KPMG Houston ISD Audit

Making
the grade
Houston Independent School District
Performance audit of 2012 bond program
August 11, 2016

______
kpmg.com
KPMG LLP
Suite 2900
1918 Eighth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone
Fax
Internet
+1 206 913 4000

+1 206 913 4444
www.us.kpmg.com
August 11, 2016

Audit Committee of the Board of Education
4400 West 18th Street
Houston, TX 77092-8501
Dear Members of the Committee,

This report presents the results of our work conducted to address the performance audit objectives
relative to the performance audit of Houston Independent School Districts (HISD) 2012 bond program,
based on our agreed upon work plan with HISD and contract dated January 4, 2016. Performance of
the work took place during the period of January 18, 2016 through the date of this report.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (GAGAS). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
This performance audit did not constitute an audit of financial statements in accordance with GAGAS.
KPMG was not engaged to, and did not render an opinion on the HISDs internal controls over
financial reporting or over financial management systems (for purposes of OMBs Circular No. A-127,
Financial Management Systems, July 23, 1993, as revised). KPMG cautions that projecting the results
of our evaluation to future periods is subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions or because compliance with controls may deteriorate.
This report is provided to HISD and is for the sole use of HISD, and is not intended to be, and may not
be, relied upon by any third party. Within this report, KPMG presents no view that is to be considered
public policy advocacy.
We thank you and the members of your staff who have worked diligently with our team in providing
information through this performance audit. We look forward to having the opportunity to serve HISD in
the future.
Very truly yours,
KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership,

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative
(KPMG International), a Swiss entity.
Contents
List of acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 1
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 2
Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Background ................................................................................................................................... 2
Legal matters ................................................................................................................................ 3
Summary of observations ............................................................................................................. 3
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Pre-2012 bond program................................................................................................................ 5
Design ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Original budget ............................................................................................................................. 6
Contracting strategy...................................................................................................................... 7
Supplemental funding ................................................................................................................... 7
Audit scope and methodology ............................................................................................................. 8
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8
Performance audit plan................................................................................................................. 8
Audit results and recommendations .................................................................................................. 12
1. Multiple factors influenced the growth in project budgets. Increased construction
activity and the resulting market conditions (cost escalation) appear to be the primary
factor affecting project costs resulting in the need for additional funds...................................... 12
2. HISDs policies and procedures for capital projects are not sufficiently developed. .............. 18
3. The program is lacking an effective and efficient organizational structure............................. 21
4. The program is not providing sufficient internal oversight into subcontractor bidding
activities nor is it shifting pricing risk to the CMaR contractor. ................................................... 23
5. The program is not conducting sufficient project cost estimating, variance analysis,
contingency management or reporting activities. ....................................................................... 27
Appendices........................................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix A Supplemental Bond Funding ...................................................................................... 31
2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG
International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG
International. NDPPS 580105
List of acronyms
Acronym
Definition
A/E
Architect/Engineer
CCD
Construction Change Directive
CD
Construction Documents
CFS
Construction & Facility Services
CMaR
Construction Manager at Risk
CO
Change Order
COH
City of Houston
CSP
Competitive Sealed Proposal
DB
Design Build
DBE
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
DD
Design Development
ETC
Estimated Total Cost
FF&E
Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment
HISD
HVAC
Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning
IT
Information Technology
JOC
Job Order Contracting
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LMWBE
Local Minority/Women Business Enterprise
PAT
Project Advisory Team
PM
Project Manager
PMT
Program Management Team
RFP
Request for Proposals
RFQ
Request for Qualifications
SD
Schematic Design
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
SOQ
Statement of Qualifications
Report to Houston Independent School District
Executive summary
This performance audit complies with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). Our
work for this performance audit took place from January 18, 2016 to the date of this report, with significant
fieldwork concluded by May 9, 2016.
Objectives
A performance audit is an objective analysis for management and those charged with governance and
oversight to use to improve program performance and operations, reduce costs, facilitate decision making
by parties with responsibility to oversee or initiate corrective action, and to contribute to public
accountability. Further, performance audits seek to assess the effectiveness, economy, and efficiency of
a program. The objective of a performance audit is not to uncover fraud or misconduct.
Scope
The scope of this performance audit focused on the 2012 bond program through a macro analysis of the
bond program rollout and strategy including the Houston Independent School Districts (HISD or district)
overall:
Project management planning
Cost management
Time management
Risk management
Quality management
Contract administration
Safety management, and
Construction management professional practices
Additionally, KPMG was asked by the HISD Board of Trustees (Board) to independently evaluate the
underlying factors that drove the programs need for additional funding as part of our performance audit
scope.
Background
On November 6, 2012, Houston voters approved a $1.89 billion bond to replace and repair 40 schools
across the district. The 2012 bond program also includes work that will benefit students across the district
including technology upgrades, replacement of regional field houses and athletic facility improvements,
middle school restroom renovations and, safety and security improvements.
The projects funded through the bond program include:
New campuses for 21 high schools
Partial replacement of three high schools

