los angeles unified school district - laschools.org amounts included within the adjusted budget...

Los Angeles Unified School District

Statements of Project Costs from Inception Through June 30,2005and

Proposition BB, Measure K, and Measure R School Bond

Construction Programs

Agreed-Upon Procedures Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2005

(With Independent Auditors' Report Thereon)

!a~(1)

3 "V(1) ..,:::s 0...• "o 0-III"'0;:;:.., -.o 0

_. :::s

~ m...•m(')oIIIlii

-

KPMG LLPSuite 2000355 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568

Independent Auditors' Report

The Board of Education

Los Angeles Unified School District:

We have audited the actual costs incurred included in the accompanying statement of project costs of theProposition BB School Bond Construction Program of the Los Angeles Unified School District(the District) for the period from April 1, 1997 (inception) through June 30, 2005. Such statement ofproject costs is the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon the actual costs incurred included in the accompanying statement of project costs based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance aboutwhether the actual costs incurred included in the statement of project costs is free of material misstatement.An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing auditprocedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion onthe effectiveness of the District's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no suchopinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts anddisclosures in the statement of project costs, assessing the accounting principles used and significantestimates made by management, as well as evaluating overall financial statement presentation. We believethat our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the statement of project costs referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, theactual costs incuned of the Proposition BB School Bond Construction Program for the period from April I ,1997 (inception) through June 30, 2005, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

December 22, 2005

KPMG LLP. a u.s. limited liability partnership, is the U.Smember firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTPROPOSITION BB SCHOOL BOND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Statement of Project CostsPeriod from April I, 1997 (inception)- through June 30, 2005

Actual costs incurred

April 1, 1997Project costs,Total

(inception)year endedproject costs,

AdjustedthroughJune 30,throughUnspent

budgetJune 30, 2004200SJune 30, 200Sbudget

(Unaudited)(Unaudited)- New facilities:

New construction:Construction$276,457,844 190,555,3786,674,622197,230,00079,227,844

Tests2,561,7071,770,104791,6032,561,707

Inspection3,559,9492,888,270671,6793,559,949

Sites419,494,206393,302,24226,191,964419,494,206

Plans72,486,64867,065,6675,420,98172,486,648

Nonreimbursable cost852,784899,753(46,969)852,784

Project related salaries - new facilities1,986,8171,827,850-1,827,850158,967- Total new construction777 ,399,955658,309,26439,703,880698,013,14479,386,811

Class size reduction - new facilities share:Portables

973,597240,176240,176733,421Portables - growth

17,600,51511,948,42211,948,4225,652,093New schools/centers

28,938,6528,321,1115,831,23314,152,34414,786,308

Total class size reduction - newfacilities share

47,512,7648,321,11118,019,83126,340,94221,171,822

Total new facilities

824,912,719666,630,37557,723,71 I724,354,086100,558,633

Existing facilities:Repairs/school contracts/health and safety:Air conditioning

238,860,984208,805,83 I30,055,153238,860,984Bleachers

14,784,12811,813,927821,94812,635,8752,148,253Safety and technology

309,573,438170,193,530112,723,573282,917,10326,656,335Lockers

5,671,1204,689,885388,6415,078,526592,594Lunch shelters

16,934,07414,393,4091,401,27015,794,6791,139,395Security grills

26,753,10122,785,497693,73123,479,2283,273,873Venti lation replacement

10,954,85710,824,54160,69810,885,23969,618Auditorium renovations

7,480,6595,288,743978,2566,266,9991,213,660Lighting

5,808,6635,499,298-5,499,298309,365Asphalt paving

133,467,232115,221,9237,504,670122,726,59310,740,639Electrical

18,862,8368,853,703480,6119,334,3149,528,522Exterior paint

15,980,17515,743,75921,77715,765,536214,639Interior paint

31,080,44829,945,07752,34629,997,4231,083,025Wall systems

13,894,49312,986,434297,53613,283,970610,523Floor covering

33,857,98827,849,3752,860,02430,709,3993,148,589Locks

785,712785,712 785,712Plumbing

69,512,93859,001,1114,168,51663,169,6276,343,311Roofing

6,178,0506,169,976-6,169,976 8,074Gutters, etc.

28,184,70224,265,7591,090,94025,356,6992,828,003

Total repairs contracts/healthand safety

988,625,598755,117,490163,599,690918,717,18069,908,418

2 (Continued)


Statement of Project CostsPeriod from April I, 1997 (inception)through June 30, 2005


April I, 1997Project costs,Total

(inception)year endedproject costs,

AdjustedthroughJune 30,throughUnspent

budgetJune 30, 20042005June 30, 200Sbudget

(Unaudited)(Unaudited)

Modernization:Nonreimbursable costs

$66,209 66,209 66,209Construction

50,447,95734,084,5336,158,12440,242,65710,205,300Tests

534,707534,707-534,707

Inspections1,888,7231,887,9218021,888,723

Plans3,473,4593,424,65648,8033,473,459

Total modernization

~411,05539,998,0266,207,72946,205,75510,205,300

Class size reduction costs:Portables

22,698,11120,075,623(147,564)19,928,0592,770,052Portables - growth

53,966,50847,637,738(10,480,689)37,157,04916,809,459Renovation

1,500,000540,367-540,367959,633Opening of closed schools

7,440,1297,331,4372177,33 J ,654108,475

Total class size reduction costs

85,604,74875,585,165(10,628,036)64,957,12920,647,619

Other costs:School-determined needs

8,348,0866,211,188692,0796,903,2671,444,819Board area match program

14,098,2587,794,900979,0228,773,9225,324,336Program/project managers' fees

300,059,401255,483,63524,407,688279,891,32320,168,078Hazard mitigation

6,996,6966,996,696(5,000,000)1,996,6965,000,000Cost of issuance

1,237,0671,037,98193,8641,131,845105,222Reprographic and other costs

4,280,0003,096,135152,1503,248,2851,031,715Bonds bundling effort

6,191,0512,358,338961,5223,319,8602,871,191Project-related salaries

14,201,2933,757,8499,993,01613,750,865450,428OIG contractors audit

5,524,000391,593769,0341,160,6274,363,373Asbestos/lead consultants

5,002,0774,947,134-4,947,134 54,943Prepay 1996 COPs

15,344,82915,344,829-15,344,829 -Cost of insurance

38,021,90631,560,7216,044,75737,605,478416,428PERS savings recapture - BB other

32,97032,97032,970-PERS recapture

2,884,6582,649,568232,5472,882,1152,543

Total other costs

422,222,292341,630,56739,358,649380,989,21641,233,076

Total existing Facilities

1,552,863,6931,212,33 I,248198,538,0321,410,869,280141,994,413- Others:

Project Funded with interestllocal income136,446,866125,713,18110,733,685136,446,866

Contingency9,536,824---9,536,824

Un allocated year-end accrued expenditures

-25,000,000(25,000,000)-Total others

145,983,690150,713,181( 14,266,315)136,446,8669,536,824

Total Proposition BB project costs

$2,523,760,102 2,029,674,804241,995,4282,271,670,232252,089,870

-See accompanying notes to statement of project costs.

3

-

--


Notes to Statement of Project Costs

Period from April 1, 1997 (inception)through June 30, 2004

(1) Proposition BB School Bond Construction Program Background

Proposition BB Initiative (Proposition BB) authorized the Los Angeles Unified School District to issue$2.4 billion in general obligation bonds. Bond proceeds are to be utilized for projects such as the repair ofsafety hazards, asbestos removal, installation of air-conditioning, making classrooms accessible to thedisabled, upgrading security, and the construction of new classrooms. Proposition BB specifically statesthat no bond proceeds are to be used for administrator salaries.

The Proposition BB School Bond Construction Program (Program) is intended to provide needed healthand safety improvements to more than 800 deteriorating schools and 15,000 buildings and to match statefunds for new construction and modernization projects. The Los Angeles Unified School District Board ofEducation has established a Citizen's Oversight Committee to ensure that the proceeds of theProposition BB School Bond Construction Program issues are used for the purposes stated in the resolutionwhich placed the Proposition BB on the 1997 ballot.

All projects are managed by LAUSD approved Program Managers. The Board of Education must approveall project contracts. Each Program Manager is responsible for managing all program-related activities,including the maintenance of master construction schedules and the master program budgets.

(2) Basis of Presentation

The accompanying statement of project costs has been prepared in conformity with U.S. generallyaccepted accounting principles. The accompanying Statement of Project Costs reflects the flow ofeconomic resources management and is presented on the full-accrual basis of accounting.

(a) Adjusted Budget (Unaudited)

The amounts included within the adjusted budget (unaudited) column in the accompanying statementof project costs represent costs that are expected to be expended to complete the various projects.

(b) Actual Costs

The amounts included within the actual costs incurred columns in the accompanying statement ofproject costs represent actual expenditures paid and accrued by the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict for the period from April 1, 1997 (inception) through June 30, 2005.

(c) Unspent Balance (Unaudited)

The amounts included within the unspent balances (unaudited) column in the accompanyingStatement of Project Costs represent the difference between the adjusted budget (unaudited) columnand the total project costs through June 30, 2005 column.

4 (Continued)

-LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PROPOSITION BB SCHOOL BOND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM


Period from April 1, 1997 (inception)through June 30, 2004

(3) Budget Balances from Inception toFiscal Year Ended June 30, 2005 (Unaudited)

The following is a summary of the budgeted revenues and expenditures for the Proposition BB SchoolBond Construction Program from April 1, 1997 (inception) through June 30, 2005:

Bonds issued

Interest - actual from 1997 (inception) to 2004Interest - actual fiscal year 2005Local income

Total bonds issued plus interest and other income as ofJune 30, 2005

Less prepaid OCIP Insurance

Total budget as of June 30, 2005

Less expenditures/project costs from inception to June 30, 2005

Available budget balance as of June 30, 2005

5

$ 2,400,000,000125,620,124

10,733,68593,057--

2,536,446,866

(12,686,764)

2,523,760,102

(2,271,670,232)

$ 252,089,870

!!!\l)CD3CD::I :s:•..•• CDo \l)-0"tJt::...•...•o CD

c;" '"!l00l!l.0

--

---

--

KPMG LLP

Suite 2000355 South Grand Avenue





We have audited the accompanying statement of project costs of the Measure K School Bond ConstructionProgram of the Los Angeles Unified School District (the District) for the period from November 1, 2002(inception) to June 30, 2005, as required by Proposition 39. Such statement of project costs is theresponsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on theaccompanying statement of project costs based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance aboutwhether the statement of project costs is free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration ofinternal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in thecircumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the District'sinternal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includesexamining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the statement of projectcosts, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well asevaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the statement of project costs referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, theproject costs of the Measure K School Bond Construction Program for the period from November 1, 2002(inception) to June 30, 2005, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

