent restoration and mitigation work on the Sayreville Pump Station and the Edison Pump Station. As part of this review, KPMG reviewed the contract language surrounding procurement. Please see Question 22 below for recommendations made to MCUA and R3M.

14. 1) On January 4, 2016, KPMG had a meeting with Hatch Mott MacDonald HMM) to discuss Project Worksheet (PW) funding allocation for the upcoming hazard mitigation work.

2) On March 7, 2016, KPMG reviewed a letter from R3M Engineering to MCUA detailing their final analysis of the $2.50 mileage rate invoiced by Xylem identified by KPMG. R3M attached in this letter a detailed analysis of rental rates, Blue Book Rates, Means Construction Cost Estimating data, and photographs of vehicles used at the site. R3M concluded that the service truck used for maintenance of pumps was a specialty truck equipped to be able to service the large bypass pumps at the site rather than a passenger car as initially assumed. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service standard mileage rate of $0.50 per mile is not applicable. Similarly, based on R3M’s detailed analysis, it was determined that the average cost per service vehicle per day of $251 is fair and reasonable and appears to be lower than construction industry standards for overall costs for daily rental of similar vehicles.

3) On March 17, 2016, KPMG had a conversation with R3M Engineering to discuss the status of the upcoming hazard mitigation work, specifically regarding the timeline for bid advertisement and future key project milestone dates. R3M indicated the following anticipated timeline for Sayreville Pump Station (SPS):

• Advertisement of Project: Late March 2016• Project Award: May 2016 Commissioner Meeting• Notice to Proceed: July 2016• Preconstruction Activities: Late July 2016 (two months of anticipated site preparation)• Construction Start: September 2016

R3M stated the Edison Pump Station (EPS) will follow a similar schedule as above, with a contract also to be awarded at the May 2016 Commissioner Meeting. R3M indicated they would like to schedule a monthly meeting with KPMG to discuss and share observations throughout the ongoing monitoring of SPS and EPS mitigation work.

Quarterly Activities/Project Description (include number of visits to meet with recipient and sub recipient, including who you met with, and any site visits warranted to where work was completed)

Yes. Payment requisitions were reviewed during the previous quarters. Specifically, KPMG performed a high‐level review of all payment applications for both Cruz and Allied. As part of this high‐level review, KPMG assessed whether all payment applications were reviewed and approved by the appropriate personnel, the work performed was within the project scope and billings were compliance with the contract terms and program requirements. In addition, KPMG performed an in depth review of a sample of payment applications.

KPMG did not review any new payment requisitions this quarter.

Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been reviewed? Please describe

17.

Page 3 of 5





18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud andabuse.

This quarter, KPMG reviewed and made recommendations on Front End documentation regarding future permanent restoration and mitigation work on the Sayreville Pump Station and the Edison Pump Station. Please see Question 22 below for recommendations made to MCUA and R3M.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings No noted issues this quarter.

20. Provide details of any work quality orsafety/environmental/historical preservation issue(s).

No noted issues this quarter.

21. Provide details on any other items ofnote that have occurred in the past quarter

No other items to note this quarter.

1) KPMG made the following recommendations to remediate potential waste, fraud, and abuse in the upcoming Hazard Mitigation Work.

Supporting DocumentationKPMG makes the suggestion to strengthen “supporting documentation” section of Article 7. Specific topics included: • Detailed Sign In/ Sign Out Logs for entire contract staff to be maintained by Contractor and submitted with every Payment Requisition. KPMG to provide some criteria to MCUA for these logs. These logswill be part of the monthly review process to verify staff on site with time sheets and certified payroll.• Equipment Logs (including Make/Model/Count) to be maintained by Contractor. These logs will prove helpful in cases where there are claims for delay and equipment on site needs to be substantiated.• Add language to include photos for Stored Material that Contractor is requesting payment for in a given Payment Requisition

Overhead and Profit Contract LanguageLanguage should be made more robust specifically surrounding overhead and profit markup for second tier subcontractors. This will address MCUA’s concern that subcontractors are not applying a markup for overhead and profit in addition to any that may have already been included by their second tier subcontractors.