Renovation of four high schools
Conversion of five elementary schools to K-8 campuses
Three new elementary campuses
Replacing/completing two middle school campuses
Projects are segmented into four groups and phased for the duration of the program. Projects in Group 1
and Group 2 experienced increases in construction cost estimates as the projects were entering the
construction phase. HISD management attributed the increase in the construction costs to price
escalation resulting from increased construction activity in the Houston market following the approval of
the program budget. HISD management proposed the approval of $211 million in additional funding to
deliver all projects within the original scope of work approved for the program. The proposal included the
issuance of $200 million in maintenance bond plus $11 million from the reserve fund from the 2007 Bond
Construction Program to fund the increase. The proposal for the additional funding was approved in
December 2015.
Legal matters
HISD provided KPMG with a letter from a former employee dated April 21, 2016 raising a number of
issues relating to the potential misuse of bond money. While the letter makes allegations of fraud, our
engagement was a performance audit not a forensic fraud audit. Our report contains observations around
controls at HISD, but does not have any findings around fraud.
We were informed that certain documents exist as exhibits to the letter that include information related to
purchase orders and furniture reports. We were not provided with such documents. Management may
wish to consider obtaining and investigating the implications of the content of such documents as our
report has not considered them. If HISD obtains the documents in the future, KPMG may need to
consider additional procedures.
Additionally, we are aware that HISD is the defendant in the legal matter of No.: 4:10-cv-04872; The Gil
Ramirez Group, L.L.C. and Gil Ramirez, Jr. v. Houston Independent School District, Lawrence Marshall,
Eva Jackson and RHJ-JOC, Inc. KPMG was contacted by the plaintiffs counsel who informed us that
HISD has likely not provided, or has otherwise limited or prevented, records and evidence that would
greatly impact any audit, investigation or accounting of HISD bond construction programs, budgets,
practices and policies. The plaintiffs counsel stated that his client 1 wished to provide the subject evidence
and records to KPMG (or any other authorized agent) so that an accurate and full assessment and audit
of the HISD bond construction programs may be completed. When we requested the evidence and
records, plaintiffs counsel was not willing to provide us with actual documents. We reviewed materials
that accompanied the summary judgment motions filed in the case applicable to the scope and period of
our audit and considered these for our audit plan.
Summary of observations
The results of our performance audit indicate that HISD is lacking a number of core controls for delivering
a program of its size and complexity. In order for the HISD bond program to better achieve its scope,
schedule and budget objectives, the personnel tasked with delivering the program should implement
The client in this case is not the Plaintiff, but another district subcontractor.
additional processes or controls, enhance existing controls, and improve their program delivery tools and
the overall program organizational structure.
Due to the limitation of industry recognized local education specific construction cost indices as well the
challenge of isolating other non-cost escalation factors, it is very difficult to assign specific cost figures to
each factor that contributed to the $211 million in additional funding. However, it appears that escalation
is the largest contributing factor to the need for additional funding, based on our review of available
documentation.
Our observations are summarized as follows:
Related to past practices:
1. Multiple factors influenced the growth in project budgets. Increased construction activity and the
resulting market conditions (cost escalation) appear to be the primary factor affecting project costs
resulting in the need for additional funds.
In addition to construction escalation, we noted the following cost drivers:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Incomplete project assumptions and differing conditions;

Weak or nonexistent policies and procedures regarding budget development;
Lack of conceptual planning;
Misaligned programmatic specifications and project advisory teams (PAT) expectations; and
Inconsistent construction bid evaluations.
It is important to note that the request for additional funds does not by itself indicate that taxpayer
money was wasted or that value was not received for the money spent.
Related to current practices:
2. HISDs policies and procedures for capital projects are not sufficiently developed.
3. The program is lacking an effective and efficient organizational structure.
4. The program is not providing sufficient oversight into subcontractor bidding activities nor is it shifting
pricing risk to the CMaR contractor.
5. The program is not conducting sufficient project cost estimating, variance analysis, contingency
management or reporting activities.
Background
On November 6, 2012, Houston voters approved a $1.89 billion bond to replace and repair 40 schools
across the district. The total authorized bond fund dollars are for capital improvements for the renovation
and replacement of aging facilities, and for the construction of new facilities. To gain an understanding of
the 2012 bond program, a look back at past bond program history and pre-construction activities is
necessary.
Pre-2012 bond program

The average age of schools in HISD is 42 years. The average age for primary schools is 39 years.
Average age of secondary schools is 50 years. District data shows that HISD only built 3 new High
Schools in the 2000-2010 decade with the 2002 and 2007 bond programs focusing on primary schools
and existing school improvements.
HISD selected Magellan Consulting (Magellan) in December of 2006 to conduct a comprehensive facility
assessment on HISD schools. The independent facility assessment focused on building condition, lifecycle forecast, and related facility information. HISD hired Parsons Environment & Infrastructure Group,
Inc. (Parsons) in March of 2012 to update the Magellan data and consider improvements to HISD
facilities from the 2007 bond in addition to other capital improvement work. Parsons issued an update to
the 2007 facilities assessment on June 21, 2012.
Parsons provided recommendations to HISD in themes regarding which schools and facilities to focus
on. The themes are the result of the observations from previous bond and capital improvement programs,
as well as results from a condition and suitability analysis, and community input. The recommended
themes were as listed below:
High schools are due
Reinvest in neighborhoods
Match facility to program
Build it and they will come
Finish last phase of earlier project
Maintain our heritage into the future
Provide technology upgrades
Revitalize appearance and capabilities
The recommended themes accompanied Parsons recommendations on school projects to focus on. The
facility assessments provided information on the condition of the buildings but limited information
regarding what it would take to remodel, renovate, or construct a building.
Design
Planning and design activities took place after the 2012 bond approval. HISD issued a request for
qualifications (RFQ) for architectural-engineering (AE) services on December 3, 2012. HISD awarded a
design package for each school to an AE firm. To aid in the design process and encourage involvement
from the community HISD created Project Advisory Teams (PATs).
PATs work with HISD planners to develop capacity models and program definition for each school. The
goal is to ensure that school and community members have the opportunity to take part in the planning
and design of new schools and to monitor the progress of construction. PATs meet on a monthly basis
throughout each phase of the project. A typical PAT is comprised of eight to 12 members including the
school principal, students, teachers, staff, parents, community members, AE, and HISD Construction
Facility Services (CFS).
Original budget
HISD segmented the projects within the $1.89 billion 2012 bond program into four groups. The bond
program also includes work that will benefit students across the district including technology upgrades,
replacement of regional field houses and athletic facility improvements, middle school restroom
renovations and, safety and security improvements.
The projects funded through the bond program include:
New campuses for 21 high schools
Partial replacement of three high schools
Renovation of four high schools
Conversion of five elementary schools to K-8 campuses
Three new elementary campuses
Replacing/completing two middle school campuses
The program funding is broken down as follows:
Project
Proposed budget
High School
$1,362,436,000
Middle School
$73,950,000
K-8
$121,345,000
Elementary Schools
$79,534,000
All schools Total
$1,637,265,000
District Athletic Improvements
$44,675,000
Districtwide Land Acquisition
$55,767,000
Middle School Restroom Renovation
$35,000,000
Districtwide Technology
Districtwide Safety & Security
Total budget
$100,000,000
$17,293,000
Districtwide Total
$252,735,000
Bond Total
$1,890,000,000
Contracting strategy
HISD executed projects using the Construction Manager at Risk (CMaR) delivery strategy. CMaR is a
type of delivery strategy governed by Section 2269.253 of the Texas Government Code. The CMaR
contractor serves as the general contractor responsible for soliciting and awarding bids to subcontractors.
The CMaR contractor is also involved in the design process. The district has the choice to select a CMaR
contractor utilizing either a one-step or a two-step method. HISD has adopted the use of the two-step
method for its selection process for the 2012 bond program.
Another available delivery method in use by HISD is the Design Bid Build (DBB) delivery strategy.
Otherwise known as the traditional project delivery model, this method requires 100% design drawings
prior to solicitation. At HISD, DBB is also known as competitive sealed proposals (CSP). A CSP is
typically comprised of unit and/or lump sum pricing for a bid line item.
HISD negotiated pricing for the construction with its CMaR contractors at 100% design drawings. If price
negotiations with the CMaR were not successful, HISD had the option to re-bid the projects via CSP.
Supplemental funding
Projects in Group 1 and Group 2 experienced increases in construction cost estimates as the projects
were entering the construction phase. HISD management attributed the increase in the construction costs
to price escalation resulting from increased construction activity in the Houston market following the
approval of the program budget.
In September 2015 HISD developed a revised total program budget of $1.89 billion, representing
additional funding needs of $211 million over the approved bond program budget of $1.68 billion. 2 In
order to address the additional budget needs and still meet overall program objectives, HISD
management developed an additional funding proposal for the HISD Board of Trustees (Board). With its
proposal, HISD management requested the Board to approve $211 million in additional funding to deliver
all projects within the original scope of work approved under the program. The proposal included the
issuance of $200 million in maintenance bond plus $11 million from the reserve fund from the 2007 Bond
construction program to fund the additional monies. HISD management attributed the increase in the
construction costs to inflation resulting from increased construction activity in the Houston market. The
Board of Education approved the proposal for the additional funding on December 10, 2015.
Please see Appendix A for the Proposed Supplemental Funding.