December 22, 2005

KPMG LLP, a u.s. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTMEASURE K SCHOOL BOND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Statement of Project CostsPeriod from November 1,2002 (inception) to June 30, 2005


Total projectTotal project

costs,Project costs,costs,

through yearyear endedthrough year

Adjustedended June 30,June 30,ended June 30,Unspent

Cost categorybudget2004200S200SBalance


New construction: Phase one:New construction$1,162,626,071 318,302,358458,757,599777,059,957385,566,114

Additions89,480,71022,771,38221,353,14244,124,52445,356,186

Playground expansion20,964,8048,958,8443,758,33712,717,1818,247,623

Support costs8,316,2881,191,4272,773,6593,965,0864,351,202

Labor costs14,277,0224,494,8716,219,80910,714,6803,562,342

Total phase one

1,295,664,895355,718,882492,862,546848,581,428447,083,467

Phase two: New construction134,959,9696,303,42034,123,19740,426,61794,533,352

Land acquisition, three new facilities8,864,3958,864,3958,864,395

Additions16,234,70719,0362,348,3312,367,36713,867,340

Playground expansion4,800-4,8004,800

Support costs38,155,5559,316,2885,234,39414,550,68223,604,873

Labor costs21,037,9564,641,1596,997,54011,638,6999,399,257

Office of Inspector General Audit7,500,000787,7581,540,3162,328,0745,171,926

Total phase two

226,757,38221,067,66159,112,97380,180,634146,576,748

Total new construction

1,522,422,277376,786,543551,975,519928,762,062593,660,215

Modernization:Lead and asbestos removal

12,000,0011,307,5603,918,1345,225,6946,774,307Repairs

285,352,9372,320,89932,135,07534,455,974250,896,963Repai r support costs

87,333,62736,054,498(20,387,717)15,666,78171,666,846

Total modernization

384,686,56539,682,95715,665,49255,348,449329,338,116

Early childhood education:Renovation/repair

9,793,305224,2161,917,6732,141,8897,651,416Expansion

14,399,9996,309,1343,026,2719,335,4055,064,594Education center

25,581,736-299,066299,06625,282,670Support costs

300,000175,209109,020284,22915,771- Labor costs 387,645101,547286,098387,645

Total early childhood education

50,462,6856,810,1065,638,12812,448,23438,014,451

Information Technology Department (11'0):Indirect support - no:Support costs

1,885,20061,165-61,1651,824,035Labor costs

1,891,9821,281,782(120,998)1,160,784731,198Nonlabor

1,718,878524,715611,2461,135,961582,917Technical support

10,000,001402,5261,706,6002,109,1267,890,875Tech and communication infrastructure: Supplies

54,530,4527,158,57440,413,81547,572,3896,958,063Upgrading and stocking library

29,077,9651,207,2206,785,2237,992,44321,085,522

Total Information and TechnologyDepartment

99,104,47810,635,98249,395,88660,031,86839,072,610Charter schools: Expansion

36,567,1667,5181,416,1881,423,70635,143,460

Total early childhood education

36,567,1667,5181,416,1881,423,70635,143,460

Joint use: Project costs5,741,178- 5,741,178

Employee fringe benefits

1,015,651374,821640,830I,Ot5,651Project costs funded with interest

63,464,83363,464,83363,464,833Unallocated costs as of June 30, 2004

-27,211,668(27,211,668)

Total Measure K Project Costs

$ 2,163,464,833461,509,595660,985,2081,122,494,8031,040,970,030

See accompanying notes to the statement of project costs.2

-



Period from November 1,2002 (inception) to June 30, 2005

(1) Measure K School Bond Construction Program Background

The Measure K School Bond Construction Program (Program) is intended to provide funding forcontinued improvements to schools and to provide an additional 112,000 new seats for children and tobuild new neighborhood schools. Additionally, the Program has set funds aside for improving theneighboring communities by enhancing recreational activities and providing after-school space byconstructing new schools near parks and libraries.

The Board of Education has established a School Construction Bond Citizens' Oversight Committee toensure that the proceeds of the Measure K School Bond issues are used for the purposes stated in theresolution which placed Measure K on the 2002 ballot. The Measure K School Bond initiative authorizedthe issuance of $3.35 billion in bonds, after which $2.1 billion was issued in March 2003. The proceedsfrom the Measure K School Bonds are to be used for projects such as repairing leaky roofs, connectingclassrooms to intranets and the internet, equipping libraries at new schools with the initial stock of newbooks, and construction of new schools and early education centers. All projects to be funded under theMeasure K School Bond Construction Program must be included in the Board of Education approvedStrategic Execution Plans, which detail the scope of work to be done for each project. The District hasestablished a Bond Charging Policy to outline the allowable expenditures for the Measure K School BondConstruction Program related costs. Such policies specifically state that no funds will be spent for teacheror administrator salaries or for operating expenses.

All projects are managed by approved District Program Managers. Program Managers are responsible formanaging all program-related activities, including the maintenance of the District's master schedule andthe master program budget.


The accompanying statement of project costs has been prepared in conformity with U.S. generallyaccepted accounting principles. The accompanying Statement of project costs reflects the flow ofeconomic resources management and is presented on the full accrual basis of accounting.

(a) Budget (Unaudited)

Of the $3.35 billion in bonds, the amounts included within the adjusted budget (unaudited) column inthe accompanying statement of project costs represent the current budget authority requested fromthe Board for costs that are expected to be expended to complete the various projects.

(b) Actual Costs Incurred

The amounts included within the actual costs incurred column in the accompanying statement ofproject costs represent actual expenditures paid and accrued by the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict for the period from November 1, 2002 (inception of the program) to June 30, 2005.

(c) Unallocated Costs

Un allocated costs included in the accompanying statement of project costs represent year-endaccrued expenditures incuned for fiscal year 2003-2004 but not yet allocated to a specific costcategory as of June 30, 2004. There were no unallocated costs as of June 30, 2005.

3 (Continued)



Period from November 1, 2002 (inception) to June 30, 2005

(d) Unspent Balances (Unaudited)

The amounts included within the unspent balances (unaudited) column in the accompanyingstatement of project costs represent the difference between the adjusted budget (unaudited) columnand the total project costs through June 30, 2005 column.

(3) State Funding

The Facilities Services Division transferred $35.8 million in expenditures for seven projects to Measure Kfunds in order to leverage the local bond funds against state matching funds. These projects were going tobe funded by Escutia funds from the state but because of increasing construction costs, the Escutia fundswere insufficient to fund all projects originally planned under Escutia. The transfer resulted in anadditional $80 million of state matching funds for the New Construction Phase I program. All sevenprojects are identified in the Measure K Bond language and in the New Construction Strategic ExecutionPlan.


The following is a summary of the budgeted revenues and expenditures for the Measure K School BondConstruction Program from November 1,2002 (inception) through June 30, 2005:

Bonds issued (fiscal year 200212003)Interest (fiscal year 2002/2003)Interest (fiscal year 2003/2004)Interest (for fiscal year 200412005)

Total bonds issued and interest as of June 30, 2005



4

$ 2,100,000,0005,069,730

32,440,48325,954,620

2,163,464,833

(1,122,494,803)

$ 1,040,970,030

!aIII-ell3ell::l s:-ello III-III"tit::"'" "'"

o elllD:xJ2-ooIIIin

KPMG LLPSuite 2000355 South Grand Avenue





We have audited the actual costs incurred included in the accompanying statement of project costs of theMeasure R School Bond Construction Program of the Los Angeles Unified School District (the District)for the period from September 1, 2004 (inception) to June 30, 2005, as required by Proposition 39. Suchstatement of project costs is the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on the actual costs incurred included in the accompanying statement of project costsbased on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance aboutwhether the actual costs incurred included in the statement of project costs is free of material misstatement.An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing auditprocedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion onthe effectiveness of the District's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no suchopinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts anddisclosures in the statement of project costs, assessing the accounting principles used and significantestimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Webelieve that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the statement of project costs referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, theactual costs incurred of the Measure R School Bond Construction Program for the period fromSeptember 1, 2004 (inception) to June 30, 2005, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accountingprinciples.

December 22, 2005

KPMG LLP, a u.s. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTMEASURE R SCHOOL BOND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Statement of Project CostsPeriod from September 1,2004 (inception) to June 30, 2005


Total projectProject costs,

costs, throughyear ended

Adjustedyear endedJune 30,Unspent

Cost categorybudgetJune 30, 20052005balance


New construction: New schools most impacted campuses$15,100,000 4,256,7934,256,79310,843,207- Full day kindergarten 25,000,0004,773,4974,773,49720,226,503

Fumitures equipment fix21,721,7282,571,2002,571,20019,150,528

Support costs - new facilities - district salaries6,686,4585,4465,4466,681,012

Total new construction

68,508,18611,606,93611,606,93656,901,250

Existing: Upgrade school buildings20,075,3811,764,8711,764,87118,310,510

Upgrade school buildings - district salaries174,61982,54582,54592,074

Upgrade redesign campuses11,097,86611,097,866

AIC heating106,570,46513,790,71313,790,71392,779,752

Asbestos hazardous removal45,000,0001,517,6391,517,63943,482,361

Repair upgrade21,779,0901,0801,08021,778,010

Previous plan projects130,369,62940,770,97940,770,97989,598,650

New major repairs27,395,044297,069297,06927,097,975

Basic repairs80,000,00017,239,50017,239,50062,760,500

S & T upgrade312,720,67980,400,22380,400,223232,320,456

Support costs - existing facilities34,750,000-34,750,000

Support costs - existing facilities - district salaries1,022,802369,271369,271653,531

Measure R - Prop BB program support cost105,628,22853,964,17353,964,17351,664,055

M R-BB program support cost - district salaries2,269,646703,451703,4511,566,195

Board member priority16,200,000- 16,200,000

M & 0 modernization400,000400,000

AlC auditorium and gym8,000,0008,000,000

Access camp portable classrooms5,228,0005,228,000

Total existing

928,681,449210,901,514210,901,514717,779,935

Others: Adult Education and others - New8,500,00028,75728,7578,471,243

Adult Education - Other200,000200,000

Early Education8,000,0002,003,4142,003,4145,996,586

Early Education - New400,00068,90768,907331,093

Refunding of 1FT-CSF-02B COPS60,471,23360,471,23360,471,233

Refunding of 1FT-CSF-OOBCOPS89,523,47989,523,47989,523,479

Measure R election costs2,719,5352,719,5352,719,535

Cost of issuance - Measure R1,431,3041,431,3041,431,304

Pers-Savings Recap - MR247,400247,400247,400

Pers-Savings Recap - MR others12,12612,12612,126

Total others

171,505,077156,506,155156,506,15514,998,922

Total Measure R project costs

$1,168,694,712 379,014,605379,014,605789,680,107

See accompanying notes to statement of project costs.