Scheduling and ReportingKPMG recommends Contractor provide an electronic version of the schedule (Primavera P6 file) with every Monthly Report. This will also allow the potential to run schedule analytics on the contractor’s schedule in the future if desired by MCUA.Per R3M, KPMG should receive Division 1 documentation in early January 2016 for feedback. Upon receipt of the documentation, KPMG will review and arrange another meeting with MCUA and R3M to discuss any observations.

In addition, KPMG provided MCUA with the following: • Sample contract language for contractor’s fees for second tier subcontractors;• Sample contract language for bonds and insurances, specifically regarding documentation to substantiate premiums for change orders;• List of fields to include in Daily Sign In/Sign Out Logs;• Clarification on industry standard for document retention; and• Fraud Hotline documentation (provided by Department of Treasury).

Provide details of any actions taken toremediate waste, fraud and abuse noted in past quarters

22.

Page 4 of 5





C. Miscellaneous

23. Attach a list of hours and expenses incurred to perform your quarterly integrity monitoring review

Attached. See January ‐ March 2016 Time & Expense Summary Tab.


None.

Name of Integrity Monitor: KPMG

Name of Report Preparer: Kevin Max

Signature:

Date: 7/1/2016

Page 5 of 5

Resource Hours Incurred (January ‐ March)

Ryan Coco 2.50John Christensen 5.00Grand Total 7.50

Time Summary

Jan-Mar Time&Expense Summary

of 12

State of New JerseyDepartment of TreasuryIntegrity Oversight Monitoring Reporting Model

Firm Name: Navigant Consulting Inc.Engagement: EQ2014-002-P3-DCA Sandy Contracts


No.Recipient Data Elements

Response Comments

1. Recipient of Funding The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Sandy Recovery Division ("SRD"), is the direct recipient of funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), Community Development Block Grant, Disaster Recovery Program ("CDBG-DR") to address the massive property damage inflicted by Superstorm Sandy. DCA retained several contractors, who fall under the purview of the New Jersey Integrity Oversight Monitor Act ("A-60"), to assist it in managing various programs designed to distribute CDBG-DR funds to eligible New Jersey residents and businesses. These Contractors include the Gilbane Building Company ("Gilbane"), CB&I Shaw ("CB&I"), and the URS Group, which were retained to manage the Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, Elevation and Mitigation Program ("RREM"); Gilbane, which was retained to manage the Landlord Rental Repair Program ("LRRP"); CGI Federal ("CGI"), which was retained to create and manage the Sandy Integrated Recovery Operations and Management System ("SIROMS"), an information technology solution to assist DCA in managing its SRD programs; Hammerman & Gainer ("HGI"), which was retained to manage the housing application process for the SRD's various housing programs; ICF, Inc., which was retained to provide subject matter expertise and staffing augmentation services to DCA; and Cohn Reznick, which was retained to serve as DCA's internal integrity monitor.

2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) HUD

3. State Funding (if applicable) None4. Award Type HUD CDBG-DR Award

5. Award Amount Gilbane (RREM): $70,424,703; Gilbane (LRRP): $10,779,408CB&I/Shaw: $87,354,921CGI: $78,180,131ICF: $69,761,055

Reports required under A-60 will be submitted by Integrity Monitors on the first business day of each calendar quarter to the State Treasurer and will contain detailed information on the projects/contracts/programs funded by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.