Audit scope and

methodology
KPMG LLP (KPMG) was engaged to provide the performance audit of the 2012 bond program. This
performance audit encompasses the 2012 bond program and does not include HISDs business
operations, administration, or management of any projects outside of the bond program. In addition,
KPMGs work under this engagement did not include providing technical opinions related to engineering,
design, construction means & methods, facility operations, and maintenance.
Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (GAGAS) as promulgated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our comments and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our comments and conclusions based on the audit
objectives. As such, we followed the requirements of GAGAS and the district with respect to our
methodology, which included the following elements:
Conducting a risk assessment to identify focus areas.
Designing an audit plan based on issues and risks identified in the risk assessment phase.
Conducting fieldwork with detail testing to further assess the risks and carry out our audit plan.
Preparing an audit report for the district based on the results of our performance audit.
We reviewed the districts internal policies, procedures, and documentation of key processes. We
conducted interviews with HISD personnel and other contractors and consultants involved with the 2012
bond program. We reviewed relevant source documentation to gain an understanding of the key functions
of the district as they relate to the scope of this audit and corroborated key interview statements with test
work.
Performance audit plan

Our objective was to develop and carry out a performance audit plan that adheres to the scope of work
agreed to in the contract. In order to carry out the audit approach we conducted a risk assessment to
identify focus areas. From the focus areas, we developed test areas that correlate to the components
listed in the scope of work.
Obtain an understanding of the voter approved 2012 Bond Program and how it relates to the initial
facilities assessment. We performed the following procedures related to project planning, prioritization,
and budget development:
Interview key personnel, including trustees, construction administration and accounting personnel.
Also, interview key consultants and contractors, as necessary.
Review the facilities assessment report and understand how it relates to the projects included in the
Bond Program.
Review the district project prioritization process and evaluating construction needs and project
scoping.
Review Board Oversight Committee (BOC) reports and other project related reports.
Analysis of the of the sale and use of bonds to fund the 2012 Bond Program
Interview key personnel, including trustees, construction administration and accounting personnel
involved with the sale and use of bond funds.
Obtain and reconcile supporting documentation related to the issuance of bonds to the bond
amounts.
Obtain an understanding of the accounting review process to assess project costs are in compliance
with approved use of bond funds.
Evaluate accounting practices and processes related recording and accounting of bond costs.
On a sample basis, test the allowability of cost for various types of transactions in the districts
expenditure report relative to bond stipulations to determine whether costs charged to the bond are
allowable.
Reconcile bond expenditure report to project status update reports and/or other documentation used
by executives and BOC to monitor Program costs.
Analysis of the districts use of leading practices to control cost, limit surprises, accomplish milestones
and meet construction deadlines.
Audit the current cost management process for the Bond Program as a whole and review existing
practices in place within the Construction and Facilities Services (CFS) organization.
Interview key CFS personnel in the construction administration, accounting and, audit personnel.
Also interview consultants and contractors, as necessary.
Evaluate existing Policies and Procedures (P&P) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) related
to budgeting, forecasting and cost management.
On a project sample basis, review project documentation related to project budgets, and actual costs
reconciliation, variance analysis and reporting.
On a project sample basis, evaluate underlying assumptions for budget amounts and budget
revisions, including estimated costs to complete.
Obtain an understanding of the audit process to assess contractor cost compliance with contractor
billings.
Analysis of budgetary controls, key assumptions, contingency planning and usage, and inflation impact.
Interview personnel, including estimators, construction administration and accounting personnel.
Also interview key consultants and contractors, as necessary.
Evaluate existing Policies and Procedures and Standard Operating Procedures on estimated total
costs (ETC) development and budget development and management.
Document the process and key assumptions used in establishing baseline project budgets.
Review Board Oversight Committee (BOC) and Program Manager Reports relating to project
budgets.
Attend a sample of weekly Project Review Meetings and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of
the process.
Assess the process used by Construction and Facilities resources in evaluating of project budgets
and ETC.
Evaluate a sample of project budgets and analyze assumptions and ETC estimates that are not
immediately clear.
Assess the experience level of the key employees involved with the key estimating efforts.
Methods utilized to identify and remediate construction risks.
Evaluate existing Policies and Procedures and Standard Operating Procedures on risk management.
Review documentation of project risk management plan at the Bond Program level and for a sample
of projects.
Review project risk registers (or similar document) for a sample of projects and assess the risk
analysis process (quantitative and qualitative).
Review documentation on risk mitigation plans for a sample of projects and how the district monitors
and tracks risk resolution for a sample of projects.
Evaluation of various construction contract business models to maximize best value bid.
Evaluate existing district policies and procedures for procurement of construction contractors
including procedures around contractor qualification and selection.
On a sample basis, analyze bid documentation on the procurement plan used for the Bond Program
and evaluate adherence to the plan and leading practices.
Review documentation of solicitation documents (RFP/IFB SOW, Contract Template, RFQ/RFP/IFB
Template, etc.) for a sample of projects.
Review documentation of RFQ/RFP/CSP invitation and distribution for a sample of projects.
Review documentation on bid/proposal normalization process and bid/proposal normalization
documentation for a sample of projects.
Obtain an understanding of the source selection process and documentation for a sample of projects.
Review standard contract templates and evaluate adherence for a selected sample of projects.
Review approval of any modifications to standard contract templates.
Review districts oversight over contractor solicitation activities.
Validation of original scope of work and change order process
Evaluate district policies and procedures around change orders and CFS change order management
practices.
On a sample basis, analyze the change order execution process including pricing, acceptance,
approval and documentation of the change order.
10
Evaluation of overall Bond Program strategy and coordination of construction efforts.