2

-

-



Period from September 1,2004 (inception) to June 30, 2005

(1) Measure R School Bond Construction Program Background

The Measure R or "the Safe and Healthy Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act of 2004" is intended toprovide funding for continued improvement to schools and to provide an additional 163,233 new seats forchildren and to build approximately 50 new neighborhood schools.

The Board of Education has established a School Construction Bond Citizens' Oversight Committee toensure that the proceeds of the Measure R School Bond issues are used for the purposes stated in theresolution which placed Measure R on the 2004 ballot. The Measure R School Bond initiative authorizedthe issuance of $3.87 billion in bonds. The proceeds from the Measure R School Bonds are to be used forprojects such as: continue repair/upgrade of aging classrooms, restrooms; build neighborhood schools,early education centers; improve security systems, fire/earthquake safety; purchase library books; upgradecomputer technology; eliminate asbestos and lead paint hazards; create small learning communities; andconstruct/upgrade science laboratories and other buildings. All projects to be funded under the Measure RSchool Bond Construction Program must be included in the Board of Education approved StrategicExecution Plans, which detail the scope of work to be done for each project. The District has established aBond Charging Policy to outline the allowable expenditures for the Measure R School Bond ConstructionProgram related costs. Such policies specifically state that no funds will be spent for administrator salaries.

All projects are managed by approved District Program Managers. Program Managers are responsible formanaging all program-related activities, including the maintenance of the District's master schedule andthe master program budget.


The accompanying statement of project costs has been prepared in conformity with U.S. generallyaccepted accounting principles. The accompanying statement of project costs reflects the flow of economicresources management and is presented on the full accrual basis of accounting.

(a) Adjusted Budget (Unaudited)

Of the total $3.87 billion in bonds, the amounts included within the adjusted budget (unaudited)column in the accompanying statement of project costs represent the current budget authorityrequested from the Board for costs that are expected to be expended to complete the various projects.

(b) Actual Costs Incurred

The amounts included within the actual costs incurred column in the accompanying statement ofproject costs represent actual expenditures paid and accrued by the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict for the period from September 1,2004 (inception of the program) to June 30, 2005.

(c) Unspent Balance

The amounts included within the unspent balances (unaudited) column in the accompanyingstatement of project costs represent the difference between the adjusted budget (unaudited) columnand the total projects costs through June 30, 2005 column.

3 (Continued)



Period from September 1,2004 (inception) to June 30, 2005

(3) State Funding

The Facilities Services Division transferred $13,746,972 in expenditures for 20 projects to Measure Rfunds in order to leverage the local bond funds against state matching funds. All 20 projects are identifiedin the Measure R Bond language and in the Existing Facilities Strategic Execution Plan.


The following is a summary of the budgeted revenues and expenditures for the Measure R School BondConstruction Program from September 1, 2004 (inception) through June 30, 2005:

Bonds issuedInterest

Total bonds issued and interest as of June 30, 2005

Unissued bonds

Total budget as of June 30, 2005



$ 204,182,83717,510

204,200,347

964,494,365

1,168,694,712

379,014,605

$ 789,680,107

Total project costs from inception to June 30, 2005 include $149,994,712 of funds used to refund1FT-CSF-02B and IFT -CSF-OOB certificates of participation.

4

"Q

g :to(1)CQa. ...•c (1)•••• (1)(1) a.III •:DC(1)"0"0 0o ::J~

-

KPMG LLP

Suite 2000355 South Grand Avenue


Independent Accountants' Report onApplying Agreed-upon Procedures



We have performed the procedures enumerated below for the Proposition BB, Measure K, and Measure RSchool Bond Construction Programs (Bond Programs) administered by the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict (the District or LAUSD). The tasks we undertook were agreed to by the District's officials andwere performed solely to assist the District and its management in fulfilling its oversight responsibilitysurrounding the administration of the Bond Programs funding for the year ended June 30, 2005. Thisagreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established bythe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely theresponsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regardingthe sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has beenrequested or for any other purpose.

Our areas of inquiry and the corresponding findings are as follows. The samples selected below were forProposition BB, Measure K and Measure R expenditures, unless otherwise noted.

1.1. Procedure

Based on the transactions tested below in procedures 1.2 to 1.16, review compliance with theexpenditure provisions/restrictions in the bond initiatives.

Results

We obtained and inspected the provisions/restrictions imposed by Proposition BB, Measure K andMeasure R. From detail listings of District expenditures incurred during the year ended June 30,2005 under Proposition BB, Measure K and Measure R, we selected the 50 samples listed inAttachment I to determine compliance with the expenditures provisions/restrictions in the Bondinitiatives.

See results section in procedures 1.2 to 1.16.

1.2. Procedure

For the 50 transactions selected in Procedure 1.1, inspect the transactions selected for testwork toensure that no Bond funds were spent on "administrator salaries" as noted in Proposition BB in the1997 Ballot Pamphlet, as well as in the State Proposition 39 and as codified in the State Constitution,Article 13A, Section l(b)(3)(A) for Measure K and Measure R.

KPMG LLP, a u.s. limited liability partnership, is the U.Smember firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

-

-

-

Results

We obtained and inspected Proposition BB in the 1997 Ballot Pamphlet, as well as in the StateProposition 39 and as codified in the State Constitution, Article 13A, Section l(b )(3)(A) forMeasure K and Measure R (provisions/restrictions).

Of the 50 transactions we tested (see Procedure 1.1 above), we noted that no "administrator salaries,"as that term is used in the Bond guidelines, have been charged against Proposition BB andMeasure K and Measure R moneys.

However, during the course of this procedure, we identified the following:

Observation

The Ballot language is broad with regards to the definition of "administrator salaries." We inspectedProposition BB Bond language and the LAUSD Inter-Office Correspondence memo (BB directive)dated October 17, 2002 titled "Cost Assignable to BB Bond Program" and the LAUSD Inter-OfficeCorrespondence memo dated March 19, 2003 titled "Punds Allocation and Bond ChargingProcedures for Measure K" (Measure K directive) as guidelines for "non-administration salaries" andother excludable expenditures related to Proposition BB and Measure K. Expenditure-chargingprocedures for Measure R follow the guidelines outlined in the Measure K directive.

Management's Response

Please see Management Response 1.7.1 to procedure 1.7.

1.3. Procedure

As noted in the State Proposition 39 and as codified in the State Constitution, Article 13A,Section 1(b)(3)(A), there is a requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used onlyfor the purposes specified in Article 13A, Section 1(b)(3), and not for any other purpose, includingteacher salaries and other school operation expenses. Based on the transactions tested below inprocedures 1.4 to 1.16, we inspected the transactions selected for testwork below to ensure that noBond funds were used for teacher salaries or other day-to-day school operating expenses.

Results

We obtained the 50 warrant packages identified in Procedure 1.1 and inspected the invoices todetermine whether or not teacher salaries or other day-to-day school operating expenses were paidfor through the use of Proposition BB or Measure K and Measure R funds. We noted that no fundswere used for such purposes.

1.4. Procedure

Select a sample of 20 Measure K and Measure R expenditures to ensure that projects are within workcategories presented to the voters in the applicable Bond initiatives.

2

--

ResultsFrom the 50 items noted in Procedure 1.1, we selected the following 20 expenditures:No.

ORGNProgramAmountTransaction IDWarrant No.

1

86080034$464,276 PV2244123789912

81320049480,326PV AV010550340125262583

88937928506,232PV AVI1094056512385383- 486647916656,339PV51008404126704945

46422401689,316PV AV062350793130897746

39180049782,193PV31056401N/A7

60217928784,100PV AV041150699128567958

84877916788,302PV AV050550686129466679

23812401895,719PV AV0428508231291850510

270124011,074,067PV AV0314507361275794111

270124011,076,164PV AV 1025403921232659812

857579161,126,496PV510084041267049413

802800491,126,515PVAV040750483N/A14

261924011,170,129PV AV0124505071258029015

869624011,275,024PV AV0419506401287889816

811624011,388,051PV AV0520505921297953017

860724011,959,176PV AV0907403051216989618

805824012,087,025PV AV0330502521284035319

811624012,155,677PV AV0606505841306391620

874824014,936,110PV5100690513138469

For the 20 samples noted above, we obtained the account classification, project account code,program and object codes, and compared to the defined work categories presented to the voters in theapplicable Bond initiatives.

No exceptions were noted.

1.5. Procedure

Select a sample of 25 project management firms' billings and inspected the billings for compliancewith contract terms.

Results

We requested and obtained a sample of 25 contracts (Attachment n and III) between LAUSD andconstruction management firms. Of these 25 contracts, 15 contracts were for new construction andthe remaining 10 contracts were for existing construction. The following table shows theconstruction management firms and the type of construction that they perform for LAUSD:

Construction management firm

3DIBovis Lend Lease Inc.

Heery International Inc.HNTB Corp./William J Yang & AssociatesJenkins Gales & Martinez, Inc.Swinerton Management & Consulting, Inc.

3

Type of construction

NewNewNewNewNewNew

--

-

--

Construction management firm

Vanir Construction Management Inc.Jacobs Facilities, Inc.K-RML, Inc.Parsons Infrastructure & TechnologyPinnacle One, Inc.Tishman Construction CorpTurner Construction CompanyCCG/HarrisJacobs Facilities Inc.DMJM+NOrgel Construction Management3DI

Parsons Infrastructure & TechnologyTurner Construction CompanyHNTB Corp./William J Yang & AssociatesWarner Technologies, IncParsons Brinkerhoff Construction

Pueblo Consulting Services

Type of constructionNewNewNewNewNewNewNewNew

ExistingExistingExistingExistingExistingExistingExistingExistingExistingExisting

We interviewed individuals in the New Construction and Existing Facilities and Facilities Contractsdepartments regarding the consistency of contracts between construction firms. The NewConstruction and Existing Facilities and Facilities Contracts departments outlined terms that werestandard in each contract. Based on our discussion, we confirmed that our sample contracts containedthe following: a rate schedule, terms of cancellation, contractor code of conduct, and insurancerequirements (see Attachment II). In our discussions, we found that the management contracts aredifferent between new and existing. For example, New Construction Contracts are fixed fee and for aspecific school, versus Existing Facilities Contracts where the selection is made from a list composedof contractors that responded to an open RFP.

For New Construction and Existing Facilities construction samples listed on Attachment III, weperformed the following procedures (See Attachment III for attributes tested and results obtained):

1. We obtained the payment to construction management warrants and selected two warrantsand/or invoices billed for each contract. We inspected the billings for compliance with contractterms, confirming the position types and the billing rates.

2. We also inspected billing and contract compliance by confirming the number of hours billedon the invoices, and approval by appropriate individuals as indicated in interviews withDistrict personnel.