A. General Info

of 12





Response Comments


6. Contract/Program Person/Title RREM and LRRP: David Mazzuca, Assistant Director, Housing Recovery Programs, DCA; Terrie Quintero, Senior Contracting Manager, DCASIROMS and Sandy Grant Manager Module ("SGM"): Joyce Paul, SIROMS Manager. ICF: Elizabeth Mackay, Assistant Director, Procurement & LegalCohn Reznick: Robert Bartolone, Director, Office of Auditing, DCA

7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program

RREM provides CDBG-DR awards of up to $150,000 to eligible homeowners to restore homes damaged by Superstorm Sandy.LRRP provides CDBG-DR awards of up to $50,000 per unit to owners of rental properties with between 1 and 25 units that require rehabilitation as a result of Superstorm Sandy.SIROMS, developed and administered by CGI, manages all of DCA’s Superstorm Sandy funding requests from State agencies, local governments and school districts, as well as all HUD reporting obligations. SGM, a grant tracking system, was developed by CGI. It has replaced the eGrant system developed by HGI.ICF provides strategic advice, program implementation, subject matter expertise and staff augmentation services to DCA.Superstorm Sandy Housing Incentive Program ("SSHIP") covered the completion and processing of housing program applications, and the determination of eligibility and disbursement of funds under the Resettlement Incentive Program, and the RREM and LRRP Programs. HGI was the original contractor selected to manage SSHIP, but prior to the beginning of Navigant's monitorship, DCA and HGI, by mutual agreement, terminated HGI's role as the SSHIP contractor. In May 2015, DCA and HGI entered into a mutually agreed settlement to resolve HGI’s performance issues and the amounts billed by HGI and unpaid by DCA. DCA assumed responsibility over HGI's duties at the Superstorm Sandy Housing Recovery Centers, and CGI assumed responsibility for migrating applicant data from HGI's eGrants system to CGI's SGM system. CGI has completed the migration of data from eGrants to SGM, and is managing the data for the RREM and LRRP programs going forward.

8. Contract/Program Location Trenton, New Jersey

of 12





Response Comments


9. Amount Expended to Date Amounts are based on current invoice totals as of March 31, 2016: Gilbane (RREM): $48,401,151; Gilbane (LRRP): $8,244,684CB&I/Shaw: $51,453,264CGI Federal: $47,761,509ICF: $50,012,329

10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities

N/A

11. Completion Status of Contract or Program Completion Status based on contract values and invoiced amounts as of March 31, 2016:RREM (Gilbane/CB&I Shaw): approximately 65%LRRP (Gilbane): approximately 77%SIROMS/SGM (CGI): approximately 61%*ICF: approximately 72%

* In January 2014 HGI was terminated by mutual agreement as a contractor for the RREM program. CGI assumed the remaining responsibility for the IT duties . As a result the total award and amount expended for HGI is no longer considered for purposes of calculating the completion status (see Report Section 11) of the RREM program, and this percentage of completion therefore refers to CGI only.

12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period RREM (Gilbane & CB&I Shaw): May 22, 2017 LRRP (Gilbane): June 30, 2017 CGI: May 24, 2017ICF: May 24, 2017


N/AB. Monitoring Activities

of 12





Response Comments



Navigant's integrity oversight monitoring activity for the First Quarter 2016 focused principally on four areas: (1) reviewing the invoices of the RREM Contractor Gilbane (“the Contractor”), and their hazmat subcontractors; (2) conducting site visits of homes in the RREM program; and (3) continuing our comprehensive technical electronic analysis of LRRP application data to identify potentially problematic files for further review. During this quarter, we conducted 7 meetings or teleconferences with DCA, Housing Center staff and RREM applicants. We also conducted site visits in Atlantic City, Ocean City, Ventnor City, Brigantine, Township of Rumson and Little Silver, NJ encompassing 218 properties.

A. Invoice Review:

Throughout the Quarter, we continued our review of the Contractor's hazmat subcontractor invoices and related supporting documentation, and continued: (1) Follow up discussions with the Contractor to obtain clarification and supporting documentation to address the potential subcontractor invoice discrepancies that were reported in the prior Quarter’s report;(2) Updating our invoice database based on additional support documentation provided by the Contractor;(3) Updating our invoice database to record the additional detailed subcontractor invoices that were missing from the invoice packages initially submitted by the Contractor to DCA; and(4) Our review of subcontractor invoices, hazmat reports and related supporting documentation to identify and track additional potential discrepancies in the subcontractor invoiced amounts.