Evaluate district policies and procedures around the development of Bond Program strategy
development and compare the strategy to leading practices.
Evaluate the districts Key Performance Metrics (KPM) for program success and monitoring thereof.
Evaluate districts Program Management Organizational (PMO) structure.
Maximization of resources efficiencies to achieve goals.
Evaluate existing Bond Program organizational structure and compare the districts structure to
leading practices.
Review documentation supporting the districts selection of its current Bond Program organizational
structure.
On a sample basis, review resource schedules and projections.
Review Bond Program roles and responsibilities and interfaces between district resources and third
party vendors (Program Managers, Construction Managers at Risk, Design Firms, and others).
Review existing commitment/expenditure approval authority and Bond Program responsibility
matrices.
Evaluate effectiveness of internal and external communication to build trust and public confidence.
Review Board Oversight Committee reports published on the Bond Program website.
Review meeting minutes and other reports published by Construction Managers at Risk and Program
Managers.
Compare the districts available Bond Program documentation to leading practices.
Analysis, and cause and effect of deficient Bond Program funds and underlying assumptions.
Analyze assumptions included in original budget, including evaluating source projects for the persquare-footage costs used in the Bluesheet.
Costs: Evaluate construction market cost escalation since costs of source projects were established.
Type of Projects: Compare source projects to 2012 Bond Program projects in terms of scope and
type. Evaluate level of standardization.
Delivery Methodology: Compare source projects delivery methodologies to 2012 projects in terms of
scope and type.
Evaluate design process for Group 1 Projects to gain an understanding of design cost overruns.
Review Board Oversight Committee reports published on the Bond Program website.
Review meeting minutes and other reports published by Construction Managers at Risk.
11
Audit results and

recommendations
1. Multiple factors influenced the growth in project budgets.
Increased construction activity and the resulting market
conditions (cost escalation) appear to be the primary factor
affecting project costs resulting in the need for additional
funds.
It appears that escalation is the largest contributing factor to the need for $211 million in additional
funding, based on our review of available documentation. Our audit identifies multiple factors contributing
to the need for additional funding. Increased construction activity in the Houston area and the resulting
market conditions and pricing escalation were just one factor affecting project costs. Due to the interplay
of all factors we identified, it is not possible to isolate the impact of each individual factor.
The projects in Group 1 and Group 2 3 experienced increases in construction cost estimates as the
projects were entering the construction phase. HISD management attributed the increase in the
construction costs to escalation resulting from increased construction activity in the Houston market
following the approval of the original program budget. HISD management proposed the approval of $211
million in additional funding to deliver all projects within the original scope of work approved under the
program. It is important to note that the request for additional funds does not by itself indicate that
taxpayer money was wasted or that value was not received for the money spent.
Condition: HISDs 2012 bond program projects experienced construction cost overruns relative to the
initial construction budgets used as the basis to approve the $1.89 program budget. Specifically, HISD
experienced that construction bids exceeded the original project construction budgets by approximately
10% - 37% when projects were bid. The original program budget was finalized in August 2012 at an
average cost of $160 per square foot, based on actual costs from the 2007 bond program.
In early 2014, the first 2012 bond projects were bid at $192 per square foot. By the end of 2014, design
estimates were $210 per square foot. The higher construction costs were unexpected and resulted in the
request for additional funding.
Criteria: HISDs budget processes were compared against leading practices employed by other
organizations and governmental agencies with construction programs of similar size and complexity as
See Appendix A for a complete list of projects included with each Group.
12
well as other applicable governing regulations and procedures. Included, but not limited to those leading
practices, regulations and procedures are:
Texas Government Code
HISD Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, International (AACEI) promulgated
recommended practices
Construction Industry Institute (CII) promulgated best practices
Elements of budgeting practices for a variety of agencies and school districts previously reviewed by
KPMG
Cause: Although we agree that the main driver of the higher than anticipated construction cost resulted
from the increased construction activity in the Houston market, there were a number of limitations and
constraints in HISDs budgeting processes that contributed to the pricing variances.
Based on our audit, we identified the following contributing factors affecting the voter approved project
budgets. The contributing factors relate to budgets being established based on high level assumptions.
This approach to budgeting is a choice by HISD, who otherwise would risk incurring project planning
costs which may not be recovered if a bond measure does not pass.
Project assumptions and differing conditions