Except for the following, no other exceptions were noted:

Observation 1.5.1

LAUSD contracts are different for New Construction versus Existing Facilities construction. Weobserved inconsistent standard contract terms as discussed in interviews with the District's Facilities

Contracts Department. In one of the 25 sampled Construction Management Firm Contracts, wefound that the rate schedule was different than the other contracts inspected.

4

-

--

-

Management's Response 1.5.1

The observation that the professional services (Construction Management) contracts for NewConstruction and Existing Facilities are different is correct. However, this is by intent as the scope ofservices for New Construction is different from that of Existing Facilities. While there aresimilarities between the two, the scope of the New Construction agreement is LAUSD-wide whilethe scope of the Existing Facilities agreement is more regional. Nevertheless, the established rateschedules for the contracts are identical.

The Terms and Conditions are generally standard. In some cases individual articles, such asindemnity and insurance, may vary as they have been negotiated with the contractor to accommodatetheir form of insurance, optimize the contract, and minimize the risk to LAUSD.

The observation that one of the contracts had a different billing rate is correct. The rate schedulefound in Contract 0490037 is different from that found in the Construction Management contracts.The contract is for Program Management, not Construction Management and the individual rateswere set accordingly as the skill set for Program Management is different from that required forConstruction Management.

Observation 1.5.2

In our review of the 25 new Construction Management Firms encumbrance's requests andsupporting invoices, we observed two exceptions where the hour's documentation (time sheets) didnot agree with the encumbrance request. See exceptions (A) and (B) in Attachment III.

We also observed four (4) invoices reflecting hours worked during a District holiday. Seeexceptions XCI) to X(4) in Attachment III.


Project work schedules do not necessarily conform to LAUSD holiday schedules. Invoices withpreapproved requests for work done during District holidays are paid at straight time.

Finally, these contracts state that only 40 hours per week will be paid, unless additional hours areapproved in advance with signed approval accompanying invoice. If invoice shows more than 40hours per week without signed approval, Facilities Contract Invoice Unit (FCIU) will only pay for 40

- hours.

1.6. Procedure

-Select a sample of 20 projects with expenditures that were incurred during fiscal 2005 to ensure theproject is included in applicable Strategic Execution Plan (SEP).

Results

1. We obtained and inspected the June 30, 2005, 2004, and 2003 SEP for New Construction andExisting Facilities.

2. We selected and inspected twenty (20) of the fifty (50) paid expenditures identified mProcedure 1.1. See Attachment VIII.

3. Based on discussion with the District's Facilities Services Division, the applicable SEP forNew Construction is based on a calendar year; whereas, the SEP for Existing facilities is basedon the fiscal year.

5

-

-

-

1.7.

4. We inspected the applicable SEP to the detail of expenses in order to verify that the projectscharged were included in the designated school.


Observation 1.6.1

We observed the following exception where we could not determine if the project was allocated tothe proper bond measure:

While Pinewood, Brainard, Mt. Gleason, and Sunland schools were included in the SEP, wenoted Warrant 12101192 covered "Safety and Technology" expenditures for Pinewood,Brainard, Mt. Gleason, and Sunland schools using Measure K funds. While Measure K hasapproved "Safety and Technology" allocations for Pinewood school, it does not have approved"Safety and Technology" project allocations for Brainard, Mt. Gleason, and Sunland. The SEPindicates that Brainard, Mt. Gleason, and Sunland schools have approved Safety andTechnology allocations under Proposition BB and Measure R which are the funding sourcesnoted for these projects in the SEP.


Do not concur. We found all projects and named schools properly supported by the 2005 SEP.Management systems and controls are in place that effectively assure that projects funded by GeneralObligation (GO) bond funds are authorized in the SEPs. Systems are in place that effectively trackprojects to the SEPs for both New Construction and Existing Facilities.

Procedure

Select a sample of 20 expenditures and test project cost controls and charging policies by performingthe following procedures:

1. 7.1 Procedure

Test costing and cost allocations/distributions to projects to determine compliance with theDistrict's Bond Charging Policy.

1. 7.2 Procedure

Inspected overhead/indirect charging practices to determine compliance with the District'sBond Charging Policy.

1. 7.3 Procedure

Inspected cost allocation methodologies to determine compliance with the District's BondCharging Policy.

Results

To test compliance with the District's Bond Charging Policy, we performed the following:

- 1. We obtained and inspected District's cost allocation polices and procedures for the BondPrograms.

2. We inquired as to recent changes and the frequency of updates, for all bond measures.

6

3. We selected a sample of 20 expenditures to test project cost controls and charging policies byperforming the following procedures (See Attachment IV for samples selected and attributestested):

-

- A. Tested costing and cost allocations/distributions to projects to determine compliancewith the District's Bond Charging Policy by performing the following procedures:

•

-

-

--

-

• For Measure K and Measure R, verified that the funds were used to pay forconstruction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition orlease of real property for school facilities.

• Verified that the following items were not charged to Measures K and R funds:

administrator salaries

teacher salaries

operating expenses

• Verified that movable furnishings and equipment, leasehold interests in realproperty and District administrative salaries were excluded expenses forProposition BB.

B. Inspected overhead/indirect charging practices to determine compliance with theDistrict's Bond Charging Policy

• Verified that the costs for common or joint objectives that could not be identifiedreadily and specifically to a Board approved project, but incurred for the jointbenefit of both projects and other activities limited to the bond program, werecharged to Measure K and Measure R appropriately.

• Verified that the indirect costs incurred at the district level, general andadministrative expenses were not charged to Measure K and Measure R.

Verified that the indirect labor costs incurred at the branch level were charged toMeasure K and Measure R as long as the work performed significantly influencedthe successful execution of the Bond projects. Also verified that all indirect laborcosts for routine maintenance and operations management were not chargeable toMeasure K and Measure R funds.

C. Inspected cost allocation methodologies to determine compliance with the District'sBond Charging Policy.


Observation 1. 7.1

The District does not have written policies or procedures specific to Measure R. Instead, it iscurrently following the guidelines established for Measure K under the memorandum datedMarch 19, 2003 titled "Funds Allocation and Bond Charging Procedures for Measure K." Thememorandum establishes general policies for indirect and overhead costs, and is not specific enoughto explain why similar costs may be given a different accounting treatment when it is incurred byNew Construction versus Existing Facilities.

7

•

-

--

-

-

--

--

1.8.

Management's Response 1. 7.1

Partially Concur. The Facilities Services Division (FSD) currently has adequate procedures for thedistribution and execution of bond funds issued pursuant to the passage of Measure BB and MeasureK. Measure K procedures are currently being used as the template for Measure R support. Bothprocedures were developed by FSD and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in cooperation with theGO bond counsel and KPMG Financial Advisors. They were reviewed and approved by the CFO,Chief Facilities Executive, and by both in-house and external legal counsels. Official guidance forincorporating Measure R funds is currently under review by various levels of management, includingthe office of the CFO and also Bond Counsel. A consolidated bond policy that addresses all GO bondmeasures (Measure BB, Measure K, Measure R, and Measure Y) will be released in the near future.It is under review at this time.

Measure K guidelines are being used as guidance for Measure R until the consolidated Bond GObond policy is finalized and issued.

Observation 1.7.2

In 4 of the samples inspected, we were not able to clearly identify if the District was responsiblepaying certain indirect expenses. Inspection of the warrant packages for warrants number 12856795,12220930, 12878898, and 12802570 revealed that the District was charged by the vendor for itemssuch as dumpsters, field office/trailers, fax, copier, and temporary toilets.

Unlike other contracts inspected by us, where the contract stated that LAUSD would provide officespace, office equipment and supplies, telephones, and computers necessary to accomplish the scopeof service assigned, the contracts with the entities paid with the above warrants did not clearly definewho was responsible for bearing the noted costs.

Management Response 1. 7.2

Do not concur. Expenditures observed by the KPMG auditors are covered under Section 11.5 - Costof the Work of the General Conditions of construction contract. As defined in this section, "Cost ofthe Work" shall include the sum of all direct and indirect costs necessarily incurred and paid for byContractor in the proper furnishing and/or performance of the Work.

Procedure

If the selected sample in Procedure 1.1 above includes any transactions related to materials chargedto the GOB program by contractors, test to determine that the "materials" billed were for work onrelated projects.

Results

From the sample noted in Procedure 1.1, we selected the twenty (20) warrants listed IIIAttachment V for testwork.

• We obtained and inspected LAUSD Construction Manual Section 14.15 for contractorpayment procedures as well as interviewed members of the FCIU.

• We confirmed that the sample expenditures fell within the scope for each school as stated inthe actual Proposition BB, Measure K, and Measure R documentation. In addition, we verifiedthat each invoice was coded to the appropriate fund to the encumbrance request form.

8

-• We verified the submittal of application for payment process by:

Verifying that the Contractor submitted "draft" Application for Payment to OwnerAuthorized Representative (OAR) for review.

Verifying that the OAR completed the Contract Payment Checklist, indicatingverification of certain items required for payment approval. These are the followingitems in the checklist:

A. Review the Application for Payment to ensure completeness

- B. Review with lOR and Architect the percent of work completed as indicated in the"Total Percent Complete" column of the Contractor's Application for Payment

--

--

C. The Description of Work and Schedule Values should be compared against theapproved Proj ect Schedule of Values

D. Review approved Change Orders Work is completed in and correlates to thepercentage completed listed in each line item(s)

E. Verified with the Inspector of Record (lOR) that all stored material being billed issecured on-site or in a bonded warehouse.

• We verified the Application of Payment Processing and validity and accuracy of expendituresby:

Verifying that the OAR prepares Encumbrance/Payment Request form and obtainsrequired signatures

Verifying that OAR assembles payment documents and forwards to Facilities ContractInvoice Unit

Verifying that the FCru reviews for completeness, sets up payment in the IntegratedFinancial System (IPS), and forwards to Accounts Payable

Verifying that Accounts Payable reviews for completeness, updates IPS, and forwardsdocuments to the County of Los Angeles

Verifying that the County issued the checks to the Contractor

Verifying that OAR forwards original Owner Assessment Summaries and documents toFacilities Contract Services, Construction Contracts Unit.

We noted no exceptions as a result of performing the procedures, except as follows:

Observation 1.8.1

We observed that warrant 12847226 related to a bridge loan made by LAUSD to The AcceleratedSchool (TAS), an independent charter school, using bond funds. Such expenditures are notspecifically addressed in the Bond language.

Management Response 1.8.1

The purpose of the bridge loan was in accordance with the purpose of the GO bond funds utilized forthe loan. The completed construction work on this project supported the amount of the payment forthe bridge Joan. There was clear documentation describing the terms and conditions of the bridge

9

-

loan. As part of the bridge loan agreement, the District has legal recourse to the improvementsfunded by the loan. FSD obtained a favorable opinion from the Office of the General Counsel andBond Counsel, for the use of GO bond funds for the bridge loan.