Navigant reported in the prior Quarter’s report that we are performing an analysis of invoices submitted by two of Gilbane's hazmat subcontractorswhich revealed potential findings that we will continue to follow up with Gilbane during the next quarter to obtain the necessary additional supportingdocumentation and quantify the invoice discrepancies that may result in a credit to the State. Navigant provides the following updates with regards tothe following potential findings that were reported in the prior Quarter’s report:

Potential Findings for Gilbane Subcontractor #1:According to our review, this hazmat subcontractor submitted invoices totaling approximately $1.98 million. These invoices were also included with Gilbane’s invoice submissions to DCA.

of 12





Response Comments


Finding A:In our prior Quarter’s report, we reported that our review of this subcontractor’s invoices revealed missing supporting documentation, which identifiedthe specific homes inspected, among other pertinent details. During the quarter, Gilbane obtained and produced to Navigant a complete and legibleset of the missing detail invoice pages, which were reviewed and updated in our invoice database. Navigant has received all of the requestedsupporting documentation for this finding.

Finding B:In our prior Quarter’s report, our review of the detailed invoice support provided for this subcontractor determined that this subcontractor included aline item charging $150 per home for the preparation of an abatement cost estimate for homes that contained asbestos or lead risks. Navigant notedthat this was not an approved line item in the subcontractor’s agreement with Gilbane dated August 26, 2013.

During the quarter, Gilbane provided a copy of an email with the subcontractor dated July 12, 2013 that included an attachment entitled “ModificationNo. 1” which included the $150 per hazmat abatement cost estimate line item. Navigant inquired of Gilbane why this line item noted in this July 12,2013 document was not reflected in the August 26, 2013 executed subcontractor agreement. Gilbane explained that they mistakenly failed to includethe previously agreed upon rates with the subcontractor in the formal agreement because they were focused on getting its subcontractors underwaywith work as soon as possible to meet the needs to the RREM and LRRP programs.

Based on the additional subcontractor detail invoices provided, Navigant determined that this subcontractor invoiced $174,600 for this hazmatabatement cost estimate. As Navigant reported in the prior Quarter’s report, the $150 per home line item is a charge that is unique to thissubcontractor as it (1) is not included in any of the Gilbane or CBI/Shaw subcontract agreements, and (2) it is not a line item billed by the other Gilbaneor CBI/Shaw hazmat subcontractors. Although these other subcontractors typically provided cost estimates in their hazmat reports for homes theyinspected that tested positive for asbestos or lead risks, they do not include a separate line item charge to provide this estimate. During the nextquarter, Navigant will continue discussions to follow up with Gilbane to assess the appropriateness of this charge.

of 12





Response Comments


Finding C:In our prior Quarter’s report, Navigant also identified potential discrepancies in the invoiced unit prices for various types of testing on asbestos and lead samples obtained during the field inspection. These discrepancies ranged from $1 to $6 per sample greater than what was authorized in the subcontractor agreement.

During the quarter, Gilbane provided July 2013 emails exchanged with the subcontractor in which the subcontractor proposed unit rates that were higher than what was reflected in the formal subcontractor agreement. Gilbane agreed to these rates in their emails, however, these higher unit rates were not reflected in the August 26, 2013 executed subcontractor agreement. As noted in Finding B above, Gilbane explained that they mistakenly failed to include the previously agreed upon rates with the subcontractor in the formal agreement because they were focused on getting its subcontractors underway with work as soon as possible to meet the needs to the RREM and LRRP programs. During the next quarter, Navigant will continue its review of the subcontractor invoices and the hazmat reports to reconcile the invoiced quantities and hazmat sample types.