Elementary schools versus high schools: HISD used project costs from the 2007 bond program
as the basis for the original budgets in the 2012 program. The project mix in the 2007 bond program
included 96% of new construction or replacement projects for elementary schools compared to the
2012 bond program with 80% of the new construction or replacement projects focused on high
schools. Market research shows that construction costs per square foot for high schools can be
higher than the construction costs for elementary schools by approximately 16% - 26% due in part to
the different spatial requirements and features. Price differential is driven by the specific site
educational specifications.
Budget based on high-level concept: At the time the initial program budget was established, very
little was known about the details of the program including specific concepts for each school. The
budget variables were very limited and included basic parameters such as capacity, square footage,
type of construction (new construction, addition, replacement) and an assumed per-square-foot-cost
based on prior projects as well as an assumed escalation.
Project specific requirements and designs: The initial budget did not take into consideration
project specific requirements. Each school project was subsequently designed with community input
to reflect the unique needs of the students and neighborhoods. Schools included differing designs
resulting in departures form the assumptions made at the time the project budgets were established.
The unique design of each individual project limits the usefulness of actual cost data to estimate
future projects.
High cost programming need: Several design factors drove construction costs higher. A February
2016 Greater Houston Bulletin of The Associated General Contractors of America lists several
hidden drivers of rising construction costs including sustainability driven influences, collaborative
learning spaces, technology, etc. Although certain projects with special needs were identified by
HISD, meaning that they included an unusual and more costly programming element, higher cost
drivers were otherwise not consistently identified and considered at the time the initial budget was
established. Additionally, the 2007 bond program did not include the 21st Century learning component
in the school designs. However, HISD does not believe the 21st Century design elements other than
IT costs, contributed to higher costs.
13
Project schedules: Project budgets included project reserves, estimated at 5% of the construction
budget, as well as a budget component to cover inflation. At the time the budget was developed,
inflation projections were based on the districts anticipated inflation rate of 5% applied to a 18 27
month range estimate from the time the budget was developed (February 2012) to an estimated bid
date. The table below provides a sample of five projects with the estimated bid dates included in the
budget compared to the actual contract dates.
School
Estimated bid date
Contract date
Difference
Furr High School
5/1/14
7/27/15
14 months
Lee High School
3/1/14
8/17/15
17 months
Sterling High School
5/1/14
12/19/14
7 months
Mandarin K-8
11/1/13
3/2/15
16 months
Sharpstown High School
8/1/13
11/13/15
27 months
Prototype designs: Prototype designs allow for shorter design and construction phases and lower
project costs due to limited changes in the design, among other things. The nature of HISDs projects
located in an urban settings with existing infrastructure does not suit prototype design and thus limits
cost savings opportunities provided by building prototype schools.
Policies and procedures

HISD has no formal policies and procedures in place to govern the initial budgeting process of
construction projects/programs including a defined process for initial program budgeting prior to seeking
approval for funding.
Conceptual planning
HISD did not perform a conceptual planning process to evaluate construction projects and conduct
preliminary design activities before budgets were established and presented to voters.
Before employing an architect to design a new school, an essential preceding step is the preparation of
pre-design assessment. This is an analysis and documentation of key aspects of the anticipated building.
It may require the services of architectural and engineering consultants 4. Instead, HISDs planning
activities to define project programs and educational specifications were performed after the budget was
approved. Design and other professional services firms were engaged after the budgets were approved
The purpose of a pre-design assessment (which may be called a number of things) is for example to: define and
identify: the goals of the project; opportunities and constraints of the designated site; key issues influencing the
design; the sizes and design criteria for every room in the building; the limits of the project site and the scope of all
related site improvements, such as roads, landscaping, and utilities; design criteria for all building systems; estimated
construction cost. Faculty, staff and students typically participate in these studies in order to assure that their needs
and goals are incorporated. The assessment serves several key purposes: It forms and documents a consensus
among the project constituency; it supports funding requests; and it guides the architects and engineers who design
the project.
14
affecting the development of preliminary designs to assist in the scope and budget development process
of planned projects.
Embarking on a more detailed design prior to bond approval is costly and although such an effort
normally is expected to produce better defined cost drivers and variables, the district risks not being able
to recuperate those costs if a bond does not pass.
Programmatic specifications and project advisory teams (PAT)

expectations
School level programmatic or, educational, specifications were developed for each individual project
based on an approved districtwide educational program.
HISD created Project Advisory Teams (PAT), comprised of members of the project stakeholder group (i.e.
principal, teachers, parents, etc.) to participate in monthly meetings to discuss school programmatic
needs and project updates.
KPMG reviewed PAT monthly meeting minutes from 2013 2015 for a sample of projects noting the
following:
HISD brought a representation of PAT members on visits to out of state schools to observe the 21st
Century learning experience. Some of the schools that were visited were national award winning
schools with square foot costs as high as $832 per square-foot (sq/ft). PAT members mentioned the
$832 sq/ft as quite impressive as a model for consideration. PAT meeting organizers expressed that
the potential downside of seeing models is that those examples become expectations of what the
school should be, instead of designing a response to the specific school needs.
PATs work with HISD planners to develop the capacity models and program definition for each
school. The target variable used by HISD planning during the educational program definition phase is
square footage. The PAT decide how to use the approved square footage after the educational
program is established, which may result in cost variances.
PAT activity is not limited to updates on the status of the project and monitoring that approved
programmatic needs are met. PAT members are actively involved in the design process and
participate in decisions around site studies, floor plans, elevations, materials and, finishes sometimes
resulting in a high number of revisions to the project design. PATs are encouraged to use their
imagination and to think outside of the box when it comes to planning their new space. A better
approach may have been to limit the PAT to certain choices in order to keep the designs moving
forward at effectively and efficiently.
The PAT meeting minutes do not include enough evidence that the cost implications of the PAT
requests are communicated to the PAT. As a result, PAT members may not have fully understood the
cost implications of their requests. The earliest instance of communication of projects exceeding
approved budgets was mid-2014.
Educational programs were not adjusted after cost estimates exceeded the project budget. Some
areas were deferred or postponed until there was a better idea of available construction funds.
Construction bid evaluation