In light of the foregoing, FSD believes that the bridge loan was an appropriate use of GO bond funds.

Observation 1.8.2

We observed that TAS project expenditures were paid to the developers via an escrow account.


Appropriate management oversight in the execution of this project was provided. The project is nowcomplete and the school in operation.

1.9. Procedure

Review compliance with the District's Change Order procedures for GOB funded projects by testing20 change orders to determine if they were approved in accordance with the District's policy.

Results

To test compliance with the District's Change Order procedures, we performed the following:

1. Obtained and inspected the District's Change Order Polices and Procedures.

2. Inquired as to recent changes and the frequency of updates, for all bond measures.

-3. Selected 20 Change Order Packages to test compliance with Facilities Services Division

change Order Policies and Procedures (see Attachment VI for sample selected and attributestested).

4. Inspected compliance with the District's Change Order procedures for bond-funded projects todetermine if they were approved in accordance with the District's policy. Verified andinspected each change order had the following documentation and signatures as stated in theFacilities Services Division Change Order Policies and Procedures revised September 8, 2003.

a) Verified that Request for Proposal is used by the OAR directing the Contractorsubmission of a written estimate detailing the proposed changes. Determine if the OARsigned and authorized, transmitted the RFP to the Architect and inspector of Record.Verified the contractor responded to the RFP in 14 day or less.

b) Verified a Change Order Proposal was prepared and issued by the Contractor settingforth proposed adjustments.

c) Verified a Change Order Package had the OAR directing the preparation of ChangeOrder and submits the Change Order Package to Facilities Contract Services, ChangeOrder Processing Unit (COPU).

d) Verified the date of submission was within seven days from the date of the agreement.

e) Verified the Change Order had the following approval signature:

1. Architect

10

-

--

--

---

--

-

11. Structural Engineer (when required by law or regulation)

Ill. Contractor; OAR

IV. (For owner-initiated change to scope of work) Director of Facilities Projects,Existing Facility; the Deputy Chief Executive (SBP New Construction); or theDeputy Director of Maintenance & Operations.

f) Verified the Construction Directive was issued by the OAR on or after the effective dateof the contract directing the Contractor to proceed regarding an issue of dispute orrequiring the Contractor to take a specified action regarding the Work, Project, and/orContract.


Observation 1.9.1

We observed that the supporting documentation for the 20 Change Orders selected for testing wasnot complete based on the guidelines outlined in the Construction Manual section "Change Orders."See Attachment VI for exceptions identified.


The Change Order procedures include guidelines for when specific criteria are required or optionalduring the Change Order approval process.

Observation 1.9.2

All twenty (20) samples tested were not in compliance with District policy requiring the Contractorto sign a Change Order.


Partially concur.

Contractor's signature is preferred but not required for a Change Order to be executed or processed.The contractor's signature on the change order is redundant. The contractor, by signing theconstruction contract, warrants that he will perform all work. Contractor has right to file a claim orgo to arbitration whether he has signed the change order or not. Potential disputes/claims areidentified by the OAR and are identified and tracked. These reports are inspected by the ProjectControls staff to develop an Estimate at Completion (EAC) forecast that includes potential claimsactivity.

Observation 1.9.3

The Districts' Construction Manual requires Change Orders to be submitted within 7 days of therevised agreement. Of the twenty (20) samples tested, 14 were not submitted within seven days andfive did not have a date indicated. See Attachment VI.


The LAUSD Facilities Construction Manual provides a goal for the submission of Change Orders.To the extent possible, the District follows that goal.

11

-

Depending on the specific circumstances, Change Orders range from simple to complex. Forexample, design drawings for change order work can require approval of the Division of the StateArchitect. This is a time-consuming process, only partially controllable by the District.

Use of guidelines rather than inflexible time requirements for Change Order submittal is utilized bythe District because it makes the most sense under the circumstances.

1.10. Procedure

Test a selected sample of 30 "A" and "B" letters for compliance with the District's policy on the useof these types of contracts.

Results

To test compliance of "A" and "B" letters with District policy, we performed the following:---

1.

2.

We obtained and inspected the LAUSD Financial Guide No A-3, which reviews the policy oninformal contracts.

We inquired as to recent changes and the frequency of updates.

3. We selected a sample of 30 "A" and "B" letters processed during fiscal year 2005 for all GObond program funds. See Attachment II.

4. We inspected and verified the letters for compliance with the District's policy stated InFinancial Guide No. A-3. We verified the following policy items:

C. For "A" letters exceeding $2,000, Branch Director or Deputy Director approvalsignatures are required.

A. For "A" letters - we confirmed that the dollar mount of the work performed was lessthan $14,999, the project was for repainting, alterations, improvements, renovation,erection, construction, reconstruction, and repair work (except for maintenance asdescribed below) for any District owned, leased, or operated facility.

-

-

B. For "B" letters - we confirmed that the amount was between $25,000 and $60,900 forthe period July 1,2004 to April 30,2005, and $62,400 for May 1, 2005 to June 30,2005the work may also be related to repair and "maintenance" defined as routine, recurring,and usual work for the preservation, protection, and keeping of any District-owned oroperated facility for its intended purpose in a safe and continually useable condition forwhich it was designed, improved, constructed, altered, or repaired. All paint projects areexcluded.

-

D. For "B" letters exceeding $5,000, Branch Director or Deputy Director approvalsignatures are required.

E. For "A" and "B" letters greater than $15,000, not to exceed $60,900, the contractormust:

1. Submit a bid guarantee bond in the amount of 10% of the bid

11. Submit a performance bond from an admitted surety approved by the District.

12

-- 5. We obtained all other A and B letters issued for the projects related to the 30 type "A" and "B"

letters tested and determined if any of the combinations of type A and B letters totaled morethan $60,900.

•

-

-

----


1.11. Procedure

Test a sample of transactions to determine the appropriateness of the allocations of expenditures tocapital assets or expenses.

Results

To test the appropriateness of the allocations of expenditures to capital assets or expenses, weperformed the following:

1. From the sample population identified in Procedure 1.1, we selected 20 transactions fortesting. See Attachment IX.

2. We verified the supporting documentation, including invoice/payment, to ascertain that theexpenditures matched the description of the Program and Object code.

3. We verified the documentation included an Encumbrance Request Form, proper approvals,and coding information.


1.12. Procedure

Review the District's Fund Allocation and Bond Charging Procedures for payment of GOB"Construction Program" expenditures to confirm the following:

An authorized representative of the Project Management Firm must "certify" invoices relatingto professional services.

• The invoice, along with a District-approved Encumbrance/Payment Request form, includingevidence of approval by an appropriate Los Angeles Unified School District employee, mustbe submitted in order to process the payment.

• With respect to construction expenditures, we noted that OAR must certify the Application forPayment and submit a completed Contractor Payment Transmittal, which includes anauthorized Encumbrance/Payment Request form, Application for Payment, and the OwnerAssessment Summary.

• The District FCru Analyst reviews all requests for payment for compliance with theexpenditure policy for the bond construction programs prior to the processing of the paymentby the District.

Results

We performed corroborating inquiries of multiple individuals within the Facilities department toascertain compliance with the above procedures. See observations 1.2, 1.3, and 1.7 regarding theDistrict's Fund Allocation and Charging Policies.


13

--

-

Management's Comment on Point 4 of Procedure

The appropriateness of projects and their funding under the bond construction programs areestablished and verified well in advance of project work completions and requests for contractorpayments. Compliance with the expenditure policy for the bond construction programs is a jointeffort, primarily of the project management organizations (New Construction and Existing Facilities)and the Facilities Support Operations (FSO) Department (part of FSS). This takes place early in thelife cycle of a project.

The role of the FCru is to assure compliance (at the time requests for payments are processed) withwhat has previously been verified as appropriate (under the bond construction programs) by FSO andProject Management and, further, to assure that all necessary approvals and supportingdocumentation are provided and data and calculations are correct.

1.13. Procedure

Compare the GO Bond Fund financial statements as of June 30, 200S with the monthly financialreports of GOB budgets and expenditures prepared by LAUSD for the Board Facilities Committeeand Bond Oversight Committee over the same fiscal period/year.

Results

--

• We obtained the Statements of Project Costs for Proposition BB, Measure K, and Measure R(Statements) for the period from inception through June 30, 200S. We compared and agreedthe total project costs for Proposition BB, Measure K, and Measure R on the Statements to thegeneral ledger without exception. We also compared and agreed, in total, bond expenditures tothe District's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as of and for the year endedJune 30, 200S. However, we were not able to perform the monthly comparison of theStatements due to the following exception:

--

Observation 1.13.1

We observed that the District does not issue monthly financial reports to the BOC or the Board thatcompare actual versus budget information in a similar fashion to the annual Statements of ProjectCosts.


We concur that the monthly financial reports described are not issued to the BOC or the Board.

However, based on communications with the BOC consultant, the information requirements of theBOC are currently being met.

1.14. Procedure

Test appropriate GOB hours recorded on contractor time sheets and hours billed to the GOB programby contractors to determine that the hours billed were for work on GOB projects.

Results

We sampled ten subcontractors' time sheets from our original sample of warrants selected inProcedure 1.1. We were not able to complete the procedure as the subcontractor's time sheetssubmitted with the prime contractor application for payment could not be reconciled.

14

-

-


The purpose and use of these time sheets are to assure that subcontractors are paid at prevailing wagelevels as determined by the State of California. They are irrelevant for reconciliation of constructioninvoice payments under fixed price contracts.

1.15. Procedure

Review budget to actual expenditures, as applicable, to ensure that actual expenditures againstbudgeted amounts are inspected by District management.

Results

We could not complete this procedure as the District does not prepare monthly bond funds financialreports for the Board Facilities Committee and Bond Citizens' Oversight Committee. SeeProcedure 1.13.

1.16. Procedure

Test the selected sample identified in Procedure 1.1 for compliance with the District's exceptionreporting policy. If project is more than 5% over budget, was it reported to Augmented FacilitiesCommittee and BOC?

Results

This procedure could not be completed as the District is currently not preparing early warnmgmemos, as required by the Bond Citizens' Oversight Committee's MOD.


In reviewing the details of the MOD, it was determined that the spirit and intent of the MOD arebeing met, even though, technically, there are some requirements that are not being met. However, indiscussion with the BOC consultant, it was further determined that the information needs of the BOCare, in fact, being met. Therefore, a project is underway to align the MOD to the true needs of theBOC, which are being met with the information now provided.

The term "memo" is not sufficiently descriptive. This "early warning" information is provided forNew Construction projects in a very usable form. New Construction prepares a schedule of changesto the Program Contingency on a regular basis. Each project with a budget increase from theProgram Contingency is identified on a form with pre-existing and new budget, reason for thechange(s), and percentage change.