Finding D:In our prior Quarter’s report, we further determined that the subcontractor billed $500 more per inspector than the authorized $1,700 daily shift rate for inspections that occurred during the weekend, a $2,200 daily shift rate. During the quarter, Gilbane provided Navigant with the Modification No.1 document, referenced in Finding B above, that permitted the higher daily shift rate charge for inspections conducted on Saturdays and Sundays. Navigant’s review of the subcontractor invoices noted that the $2,200 shift rate was invoiced for 84 weekend shifts, for a total of $184,800, resulting in a weekend increase of $42,000. During the next quarter, Navigant’s continuing review of these invoices will include steps to reconcile higher shift rate charges. Additionally, Navigant will follow up with Gilbane for additional clarification and supporting documentation for any potential discrepancies identified in Navigant's review.

of 12





Response Comments


Potential Findings for Gilbane Subcontractor #2:According to our review, this hazmat subcontractor submitted invoices totaling approximately $1.1 million. These invoices were also included with Gilbane’s invoice submissions to DCA.

Finding A:In our prior Quarter’s report, we reported that our review of this subcontractor’s invoices identified potential discrepancies involving several billings where the subcontractor charged for two (2) shift rates instead of one (1), resulting in a potential double charge per shift of approximately $1,700 each. This potential over charge is reflected in invoices where the subcontractor billed two (2) inspectors for the same home. During the quarter, Navigant provided examples of such billings to Gilbane and conducted follow up discussions with Gilbane to obtain clarification and supporting documentation. Navigant also provided examples of instances in which the same home was inspected for lead and asbestos hazards on different days.

Gilbane explained that some homes required repeat visits due to homeowner delays such as no-shows at scheduled appointments, homeowner cancellation of scheduled appointments, and access to all areas of the property was not granted or possible. Gilbane also explained that for safety and liability reasons, its standard operating procedure was that two (2) inspection representatives would participate in site visits. Gilbane further advised that inspection team would typically include a Gilbane inspector for the accompanied by an inspector employed by the subcontractor for the initial visit. If a second site visit was required, two inspectors employed by the subcontractor would conduct the inspection.

During the next quarter, Navigant will provide Gilbane with additional instances where two shift rates were invoiced so that Gilbane can provide appropriate supporting documentation to justify such billings.

Finding B:In our prior Quarter’s report, we reported that our analysis of select hazmat reports determined that in some cases the supporting hazmat laboratory test results that accompanied the hazmat report could not be reconciled to the subcontractor’s invoiced quantities and specific hazmat tests. Specifically, in some instances the invoiced quantities were higher than the number of samples actually tested when compared to the hazmat laboratory test results, which appeared to be attributed to some samples that the lab did not analyze and denoted as “Stop Positive – Not Analyzed.”

of 12





Response Comments


During the quarter, Navigant provided Gilbane with a representative sample of lab reports that did not reconcile to the subcontractor’s billings. With respect to samples where the hazmat samples were not tested by the lab and denoted as “Stop Positive,” Gilbane explained that the hazmat labs can follow a variety of testing protocols within industry standards which may include additional sample analysis, and in other instances the labs may have charged sample preparation fees.

Navigant's review also determined that some hazmat lab reports did not contain the complete lab test results. Gilbane was able to locate and produce the missing lab test results in their files for certain identified homes.

During the next quarter, Navigant will continue to review and reconcile the subcontractor invoiced quantities and hazmat sample types to the lab reports and followed up with Gilbane to obtain clarification and supporting documentation to reconcile and resolve any additional potential billing discrepancies.