Project budget iterations included input from the project manager, architect and general contractor who
each presented their own independent cost estimates at different points of the design process. Based on
these estimates it was generally believed that the bid price would match the estimates. However, it was
not until the actual bids were received that the construction cost overruns were fully realized.
15
Based on our audit, the contractor bid evaluation and normalization paper work was often very difficult to
understand. Reliance was placed on the CMaR contractor to conduct the evaluation and provide a
recommendation without sufficient scrutiny by HISD. As a result, auditing the basis for award and
documenting the reason for the cost overrun was not always possible. Based on the inherent limitations in
the supporting bid documentation, we could not conclude that HISD always obtained the best value for
each trade contractor that was selected. Additionally, there were, at times, single bidders price accepted
without an explanation and justification. Lastly, we did not observe any follow-up of non-bidding
subcontractors in order for HISD to understand the reason for not bidding which can aid HISD in the
future to better formulate its contracting strategies. (Subcontractor bid oversight by HISD is discussed in a
separate observation within this report.)Effect: As a result of the limitations to the HISD budgeting
process and bid evaluation practices in combination with unprecedented market escalation, the original
project budgets were not representative of actual conditions and resulted in additional costs. It is
important to note that the request for additional funds does not indicate waste or mismanagement of
taxpayer funds, but rather indicates that the initial budget was based on what was later proven to be
unrealistic assumptions.
Recommendations
1a. HISDs Board should consider approving budgets for conceptual planning activities including
preliminary project design before project/program budgets are finalized and presented for Board
approval. Policies and procedures to capture pre-construction costs need to be developed and
implemented to establish a control structure over this process, if it is an elected option.
1b. HISD should perform a project-by-project scope and budget analysis instead of applying a limited
number of variables and assumptions across the population of proposed projects. Contingency
amounts should be reflective of the budget uncertainty and should be reviewed and adjusted as the
scope and budget are refined.
1c. HISD should consider other factors that drive costs higher such as sustainability, collaborative
learning spaces, technology, etc. and incorporate allowances for those factors into the budget
development process.
1d. HISD should consider limiting design choices when involving members of the project stakeholder
groups to participate design decisions in order to retain efficiency in the design process and to limit
overall cost impacts.
1e. If cost is a primary key performance indictor for HISD, HISD should consider adopting standardized
elements of school design to allow for shorter design and construction phases and lower project
costs. This can be particularly useful for elementary schools.
Management Response
Management agrees with the finding that increased construction activity in the Gulf Coast area, and the
resulting market conditions, were the primary driver affecting project costs. Management agrees in part and
disagrees in part with the recommendations regarding other factors that potentially influenced project budgets.
While Management recognizes that it is possible to procure and retain architects to perform programming and
preliminary project design services prior to voter approval, such a practice would, as KPMG points out, subject
the District to certain risks. First, in the event a bond referendum fails, the planning and design costs expended
could not be reimbursed from bond proceeds. Management is also aware that certain school districts that have
hired design professionals and proceeded with preliminary design activities in advance of a voter election have
been criticized as appearing presumptuous and premature in the expenditure of taxpayer funds. If, however,
the Board of Education opts to approve the procurement of and funding for architectural services prior to a
bond election, Management agrees that such measures would enable preliminary budgets to reduce the need
16
for design assumptions and include upfront input from stakeholder groups. Management also agrees that, in
the absence of such pre-election design services, contingency budgets should be higher to reflect the budget
uncertainty, and adjusted as design and budget are later refined.
Management agrees that the role of project advisory teams (PATs) should be limited to recommendations and
feedback, rather than active input into design decisions.
With respect to KPMGs recommendation that HISD adopt standardized elements for school design, HISD
has adopted uniform Educational Specifications and Design Standards for its facilities, including standards for
sustainability, collaborative learning and technology. Such considerations were accounted for in the 2012 bond
budgets. That said, as pointed out by KPMG, a district such as HISD is limited in its ability to standardize all
aspects of its campus designs, due to the urban environment in which HISD projects are constructed and the
unique pre-existing conditions of each site. Unlike rural and suburban school districts, where the districts have
flexibility to standardize the size and site layout of new campuses and the attendant placement of road and
utility infrastructure, urban landlocked school districts do not have the same flexibility. HISD must therefore
tailor the design of each newly constructed campus within the constraints of the conditions of the existing site,
making overly standardized, uniform or prototype designs not feasible.
Managements response to KPMGs observations related to bid evaluations is more fully addressed in
Management Response to finding #4.
Action Items: As finding #1 relates to pre-election and budget planning matters, no action is warranted.
17
2. HISDs policies and procedures for capital projects are not