The BOC Consultant, receives the above report and reviews it with the head of New Construction, atwhich time, they come to agreement as to what information should be presented in the monthlyreport to BOC. As a practical matter, the situation is often reported to the BOC earlier than when achange to the Program Contingency is made, such as when the bids for a construction project comein over estimate, but the Program Contingency change is put on "hold" until the procurement iscompleted. Such reporting packages are available and can be provided to KPMG.

For Existing Facilities - Modernization, the requirement of the MOD is not currently followed,because that was not fully considered when the MOD was drafted. For New Construction, with about200 projects, each of at least seven figures, it is appropriate to report variations on a project-byproject basis. For Existing Facilities - Modernization, however, with 18,000 projects, it is generallynot appropriate or productive for BOC to get into great project detail on cost. For example, when

15

-

-

..•....••

$90k painting project goes to $96k, it is not useful information for the BOC. Instead, the BOC isprovided with "class" reports that are truly useful to the Committee members. As an example,painting projects (the class) in total are within the limit, but HV AC projects (another class) as overbudget by X%. This information is useful to and used by the BOC.

We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an examination, the objective of which would be theexpression of an opinion on the District's administration of the Proposition BB, Measure K, and Measure RSchool Bond Construction Program. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performedadditional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that we would have been reported toyou.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Education, management, andmembers of the Citizen's Oversight Committee of the Los Angeles Unified School District and is notintended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

We thank the members of the Citizen's Oversight Committee and the staff of the Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District for their assistance and cooperation in performing our review. We shall be happy to meetand discuss our findings at your convenience.

December 22, 2005

16

-LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PROPOSITION BB, MEASURE K, AND MEASURE R PROGRAMSAGREED-UPON PROCEDURE 1.1

YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2005

Attachment I

-

--

--

1 43 792807/16/05$408,173.40 PV410327058893H13144737

2

43791602/10/05 656,338.83PV51 0084048664E12670494

3

437916021l0/05 664,905.94PV510084042890E12670494

4

43791601114/05 319,141.00PYA VOl 14504918352E12555912

5

43792803/04/05 827,438.87PV AV0304505098226H12728536

6

43792803/25/05 800,416.31PV AV0325504758893H12802570

7

437928041l2/05 784,099.76PV A V041] 506996021H12856795

8

43791605/05/05 788,302.07PV A V0505506868487E12946667

9

437928OS/24/05 1,043,822.88PV A V0524506268557H]2989359

10

43794806/22/05 416,149.00PV AV062250946RELDK13090035

11

43792811110/04 506,232.00PV AV 1109405658893H12385383

12

437928] 2/27/04 367,457.26PV AV] 227402598679H12507955

]3

43792202/15/05 47,637.00PV AV021450413 426312666656

14

43791602/10/05 1,126,495.66PV5] 0084048575E12670494

15

43791602110/05 1,250,565.56PV5] 0084048779E12670494

]6

45 3411/08/04 464,276.49PV22449801212378991

17

45 4901/05/05 480,326.12PV AVOlO5503408132H12526258

18

45 2901/26/05 394,361.53PV AV01265077I1281212590238

19

45 2903/14/05 121,012.00PV AV03] 450255] 111712786347

20

45 4903/31/05 532,349.07PV AV0331506024515H1284047

21

45 3006/21105 227,414.40PVAV0621507409804413074698

22

45 5708/25/04 51,364.80PV AV082540451 901412140051

23

45 4909/03/04 241,666.79PVAV0903401585315H12163678

24

45 4909/23/04 438,821.00PV AV0923400994616H12220930

25

45 3012/13/04 291,620.76PVAV]213402359801612472323

26

45 40]2/17104 130,803.41PVAV1217401595904E12488659

27

45 5712/03/04 221,850.48PV AV 12034034840912445584

28

45 4907/07/05 782,192.67PV3]0564013918HN/A

29

45 3002/15/05 2,200,000.00PV AV02155053398025N/A

30

45 4904/01/05 85],255.16PV A V0401504645575H12829246

31

45 4904/08/05 1,] 26,514.73PV A V0407504838028HN/A

32

44240102/14/05 1,558,849.14PV410067]I9803912661843

33

44240101/24/05 1,170,129.13PV AVO124505076720312580290

34

44240103/14/05 1,074,067.30PV A V031450736E200212757941

35

44240104/08/05 1,000,000.00PV AV0407505819802512847226

36

44240104/19/05 1,275,023.88PV A V04 19506409801412878898

37

44240104/28/05 895,719.00PV AV0428508239800512918505

38

442401OS/20/05 1,388,050.65PV A V0520505929800712979530

39

44240106/23/05 689,316.00PV AV0623507932407713089774

40

44240108/12/04 1,233,181.38PV AV08 1240606E600212107303

41

44240109/07/04 1,959,176.00PV AV0907403059803612169896

42

44240110/15/04 76,490.41PV A V 1015405346720312303248

43

442401] 0/25/04 1,076,164.38PV AV 102540392E200212326598

44

445917081l0/04 115,857.00PV AV0810402988240H1210]]92

45

44240107/14/05 4,078,589.60PV4 1006671 69803913152970

46

44240107/11/05 4,936,109.83PV5 10069059802113138469

47

44240103/09/05 2,237,005.00PV AV0308505839803612758120

48

44240103/30/05 2,087,024.75PV AV0330502529800612840353

49

44240106/06/05 2,155,676.82PV AV0606505849800713063916

50

44240109/21104 2,240,934.79PV AV092 1405959801012220929

'-

-

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT



"",:<,>:;',,'«'=''<>W''''''''Y"A'''-'''''>;;'''',,"

Legend:

x = Attribute met without exception.

Attachment II

-LOS ANGELES UMFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT



Attachment III

-

Invoice Agrees to ContractTerms

Hours Agree toProperConstruction Mana2ement Firm

Invoice dateAmountPeriod Invoiced datePosition TVIHBillin!! RateDocumentationADDroval301

01/10/05$839,567.0012/1/04-12/3 1/04XXXX3D!

10/11/041,030,054.5009/1/04-09/30/04XXXXBovis Lend Lease Inc.

10/31/0486,746.0010/1/2004-10/30/2004XXXXBovis Lend Lease Inc.

01/31/05101,282.001/1/2005-1 /31/2005XXXXHeerv Intcrnational Inc.

01/07/05347,339.0012/1/2004-12/31/2004XXXX

Heery International Inc.04/07/05378,257.003/1/2005-3/31/2005XXXX

HNTB/YANG01/31/05166,736.001/1/2005-1/31/2005XXXX

HNTB/YANG04/30/05201,264.004/1/2005-4/30/2005XXXX

.Icnkins/Gales & Martinez, Inc.04/08/05237,837.503/1/2005-3/31/2005XXXX

Jenkins/Gales & Martinez, Inc.07/08/05226,885.506/1/2005-6/30/2005XXXX

Swinerton Managcment & Consulting10/10/04184,014.009/1/2004-9/30/2004XXXX

Swinerton Management & Consulting12/10/04255,697.7511/1/2004-1 1/30/2004XX( A)X

Vanir Construction Management01/24/05306,359.0012/1/2004-12/31/2004XXXX

Vanir Construction Management03/07/05311,081.002/1/2005-2/28/2005XXX (2)X

Jacobs Facilities, Inc.03/10/05395,069.001/29/2005-2/25/2005XXX(I)X

Jacobs Facilities, Inc.

06/09/05445,893.004/30/2005-5/27/2005XXXX

K-RML,]nc.

09/02/04327,]44.008/1/2004-8/31/2004XXXXK-RML,Inc.

05/04/05415,750.004/1/2005-4/30/2005XXXX

Parsons Infrastructure & Technologv]0/0]/04502,844.008/28/2004-9/24/2004XXXX

Parsons Infrastructure & Technologv06/03/05749,120.005/1/2005-5/27/2005XXXX

Pinnacle One, Inc.11/17/04210,616.5010/1/2004- I0/30/2004XXXX

Pinnacle One, Inc.07/15/05143,215.006/1/2005-6/30/2005XXXX

Tishman Construction Corp11/05/0488,272.0010/1/2004-1 0/30/2004XXXX

Tishman Construction Com01/07/0590,688.0012/1/2004-12/31/2004XXXX

Turner Construction Companv12/13/0427],664.00] 1/] /2004-1 J /30/2004XXXX

Turner Construction Company02/18/05274,787.50]/1/2005- ]/3 ]/2005XXX (3)X

CCG/Harris12/10/04996,483.00I III /2004-1I/30/2004XX(B)X

CCG/Harris03/10/051,066,] 22.002/1/2005-2/28/2005XXX(4)X

Jacobs Facilities01/27/0532,344.0011/27/2004-] 2/31 /2004XXXX

Jacobs Facilities04/25/0580,595.002/26/2005-4/1 /2005XXXX

DMJM+N02/14/05]9,530.001/1/2005-1 /3] /2005XXXX

DMJM+N02/24/054,965.00]Il /2005-1 /31/2005XXXX

Orgel Construction Management05/05/0514,572.804/1/2005-4/30/2005XX XX

3D!]0/08/04246,408.709/1/2004-9/30/2004XXXX

3D!10/08/0457,875.809/1/2004-9/30/2004XXXX

3D]0]/07/05191,641.3012/1/2004-12/31/2004XXXX

Parsons Infrastructure & Technologv02/08/05109,640.001/1/2005-1 /28/2005XXXX

Parsons Infrastructure & Technologv05/05/05138,573.003/26/2005-4/29/2005XXXX

Turner Construction Company03/10/0536,800.002/1/2005-2/28/2005XXXX

Turner Construction Companv03/14/0517,360.002/1/2005-2/28/2005XXXX

Turner Construction Company06/08/05]9,152.005/1/2005-5/31/2005XXXX

HNTB/Yang (**)02/28/05336,352.002/ I/2005-2/28/2005XXXX

HNTB/Yang11/30/04352,278.7511/1/2004-11/30/2004XXXX

Warner Technologies, Inc

1]/01/04]58,697.508/29/2004-] 0/2/2004XXXX

Warner Tcchnologies, Inc06/07/05]11,557.005/1/2005-5/28/2005XX XX

Parsons Brinkerhoff Construction06/18/0541,264.005/28/2005-6/30/2005XX XX

Parsons Brinkerhoff Construction07/18/05250,137.205/28/2005-6/30/2005XXXX

Legend:

x

(A)

(B)X (I)X (2)

X (3)X (4)**

Attribute met without exception.Hours invoiced exceeded 40 hours a week in accordance to the contract for two employees.1I0urs documentation did not agree with the amount paid. Invoice was less than time sheet, an employee's time sheet indicates 168hours for the month but in the invoice it was noted that he worked 160 hours.