Finding C:In our prior Quarter’s report, we reported that our review of this subcontractor’s invoice also noted instances in which higher unit rates were charged for the various hazmat sample tests than what was authorized in the subcontractor agreement with Gilbane. During the quarter, Navigant followed up with Gilbane and confirmed that there were no modifications to the subcontract agreements. Gilbane explained that some of the higher unit rates invoiced by the subcontractor may be attributed to expediting the turnaround time of the initial site visit, the lab analysis of the hazmat samples and the preparation of the hazmat report, and that the higher unit rates are well below industry standard for expedited sample analysis rendered.

Gilbane also stated that due to the evolving nature of the RREM and LRRP programs and pace of the work at the inception, Gilbane would issue verbal authorizations to its subcontractors and then later follow up with documentation (i.e. email, contract amendment) to memorialize Gilbane’s approval. For this subcontractor, Gilbane stated that although it verbally approved the unit rates invoiced by the subcontractor, Gilbane did not incorporated these unit rates into the subcontractor agreement.

During the next quarter, Navigant will continue its analysis to identify invoiced unit rate discrepancies and follow up with Gilbane for appropriate supporting documentation.

B. Meetings and Inspections:

of 12





Response Comments


During the Quarter, we reviewed relevant documentation available on SIROMS, and conducted site visits in preparation for performing a detailed review of Gilbane and CB&I's draw request review and approval process.

Site visits were performed in Atlantic City, Ocean City, Ventnor City, Brigantine, Little Silver, and the Township of Rumson, encompassing 218 properties in the RREM program. In preparation for the site visits a list of the RREM homes within each town was extracted from SIROMS. The current “status” within SIROMS, as well as some key information, including the Grant Award, Grant Award Signing Date, Reimbursement Award, Pathway, Payments Received etc., were extracted from SIROMS in preparation for the site visits. Of the 218 properties, three were found to be either on hold or inactive in the RREM program.

During the site visits, field observations were made in order to assess both the accuracy of homeowner reported information as well as the process for reviewing and approving of draw requests by Gilbane and/or CB&I. As these site visits and inspections were conducted randomly and not performed in conjunction with RREM Contractor or other scheduled meetings, interior inspections were not performed.

A database of the individual RREM Applicant’s information is being maintained for the damaged properties that were visited. Including those site visits performed in previous quarters, a total of 409 site visits have been performed to date. This database is being maintained with payment data including amounts paid and timing of payments. This database will be utilized in review of Gilbane's and CB&I's process for approving draw/reimbursement requests which will be conducted in subsequent quarters.

A review and analysis of the SIROMS data was performed on the homes visited this quarter. A total of 3 homes have been deemed ineligible, withdrawn, or placed in compliance hold by the DCA, and therefore removed from further analysis by Navigant. For the remaining 215 homes, it was determined that 201 homes (with an average grant award of $132,704.28), and paid a total of $19,257,644.13, and 14 homes (with an average grant award of $148,611.90) had not received any payments to date.

In the next quarter Navigant will start our review of the draw request process and Gilbane and CB&I's procedures and processes for reviewing draw requests.

C. Technical Electronic Analyses:During the Quarter, Navigant continued our comprehensive review of SIROMS application data to identify potentially problematic applications for further review.

of 12





Response Comments


This Quarter, the Navigant IT team designed and executed a technical analysis to identify applications with the same, or substantially similar, damaged property addresses between RREM and LRRP applications. Navigant designed a phased approach in determining which application pairings would warrant further review. First, Navigant applied an established analytic technique that measured the distance between the LRRP damaged property addresses and the RREM damaged property addresses to programmatically score the similarity between the address values. Based on those results, Navigant then systematically narrowed the full population of RREM and LRRP address comparisons to a subset that was deemed similar enough to warrant a refined comparison between the applications’ damaged property addresses. Finally, Navigant completed an in-depth manual review of the refined results in order to assign a risk ranking to the narrowed set of application pairings which may require additional review, based on the damaged property address values and application funding statuses.

This analysis will continue into the next Quarter.