sufficiently developed.
Comprehensive policies and procedures are utilized by leading organizations worldwide to describe the
process requirements necessary to fulfill the goals and objectives of a major construction (or bond)
program. Policies and procedures provide project personnel with the necessary guidelines, rules and
controls for planning and executing a capital program and individual construction projects. Policies and
procedures contain explicit, step-by-step instructions on how to perform specific tasks.
HISD developed a draft set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) at the beginning of the bond
program in 2013. The objective of the SOPs was to standardize the activities performed by the project
team to deliver the projects within the program. A majority of the HISD current SOPs were not drafted
until March and April of 2014, at which point a portion of the bond program efforts such as program
budgeting, planning and design were well underway or had already taken place. Many of the policies and
procedures are still in draft form.
Condition: KPMG compared critical elements of HISDs policies and procedures against generally
accepted leading practices and identified a number of deficiencies or weaknesses. We found that several
SOPs do not describe the process in enough detail to be effective or efficient, nor does it contain key
elements prescribed by prevailing industry standards.
It is our opinion that the SOPs and the related documentation listed above do not provide the necessary
level of detail or completeness required for a program of the size and complexity as the HISD bond
program and therefore represents a control deficiency. Although the bond program is well underway,
there is still a significant amount of taxpayer dollars left to be spent and day-to-day bond program
administration processes that require comprehensive policies and procedures.
In our discussions, members of the CFS team expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of updated policies
and procedures. Staff reported that they still rely on the outdated or draft SOPs in conjunction with their
own internal practices, and/or that they figure out process requirements on a case-by-case basis.
HISDs standard operating procedures (SOPs) currently in place cover several key construction and
design processes. KPMG did not perform a comprehensive gap analysis of all the policies and
procedures in place, but did observe throughout our audit, that the lack of defined processes, documents,
tools, roles and responsibilities impact the ability of HISD to effectively and efficiently deliver the bond
program projects.
For example,
1.04.03 - Describes the master schedule review process as the following: The schedule is reviewed
on a monthly basis and updated to address any revisions.
2.03.02 - Describes the reporting process as the following: Gather report information from all
Program Managers and compile into a single draft. Forward the draft to identified HISD staff for
review. Incorporate all revisions into the final report document.
These procedures are much too generic and high level to provide any meaningful guidance to the user.
Additionally, there are no policies and procedures in place for several critical processes such as quality
control in the subcontractor bid process, job order contracting (which we understand are under
18
development), conflict of interest, cost reporting, cost forecasting, risk management or approval authority,
for example. 5
Criteria: Leading practices in policies and procedures were reviewed and considered during this analysis.
The policies and procedures were compared against leading practices employed by KPMG, other
organizations, and governmental agencies. Included, but not limited to those leading practices are:
Project Management Institute of America (PMI)
Construction Management Association of America Construction Management Standards of Practice
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Best Practices
American Institute of Architects, The Architects Handbook of Professional Practice
Elements of policies and procedures for a variety of agencies previously reviewed by KPMG.
The prevailing industry standards on policies and procedures prescribe the following key elements of an
effective procedure:
The procedures identifies who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and/or informed.
The procedure includes clear objectives and detailed instructions on how to perform the task.
The procedure states when the tasks needs to take place.
The procedure includes references to relevant forms and documents.
The procedure includes graphic diagrams and or business process flow charts.
The procedure prescribes records retention and document update requirements.
The procedure is maintained, updated, and issued by a centralized function.
Procedure update notifications are generated and distributed automatically through a Project
Management Information System (PMiS) or other leading document repository system.
End users are involved in developing procedures.
Superfluous terms such as may, should, as applicable, and as necessary are avoided and replaced
with clearly defined requirements.
We encourage HISD to consider these key elements as they approve and formalize versions of their
policies and procedures.
HISD management recognizes that the current SOPs are not finalized and that weaknesses and
deficiencies may exist.
Cause: HISD experienced high turnover at the senior management level which resulted in construction
management practices changing with the changes in personnel and the SOPs not being continually
updated and refined. Since several of the key SOPs were not implemented until 2014, it was not possible
for CFS team members to follow them until this time. At present time, the current CFS leadership do not
have time or resources to accomplish this task.
Effect: If policies and procedures are not documented, adhered to, clearly communicated, and audited for
compliance, there is a potential for a lack of consistency and baseline to measure project performance.
5 KPMG is not identifying a complete list of HISDs SOPs that need improvement in this report. We reviewed a
limited number of SOPs from which we could draw our conclusions.
19
As evidenced by our audit results, HISDs opportunities for improvements identified in this report
correspond to areas where no or limited systematic instructions exist for construction administration
personnel to follow.
Lack of formally documented procedures may result in:
Program Managers (PMs), Construction Managers at Risk (CMaRs) and Architects performing similar
tasks in different ways which leads to organizational confusion and disorganization and reduced
accountability.
Inaccurate estimates, poor cost control, and unreliable forecasts.
Weak procurement management controls that do not cover end to end solicitation to award process.
Lack or limited visibility into major project issues, scope creep, unnecessary project risks, and cost
overruns.
Lack of integrated procedures, tools, methods and organization needed to timely complete the
program.
Recommendation
2a. HISD should dedicate resources to finalize their Standard Operating Procedures manual covering all
critical project and/or program delivery areas. HISD should prioritize their effort based on criticality of
the SOPs and the status of key milestones within the bond program. Examples of process areas
where focus should be initially placed to effect the future activities of the program include:
Quality control in the subcontractor bid process
Evaluation of CMaR proposals on self-performed work
Risk and contingency management
Cost reporting
Cost forecasting
Cost variance analysis
Approval authority matrix
Management Response
The topics listed above are already addressed in HISDs standard contract documents with its program
managers, design professionals and contractors. However, Management agrees that all existing
procedures pertaining to the above topics should be consolidated into an SOP manual that HISD can
utilize for program oversight and enforcement, and to ensure uniform cost reporting, forecasting and
analysis activities among HISDs various bond-related vendors.
Action Item: HISD will identify the list of SOP sections needed to satisfy the above audit
recommendations within 45 days.
20
3. The program is lacking an effective and efficient

organizational structure.
HISDs organizational structure for its Construction & Facility Services (CFS) organization, tasked with
delivering the 2012 bond program, changed from the CFS organizational structure used during HISDs
2007 bond program. HISDs current CFS organizational structure consists of two distinct silos: one for
Design and one for Construction.
Organizations delivering capital projects may take on a number of different structures and be both
efficient and effective in meeting program goals. However, an organization that creates silos, whether by
design or unintentionally, often encounter challenges and are less productive. Silos disconnect functions
across critical, continuous processes and does not facilitate teaming, among other things.
There is no one size fits all when it comes to organizational design. However, organizations should
document convincing reasons why they chose a particular organizational structure over another.
Additionally, the level of staff employed, their roles and responsibilities at each level needs to be carefully
assessed and documented in order to right size the organization.
Condition: Based on our audit of HISDs selection of its current CFS organizational structure and also
based on our interviews with CFS employees, we identified a number of areas where the current CFS
organization does not meet leading practices. There are opportunities for HISD to improve in the following
areas:
There are no documented or convincing reasons why the current CFS organizational structure of two
silos was selected and why it was deemed the best approach to deliver the current program goals.
There is no organizational assessment available to demonstrate that the right level of staff resources
are utilized in the delivery of the bond program.
The CFS organization has many relatively new employees, creating a need for cross-training and
collaboration and sharing of institutional knowledge. Currently this is not taking place efficiently and
effectively by CFS.
During our audit, several employees expressed dissatisfaction with the current organizational
structure in particular the lack of interaction between the Construction and Design functions.
Additionally, employees expressed concerns with many unnecessary layers within the organization
which inhibit information from being effectively and efficiently shared.
Morale and motivation among some employees appears to be low. Several employees expressed
frustrations of not being heard, of not having clear instructions for their day-to-day tasks. They
reported frequent instances of miscommunication within the CFS organization, of not understanding
management decisions, and believing that the current organizational structure is not working.
Criteria: HISDs organizational structure was compared to those of other leading capital programs
observed by KPMG as well as organizational assessments and views on organizational design and
organizational silos as expressed by leading organizations and institutions such as Forbes, Harvard,
Other criteria utilized include those published by National Institute of Science and Technology, Project
Management Institute, and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), among others.
Recommendation
3a. HISD should consider conducting an internal organizational assessment of its CFS organization and
create an organizational document that aligns with its bond program goals.
21
Management Response
Management agrees with this finding and has implemented a restructuring of the department. This new
organizational structure has eliminated departmental layers and silos, which in turn, has streamlined a
number of processes and created a clear structure of accountability.
Action Item: No additional action necessary.
22
4. The program is not providing sufficient internal oversight