Employee's time sheet renects hours on 2/21/2005, which was a LAUSD holiday.Employee's time sheet renects hours on 2/21/2005, which was a LAUSD holiday.Employee's time sheet renects hours on 1/17/2005, which waS a LAUSD holiday.Employees' time sheets renect hours on 2/21/2005, which was a LAUSD holiday.Invoice amount was $336,356. This represents a $4 difference from the amount in FCIU data record.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTPROPOSITION BB, MEASURE K, AND MEASURE R PROGRAMS

AGREED-UPON PROCEDURE 1.7


Attachment IV

Verizon California 04/15/05$1,332,558.921285679541020201R,BB(1), (2)(1), (2)(2)(2)(2)

ALFA 26 Construction Co.

03/25/05800,416.3112802570R032703AR(2)N/A(2)(2)(2)

Emerald Development Co, Inc.

09/21/042,240,934.7912220929EDC-042HK(3)N/A(3)(3)(3)

LA School Developers

07/14/054,078,589.601315297041006716KXN/AXXX

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

07/11/054,936,109.831313846951006905KXN/AXXX

LA School Developers

02/17/051,904,028.141266184341006711KXN/AXXX

TECLA Development CorP

08/17/041,765,322.9312107303Monroe 007KXN/AXXX

Emma COrPoration

09/28/04957,393.001222093031053603BBN/A(1)XXX

Tutor-Saliba CorP

04/22/051,309,723.551287889841020516K(2)N/AN/AN/AN/A

MASCO Electric Inc

09/09/04264,931.791216367841027103BBN/AXXXX

Turner Construction Companv

03/16/0524,966.00N/A339BB (4)N/AXN/AN/AN/A

Orael Construction Manaaement

05/09/0522,314.60N/AA228SME14BB (5)(5)N/AN/AN/AN/A

Swinerton Manaaement & Consultina, Inc.

10/27/04184,014.00N/A6810-29K(6)N/A(6)(6)(6)

HNTB CorP/ William J. Yana Associates

03/14/05336,352.00N/AC-1.32BB (4)(4)(4)N/AN/AN/A

Jacobs Facilities Inc.

02/01/0532,344.00N/AW1350427BB (4)(4)N/AXXX

Pinnacle One, Inc.

11/29/04210,616.50N/A52NKN/A(6)(6)(6)(6)

K-RML, Inc.

09/13/04327,144.00N/A1040426NK(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)

3DI, Inc/URS COrPoration

10/20/041,030,054.50N/A26-66NAK(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)

Parsons Infrastructure & Technoloav Group

10/05/04502,844.00N/A3246718K(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)

Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.

12/02/0486,746.00N/A260-31NK(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)

Attributes tested:

(A)

( B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

Legend:

X

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

N/A

Expenditures excluded administrator salaries, teacher salaries, and operating expenses. (Measure K and Measure R).

Expenditures excluded movable furnishings and equipment, leasehold interests in real property, and District administrative salaries (Proposition BB).

Expenditures with common or joint objectives identified readily and specifically to a Board-approved project but incurred for the joint benefit of both projects havebeen charged to Measure K and Measure R.

Expenditures with indirect costs comply with policy Measure K and Measure R funds.

Verify that all indirect labor costs for routine maintenance and operations management are not chargeable to Measure K and Measure R funds.

Attribute met without exceptions.

Expenditures do not comply with charging policy of Proposition BB for indirect expenses.

Expenditures do not comply with charging policy of Measure K and Measure R for indirect expenses.

Items such as classroom accessories were charged to the fund.

The cost allocation on the schedule provided by client reflects Proposition BB; however, the encumbrance request indicates Measure R.

The cost allocation on the schedule provided by client reflects Proposition BB; however, the encumbrance request indicates SME.

The warrants are for Professional Construction Management Fees. The documentation does not detail costs; therefore, we could determine appropriate costallocation.

Does not specify the exact type of work that was performed.

Not Applicable.




Attachment V

-tllllWrll!

"~", ' '. ,~\. :B ."3~" , ._ '. ,,'..r'L

431314473707/18/05Alfa 26 Construction Co Van Nuys School

I 2

I43 1255591201/14/05Bernards Bros Construction IncPeary Middle School

I

3 43 1272853603/04/05Verizon California Le Conte Middle School-4

45 1252625801/10/05Alfa 26 Construction Co Foshay Learning Center

5

45 1278634703/25/05S J Amoroso Construction CoBelmont School

6

45 1216367809/09/04Masco Electric Inc Miles Elementary

7

45 1222093009/28/04Emma Corporation Humphreys

- I8 45 1247232312/16/04Pinner Construction Co IncHamilton School

9

45 1244558412/08/04C & P Plumbing & ConstructionJordan School

10

45 n/a n/aVerizon California Ford Blvd Elementary

11

45 1282924604/17/05Verizon California 96th St

12

44 1266184302/14/05La School Developers Central LA Area New HS#lO

13

44 1284722604/08/05LAUSD (the Accelerated School)IAccelerated Charter

14

44 1287889804/19/05Tutor-Saliba Corporation ICentral LA Area New SH #1

15

44 1297953005120/05Bernards Bros Construction IncE. Valley Area New MS #1

16

44 1315297007/14/05LA School Developers Central LA Area New HS#lO

17

44 1313846907/11/05Hensel Phelps Construction CoICentral LA Area New SH # 2

18

44 1275812003/09/05Pel Construction Services IncEast Valley New HS #1 b

19

44 1284035303/30/05Pinner Construction Co IncCentral LA Area New MS #1

20

44 1222092909/21/05Emerald Development Co JncSo Cntrl LA Area New SH #1




{ (

Attachment VI

District Policy Chan 'c Order ProcessChan cOrder Packal!c Compliance

Change Order

Change OrderConstructionOriginal

% or ChangeChange OrderOAR SignedOAR Change OrderPackageDate ofSigned by the

Directive Issued byChange Order

Change Order ContractChange OrderOrder toReceived byChange OrderDays inand

Requested Proposal isSubmitted by OARSubmission isArchitect,the OAR on or

No.

Received DateProject Name (School)Award

ExtraContractContractApprove DateProcessAuthorizedProposal SentContractorSubmitted byto FacilitiesWithin 7 daysStructural

after the EffectiveAmount

AmountServices Dale the Requestto theRespondedtheContract Services,from the Date ofEngineer,Dale of thefor ProposalArchilecl and ContractorChange Orderthe Agreement.Contractor, and

Contraet (Y) (N)FormInspector (Date)Processing Unit(Y) (N)OAR

(COPU)97.02618-521

05/2-1/05MIRAMONTEES $2.659.744$206.870.537.8%05/24105061141052]X(A)(A)04/22105 XNX (I)N/A

22.24085-937

09/03/04MANUAL ARTS ESll1(SCl.EDUC CTR) $40.585.000$39.400.000.]%09/0310409116/04]3(B)(B)(A)06/28/04 N/ANX (])Y

22.24085-116-.1

01103105MANUAL ARTS ESll1(SCI.EDUC CTR) $40.585.000$189.648.000.5%01/0310501126/0523(B)(B)(A)] ]11912004 N/AN/AX (I)N/A

55.98009-619

0910710-1E VALLEY AREA NEW MS 112 $26.548.000$100.000.000.4%09/07/0409/16/049(B)(B)(A)06/26/04 N/AN/AXY

55.98009-692

03116105E VALLEY AREA NEW MS 112 $26.548.000$535.000.002.0%03103/0506108/0597(B)(B)(A)10119/2004 XNXY

55.98028-598

OS/26/05SOUTHEAST AREA NEW MS 113 528.880.000$404.049.001.4%OS/2610506/05/05]0(B)(B)(A)N/AN/ANX (])Y

47.01614-524

07fl6/04BARTON HILL ES - ADDITION $3,178,000$151.893.844.8%07ll610408/02/0417(B)(B)(A)N/AN/ANX (1)N/A

47.08402-512

04/01105SOUTH GATE NEW ES h6 $11,845.000$215.746.881.8%04/0110504/011050X(A)(A)021]4/05 XNX (I)N/A

97.00905-519

06130/05SEVENTH ST ES 53.598.0005227.511.286.3%06/3010507118/05]8X(A)(A)11/2212004 XNX (1)N/A

55.98035-515

12108/2004SO EAST AREA NEW LC $34.990.000$195.500.000.6%12108104N/AN/A(B)(B)(A)10/11/2004 N/ANX (])Y

55.98014-540

Q..l/27/05CENTRAL L.A. AREA NEW SH 111 $64.477.000$58.748.550.1%04/2710505/05/05N/A(B)(B)(A)08/] 6/04N/ANX (1)Y

47.06801-559

05117/05BELMONT NEW PC 1112 $10.979.000$45.640.000.4%05/17105OS/26/059(B)(B)(A)N/A NNX (2)N/A

97.05121-503

OS/27/05Wn~M[NGTON MS $788.655$151.742.50]9.2%05127/0506/09/05]3X(B)(A)05/10/05 NNX(2) Y

97BOO967-502

02107/05S SHORES PER ARTS MG (CHG-ORD) $30.780.000$420.000.001.4%02/07105illes:.db1eN/A(B)(B)(A)1213012004 N/AN/AX (1)N/A

55Z98010-609

05/31/05S CONTROL L.A. NEW SH III (CMPLlN) $67.064.111$198.005.000.3%05/3110506/15/05]5(B)(B)(A)04/05/05 N/AN/AX (1)Y

22.24082-561

06123105CENTRAL L.A. AREA NEW MS 114 $38.192.000587.963.000.2%06123/0507ll2f05N/A(B)(B)(A)OS/27/05N/ANN/AN/A

97.02926-502

]0/2212004EL5ERENOMS $5.245.000$213.365.214.1%1012210402101105102X(A)(A)06/11/04 XNX (I)Y

22.24082-561

N/ACEl'ITRAL L.A. AREA NEW MS 114 $38.192.000587,963.000.2%N/A07/]2105N/A(B)(B)(A)05127/05 N/AN/AX (I)N/A

97.00916-506

11101/2004BROADACRES AVE ES 53.364.0005429,543.76]2.8%11/0210412113/044]X(A)(A)10/1212004 XNX (])N/A

23.00184-501

06/09/04UNIVERSITY SH 516.944.12652[1,746.431.2%07/20/0408/0210413(B)(B)(B)N/A XNX (2)N/A

Legend:

(A)(I)

(2)

(B)N/A

Altribute met. however, documentation in the CO Checklist indicates a CO Proposal was submitted. no documenlation of actual.

Applicable documentation is not signed by Structural Engineer,Applicable documentation is not signed by Archilecl and Structural Engineer.