Navigant obtained (1) from DCA, invoice-related documentation (2) from DCA, supplemental applicant related data (3) from the Contractors, regular schedules of their planned RREM applicant meetings and inspections, and some, but not all, of the invoice-related documentation requested; and (4) from CGI, data extracts containing the historical LRRP application structured data available at the time of the data migration, the current LRRP application structured data available when the extract was prepared, and the current audit trail of changes made to the LRRP application data available when the extract was prepared. This data and information was utilized in the analyses described in paragraph 14 above.


As described in paragraph 14 above, during this Quarter, Navigant reviewed the invoices of the RREM and LRRP Contractor and their subcontractors for potential billing irregularities, conducted site visits of homes under construction or repair, and continued our comprehensive technical electronic analyses of LRRP application data to identify potentially problematic files for further review.

of 12





Response Comments


17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been reviewed? Please describe

As described in paragraph 14 above, during this Quarter, Navigant continued reviewing the RREM and LRRP Contractor invoices and their subcontractor invoices, and updated our invoice database to compile relevant invoice details for further analysis. This database enables us to verify the mathematical accuracy of invoiced amounts, validate the invoiced unit rates, identify any second-tier subcontractors, track the amount of the subcontractors’ billings to date, track total amounts billed by subcontractors to the terms of their subcontractor agreements or purchase orders, and conduct additional invoice analytics based on the RREM and LRRP application numbers and other key information and underlying source documents. Our review during the Quarter continued to identify potential billing issues that require additional documentation to resolve.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse.

As described in paragraph 14 above, all of Navigant’s work this Quarter was designed to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse. Our review of the invoices of the RREM and LRRP Contractors and their subcontractors sought to identify any potential irregularities with billings submitted by the Contractors and their subcontractors; our performance of site visits to analyze and reconcile the progress of repairs with payments made to both homeowners or homebuilders; and our technical electronic analyses of the universe of LRRP applications sought to identify potentially problematic applications for further review using data extracts from SIROMS.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings

As explained in paragraphs 14 and 18 above, our review of the invoices of the RREM and LRRP Contractor and their subcontractors identified potential billing issues. The subcontractor billing issues continue to be reviewed and a comprehensive set of findings is expected to be completed during the next Quarter pursuant to our review and analysis of additional data and documents to be provided by the contractors; our technical analysis of LRRP applications, similar to our previously completed RREM technical analyses, using data extracts from SIROMS to identify and analyze potential applicant eligibility issues. This analysis will continue through the next Quarter.

20. Provide details of any work quality or safety/environmental/historical preservation issue(s).

N/A

of 12





Response Comments


21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred in the past quarter

N/A

22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste, fraud and abuse noted in past quarters

N/A


For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2016: Total hours incurred: 557.85 hours Total fees incurred: $153,111.25 Total expenses incurred: $10.91


N/A

Name of Integrity Monitor: Navigant Consulting Inc.Name of Report Preparer: Daniel F. Gill

Signature:Date: July 1, 2016

C. Miscellaneous

State of New JerseyDepartment of the TreasuryIntegrity Oversight Monitoring Reporting Model

Firm Name: Thacher Associates LLCEngagement: NJ Transit ‐ Gladstone Line Poles & Foundations Replacement Project



1. Recipient of funding New Jersey Transit Corporation2. Federal Funding Agency? (e.g. HUD, FEMA) Federal Transit Administration3. State Funding (if applicable) N/A4. Award Type Emergency Relief Program5. Award Amount $13,308,080.00 Represents the contract value of the single contract in Thacher Associates

current scope of work.6. Contract/Program Person/Title James Schworn, Chief Procurement Officer7. Brief Description, Purpose and Rationale of Project/Program This project consists of installing new concrete foundations and steel

poles on the Gladstone Branch of New Jersey Transit's Morris & Essex Line.

