Forensic Audit Report-WPCA Phase IV, Part B. Contract ... - Trumbull

Forensic Consulting Services Report
Town of Trumbull, Connecticut
Page 28
understand and implement the provisions of the Contract Documents opens the door for leniency
with such provisions and the quality assurances necessary to maintain administrative control of the
project.
Trumbull’s Town Engineer, Mr. Stephen Savarese, who reported directly to the Director of Public
Works and could certainly have filled this void of professional expertise at least occasionally, was
not assigned nor did he apparently have any involvement in Contract No. 3 until fairly recently, well
after construction was complete. The reasoning behind not getting Mr. Savarese involved in
Contract 3 sooner by Town officials (i.e. DPW Director, WPCA, First Selectman, etc.) was not
determined.
Interviews with Town officials in office during Contract 3 (i.e. First Selectman, WPCA Board
members, etc.) appear to indicate that the issue of having additional, more experience staff was not
brought to their attention nor recognized as a need during the Contract, and that this need and the
overall quality concerns related to the Contract only came to light more recently due to the ongoing
inquiries and investigations. Whether requested, recognized or not, it is clear that the administrative
structure of the Town officials in office during the Contract lacked the necessary attention and
oversight demanded by this sizable project, and that the overall structure relied far too heavily on
one or two members of an already limited staff. To complicate the situation further it became clear
that the staff themselves, both field and office, did not fully understand or comprehend the
limitations of their positions and capabilities, nor the fact that a need for additional manpower and
resources should have been recognized and requested. A matter of further concern seemed to center
upon the fact that a clear structure of command, responsibilities, communications and accountability
for the Contract was not fully established by the Town. As a result, in many instances there were
significant discrepancies, or matters of opinionated views between interviewed parties as to who was
responsible for what, how and at what levels individuals were expected and not expected to perform,
and who did or did not have the authority to approve or implement changes in the scope and cost of
the contractor’s work.
Mr. Solemene had not only construction related responsibilities to oversee Contract 3 at a level
beyond his self admitted capabilities, which based on the magnitude of the project was significant,
he also carried the dual responsibilities for operating and maintaining the Town’s sanitary sewer
system on a daily basis. This shared responsibility appears to have been detrimental to the overall
needs of the Town, as well as Mr. Solemene as a Town employee trying to cover the bases on both
accounts. This staffing situation and the need for a more experienced, dedicated, full-time
construction administrator for Contract 3 should have been recognized and resolved by Mr.
Solemene’s supervisors well in advance or at least during the early stages of construction.
Mr. Garard, who had the role of field inspections and oversight, had inadequate experience in
projects of this type and complexity. Mr. Gerard also had limited knowledge and experience as it
related to contract administration, especially as it relates to record keeping and documentation.
Communication between Mr. Garard and his various supervisors did not reveal these shortcomings,
as they had the opportunity on multiple occasions to review and comment on his work product. As a