RFP not available in documentalion provided,

Not Available (Documentalion not provided or nOl included in Change Order package.)

f


PROPOSITION BB, MEASURE K, AND MEASURE R PROGRAMSPROCEDURE 1.10


l (

Attachment VII

"A" , "B" letters>

Transaction

$15,000 and <

VendorSchoolContract DateWork Period

Number

Bid Amount(1)(2)(3)(4)$60,900 or $62,400

(5)

(6)

I

ACE FENCE DREWMS02/22/053/2/2005-3/25/2005BI-00680509$12,000.00XN/AN/AXN N

2

ALL AREA PLUMBING INC PURCHEEL11/20/0412117/2004-2/28/2005BK-00000732$24,250.00N/AXN/A(3)YY

3

ALL AREA PLUMBING INC PURCHEEL11/20/0412/17/2004-2/28/2005BK-00000732$30,000.00N/AXN/A(3)yY

4

C & P PLUMBING & CONSTRUCTION LOMITA MATH/SCI MAG06/09/046118/2004- 911 8/2004B K-00000666$51,800.00N/AXN/AXN N

5

C-TECH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING LA NEW SH#I05110/055116/2005-5/21/2005BU-00752029$7,990.00XN/AN/AXN/AN/A

6

C- TECH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING LA NEW SH#105110/055116/2005-5/2112005BU-00752029$7,990.00XN/AN/AXN/AN/A

7

ENVIROCON INC GARFIELD SH10/25/0411/8/2004-1111 9/2004BF-00000385$53,900.00N/AXN/A(A)NN

8

ENVIROCON INC LA NEW SH#109/17/049/17/2004-9/22/2004BU-00751829$3,200.00XN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

9

ENVIROCON INC LA NEW SH#]09/17/049/17/2004-9/22/2004BU-00751830$3,200.00XN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

10

GERONIMO CONCRETE INC DA YTON HEIGHTS EEC08/25/048/27/2004-9/4/2004BU-00751809$5,200.00XN/AN/AXN N

11

GERONIMO CONCRETE INC DA YTON l-IEIGHTS EEC08/25/048/27/2004-9/4/2004BU-0075181O$13,200.00XN/AN/AXN N

12

GERONIMO CONCRETE INC FREMONTSH02/06/045/14/2004-6/30/2004BK-00690002$60,500.00N/AXXX N N

13

GERONIMO CONCRETE INC GAULTEL05110/045/24/2004-8/16/2004BC-00620379$49,780.00N/AXN/AXN N

14LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON JEFFERSON NEW ES #702/011032/2003-2/2004AU-00000592$3,332.38XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

15

LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON JEFFERSON NEW ES #702/011032/2003-2/2004AU-00000595$4,716.25XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

16

LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON JEFFERSON NEW ES #702/011032/2003-2/2004AU -00000611$3,930.00XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

17

LEV]NE-FRICKE-RECON JEFFERSON NEW ES #710/0110210/2002-2/2004AU-00000629$],384.25XN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

18

LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON MANUAL ARTS NEW PC #202/01/032/2003-2/2004AU -00000624$3,227.63XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

19

LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON MANUAL ARTS NEW PC #202/011032/2003-2/2004AU-00000625$2,348.25XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

20LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON MANUAL ARTS NEW PC #201/01103112003-2/2004AU-00000626$2,100.75XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

2]LEV]NE-FRICKE-RECON MANUAL ARTS NEW PC #202/011032/2003-2/2004AU -00000638$ 2,374.88 (Xl)XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

22LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON SO. EAST AREA NW LRNG CTR0211 7/032/20/2003-8/2003AU-00000390$2,252.50XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

23

LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON SO. EAST AREA NW LRNG CTR10/07/0310/9/2003-8/2004AU-00000400$ 2,026.5 (X2)XN/ANN/AN/AN/A24

LEVINE-FRICKE-RECON SO. EAST AREA NW LRNG CTR05/01/03May 2003- Feb 2004AU-00000488$ 2,012.88 (X2)XN/AXN/AN/AN/A

25

M]CA INDUSTRIES INC CLEVELAND EEC07/02/047112/2004-8/30/2004BU-00751808$5,795.00XN/AN/AXN/AN/A

26MICA INDUSTRIES INC CLEVELAND EEC12/01/0412/1/2004-12/8/2004BU-00751870$2,795.31XN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

27MICA INDUSTRIES INC VAUGHN STREET EEC07/02/047112/2004-8/30/2004BU-00751804$3,120.00XN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

28

MICA INDUSTRIES INC VAUGHN STREETEEC11/20/041/20/2004-11127/200BU-0075 I868$1,597.32XN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

29

SCS FLOORING SYSTEMS INC 156TH STEL]2/06/041/31/2005-2/28/2005B K-00000729$25,000.00N/AXN/AXN N

30

RELIABLE FLOOR COVERING STANFORDEL04/07/045/1/2004-6/15/2004BJ -00000222$36,293.00N/AXN/AXN N

Attributes tested:

(I) If < $14,999, the project is for repainting, alterations, improvements, renovation, erection, construction, reconstruction, and repair work.

(2) If amount is between $25,000 and $60,900 for the period 7/1/04 to 4/30/05 and $62,400 for 5/1/05 to 6/30/05, thc work may also be related to repair and "maintenance" defined as routine, recurring, and usual work.

(3) "A" letters exceeding $2000 - Signed by Branch Director or Deputy Director.

(4) "B" letters exceeding $5000 - Signed by Branch Director or Deputy Director.

(5) Contractor submitted guarantee bond for I0% of bid.

(6) Contracted submitted performance bond from an admitted surety approved by the District.

Legend:

X = Attribute met without exception.

X (I) = Attribute met without exception; however, the recorded data provided by FCTU states that the bid amount was $0.00 and the documentation, the Bid Letter stated the amount was $2,374.88.

X (2) = Attribute met without exception; however, the recorded data provided by FCTU does not agree to the Bid Letter and the documentation, the Bid Letter states that the bid amount is $2,252.50.

(3) = Contract is not signed by either Branch Director or Deputy Director as stated in procedures.Y = Yes.N = No.

N/ A = Not applicable to specific contract letter.




Attachment VIII

p:l;. :,..'lm~.3

4379]602/10/05$664,906PV510084042890E]2670494Thompson Pacific ConstructionCatskill E]ementary5

43792803/04/05827,439PVAV0304505098226H]2728536Verizon California G]enfe]iz, Le Conte6

43792803/25/05800,416PVAV0325504758893H12802570A]fa 26 Construction Co. Van Nuys HSNan Nuys Adult9

437928OS/24/051,043,823PVAV0524506268557H12989359Verizon California Birmingham Sr High School]0

43794806/22/05416,]49PV AV062250946RELDK]3090035Parsons Infrastructure & Techno]ogyCarson And Others15

43791602/10/051,250,566PV510084048779E12670494Thompson Pacific ConstructionGlenfeliz, Le Conte]8

452901/26/05 394,362PV AVO]2650771]2812]2590238DJM Construction Co., Inc. Pacoima20

454903/31/05 532,349PVAV03315060245]5H]284047Verizon California Herrick E]ementary21

453006/21/05 227,414PV AV062]5074098044]3074698Construction Concepts, Inc. SL Cont High Schoo] #]25

4530]2/13/04 29],62]PVAV]2]340235980]6]2472323Pinner Construction Co., Inc. Hamilton High School27

455712/03/04 221,850PVAV12034034840912445584C & P Plumbing & Construction118th/Gompers/Jordan29

453002/15/052,200,000PV AV0215505339802512677716LAUSD (The Acce]erated Schoo])The Acce]erated School30

454904/01/05 851,255PVAV0401504645575H12829246Verizon California 96th St E]34

44240]02/14/051,558,849PV4100671198039]2661843LA Schoo] Deve]opers Central LA Area New HS #1035

44240104/08/051,000,000PVAV0407505819802512847226LAUSD (The Accelerated Schoo])Accelerated Schoo]40

44240108/12/041,233,181PV AV081240606E600212107303TECLA Development CorporationMonroe Es #2/Noble Es #1

44

44591708/10/04115,857PV AV0810402988240H12101192Jam Fire Protection Mt Gleason/Sun]and/Brainard/Pinewood45

44240]07/14/054,078,590PV4100667169803913152970LA Schoo] Developers Central LA Area New HS #1047

44240]03/09/052,237,005PVAV0308505839803612758120PCL Construction Services, Inc.East Valley High Schoo] Ib50

44240109/21/042,240,935PVAV0921405959801012220929Emerald Development Co., Inc.So Central LA Area New

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTPROPOSITION BB, MEASURE K, AND MEASURE R PROGRAMS

AGREED-UPON PROCEDURE 1.11


AttachmenllX

] 43792807/16/05$408,]73PV410327058893H13144737Alfa 26 Construction Co. Van Nuys SH2

43791602/10/05656,339PV510084048664E12670494Thompson Pacific ConstructionGardena SH6

43792803/25/05800,416PVAV0325504758893H12802570A1fa 26 Construction Co. Van Nuys SH7

43792804/12/05784,]00PVAV0411506996021H12856795Verizon California Parmelee Elementary8

43791605/05/05788,302PVAV0505506868487E12946667Thompson Pacific ConstructionWhite Middle School12

43792812/27/04367,457PVAV1227402598679H12507955Shefir Construction Co. Garfield SH13

43792202/15/05 47,637PVAV021450413426312666656Century Paving, Inc. Humphreys Elementary]7

4500290]/26/05394,362PVAVO1265077]1281212590238DJM Construction Co., Inc. Pacoima Middle Schoo]19

45002903/14/05121,012PVAV0314502551111712786347S J Amoroso Construction Co.BelmontSH22

45005708/25/04 51,365PVAV082540451901412140051Tropical Creations, Inc. Parkman Middle School24

45004909/23/04438,821PV AV0923400994616H12220930Emma Corporation Humphreys Elementary25

45003012/] 3/04291,621PV AV1213402359801612472323Pinner Construction Co., Inc. Hamilton SH29

45003002/15/052,200,000PV AV0215505339802512677716LAUSD (The Accelerated School)Accelerated Charter30

45004904/01/05851,255PVAV0401504645575H12829246Verizon California 96th St Elementary32

44240102/14/05],558,849PV410067119803912661843LA School Developers Central LA Area New High School #1034

44240103/14/051,074,067PVAV031450736E200212757941F H Paschen, S N Nielsen IncCahuenga New Es #135

44240104/08/051,000,000PV AV0407505819802512847226LAUSD (The Accelerated School)Accelerated Charter39

44240106/23/05689,316PVAV0623507932407713089774Kemp Bros Construction, Inc.Huntington Park New ES #340

44240108/12/041,233,181PVAV081240606E600212107303Tecla Development CorporationNoble New PC45

44240107/14/054,078,590PV4100667169803913152970LA School Developers Central LA Area New High School #10

los angeles unified school district - laschools.org amounts included within the adjusted budget...

Documents