8. Contract/Program Location Gladstone Branch (New Providence to Gladstone Rail Yard)9. Amount Expended to Date $11,245,404.38 through March 31, 2016; approved by New Jersey Transit

and paid to Case Foundation Company (CFC).10. Amount Provided to other State or Local Entities None11. Completion Status of Contract or Program In Progress12. Expected Contract End Date/Time Period January 2017 (Est.)B. Monitoring Activities


N/A


Due to construction work ceasing during the winter months, Thacher did not perform site visits during this quarter and primarily performed procedures based on the documentation received in conjunction with document requests to New Jersey Transit.

15. Brief Description to confirm appropriate data/information has been provided by recipient and what activities have been taken to review inrelation to the project/contract/program.

Thacher received electronic copies of payment requisitions and certified payroll reports from NJT. Thacher also met with Crescent Consulting (its DBE subconsultant) to coordinate compliance reviews and other tasks to be performed by Crescent in connection with the project. In addition, Thacher also performed QA/QC procedures in connection with Buy America provisions to determine whether CFC was in compliance with contractual requirements. Thacher requested information from NJT and expects to finalize its review of Buy America compliance in the second quarter of 2016.


Page 1 of 3






16. Description of quarterly auditing activities that have been conducted toensure procurement compliance with terms and conditions of the contracts and agreements.

Thacher is currently reviewing payment requisitions and certified payroll reports to assess CFC's and L&R's compliance with contractual and legal requirements in the areas of procurement, prevailing wage rules, and payment to contractor and subcontractor. Crescent Consulting is reviewing documentation provided by L&R Construction via NJT as part of the DBE Compliance portion of Thacher's workplan. These reviews are ongoing and Thacher and Crescent are requesting additional documentation, requesting attendance at upcoming construction progress meetings, and requesting to perform one or more site visit(s) during the second quarter of 2016.

17. Have payment requisitions in connection with the contract/program been reviewed? Please describe

Thacher deferred additional document requests for review of payment requisitions for periods subsequent to December 2015 as on‐site work was suspended during the first quarter of 2016. Construction work is anticpated to resume in April 2016 at which point Thacher will resume its review of payment requisitions.

18. Description of quarterly activity to prevent and detect waste, fraud andabuse.

Thacher is reviewing various regulatory filings and supporting documentation pertinent to certified payroll reports submitted by L&R, prevailing wage requirements, and DBE utilization reports. Thacher has not identified any indicators of fraud, waste, or abuse for the quarter ending March 31, 2016.

19. Provide details of any integrity issues/findings None.20. Provide details of any work quality or safety/environmental/historical

preservation issue(s).None.

21. Provide details on any other items of note that have occurred in the past quarter

None.

22. Provide details of any actions taken to remediate waste, fraud and abusenoted in past quarters

None.

C. Miscellaneous


For the period January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016, Thacher expended 106.25 hours (see Comments for breakdown) and no expenses. This includes site and office visits, document reviews, and preliminary follow‐up discussions with NJT. Additionally, Thacher filed prior quarterly reports with the Department of the Treasury for the quarters ended December 31, 2015, September 30, 2015, and June 30, 2015.

Angela Della Universita, Senior Consultant ‐ 14.25Bradley J. Breslin, Program Manager ‐ 2.25Chris Ward, Senior Consultant ‐ 3.25Jose L. Velazquez, Project Manager ‐ 41.00Kenneth J. Casado, Program Manager ‐ 0.25Richard Vermeulen, Program Manager ‐ 1.25Hector Calderon, Principal (DBE) ‐ 40.00Angel Sepulveda, Senior Consultant (DBE) ‐ 4.00

24. Add any item, issue or comment not covered in previous sections butdeemed pertinent to monitoring program. None.

Page 2 of 3






Name of Integrity Monitor: Thacher Associates LLCName of Report Preparer: Bradley J. Breslin, Director of OperationsSignature:Date: July 1, 2016

Page 3 of 3

jer nifti tatenf - new jersey legislature · 2016. 7. 18. · 2016 is now being projected by shc to...

Documents