into subcontractor bidding activities nor is it shifting pricing
risk to the CMaR contractor.
Section 2269.251 of the Texas Government Code allows a governmental entity to implement the CMaR
delivery method to contract with a general contractor to oversee the design and construction,
rehabilitation, alteration, or repair of a district facility. The HISD Board of Education adopted a resolution
in 2008, with its latest revision in April 2013, to utilize this delivery method for its 2012 bond program.
A CMaR manages the solicitation and selection of subcontractors to perform work for the project. A
CMaR is required to publicly advertise for bids for performance of the major elements of the work other
than the minor work that may be included in the general conditions.
The design process for program projects progressed to the point where Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP) for the project is negotiated at 100% design. Up until this point, project budget iterations had
included input from the project manager, architect and CMaR contractor who each presented their own
independent cost estimates at different points of the design process. Based on these estimates it was
generally believed that the bid price would match the pricing estimates. However, it was not until the
actual bids were received that the construction bid overruns were fully realized.
HISD does not own the bid process, the CMaR does, unless there is a related party bid involved.
However, HISD can require the CMaR to submit adequate supporting documentation to fully document
the process.
Condition: HISD negotiates the projects Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) with the CMaR contractor
at 100% design drawings, leaving virtually no pricing risk with the CMaR, an approach which is permitted
under Texas law. The CMaR, however, has little motivation to press subcontractor costs down as the
CMaR gains no incentive for doing so. We recognize that HISD may exercise the option of ceasing
negotiations with the CMaR and re-bid under a Competitive Sealed Proposal (CSP) if pricing cannot be
agreed to, however this is often a time consuming endeavor which may delay start of construction.
Therefore, closely monitoring the subcontractor selection process, without interfering, becomes critical to
HISD.
An approach not currently utilized by HISD, that is common practice in many other jurisdictions and
permitted under Texas law, involves negotiation a GMP at approximately 60%-70% design with costs the
lesser of the actual cost of the work plus a fee, or the fixed ceiling amount. This model is a hybrid of lump
sum and time and material compensation. It allows an owner to enjoy both budgetary certainty and the
benefit of any cost savings earlier in the process. As with all delivery methodologies, it comes with
benefits as well as disadvantages (such as the importance of due diligence in establishing the GMP).
However, it adds another contracting vehicle for HISDs to utilize as the circumstances dictate.
Based on our audit, the contractor bid evaluation and normalization paper work was not standardized and
often it was very difficult to understand. Reliance was placed on the CMaR contractor to conduct the
evaluation and provide a recommendation without sufficient scrutiny by HISD. As a result, auditing the
basis for award and documenting the reason for the bid overrun was not always possible. Based on the
inherent limitations in the supporting bid documentation, we could not conclude that HISD always
obtained the best value for each trade contractor that was selected. Additionally, there were, at times,
single bidder pricing being accepted without an explanation and justification. Lastly, we did not observe
any follow-up of non-bidding subcontractors in order for HISD to understand the reason for not bidding
which can aid HISD in the future to better formulate its contracting strategies.
23
We believe HISDs policies and procedures governing the solicitation and selection process of
subcontractors by the CMaR do not meet leading practices as they do not promulgate critical review by
HISD to help ensure that best value is achieved. Among other things:
HISD does not have a formal policy or procedure around procurement activities or defined internal
requirements for CMaRs around the subcontractor solicitation and selection process. HISDs CMaR
contracts include provisions for the CMaR contractors responsibility related to compliance and
accountability.
HISD does not have a minimum bid requirement that CMaRs need to comply with during the
subcontractor bid solicitation process.
HISD does not require CMaRs to complete Conflict of Interest Forms or disclose bid activity from
affiliated parties.
HISD does not document its participation in the subcontractor bid receipts and tabulations of
subcontractor bids.
HISD does not perform an evaluation of best value when CMaRs bid to self-perform a portion of the
work.
Subcontractor bid evaluations and normalizations 6 were not consistently documented. Many
evaluations contained unexplained plug numbers and amounts that did not consistently reconcile
back to underlying subcontractor bid documentation.
HISD does not regularly follow up with non-bidding subcontractors to gain an understanding of why a
bid was not submitted.
Criteria
Texas Government Code Section 2269.251, 2269.253
HISD CH Legal and CH Local policies
Association of General Contractors of America, Construction Manager at Risk A reference guide for
Texas K-12 Educational Construction Projects
Joint Committee of the Associated General Contractors of America, Houston, TX, Construction
Manager at Risk, a Reference Guide for Texas K-12 Educational Construction Projects
Elements of policies & procedures and leading practices for a variety of agencies previously reviewed
by KPMG.
Effect: In a construction market with high owner demand for skilled labor and many competing projects
for subcontractors to bid on, it becomes crucial for an owner to reach out to the contracting community
and establish itself as an attractive owner. It is of equal importance that the owner dedicate sufficient
resources to identify and avoid unnecessary charges and inflated costs that may be proposed by
subcontractors.
Using additional delivery and contracting methodologies, such as establishing a CMaR at 60%-70% of
design, will provide more options to facilitate a better overall program delivery strategy for HISD. As a
result, HISD may realize cost savings and/or enjoy pricing certainty earlier in the delivery process in a
The process of reducing of a group of bid responses to common set of dominators is generally referred to as bid
normalization. Normalization facilitates the bid evaluation process by establishing a baseline for comparing
individual components across all responses.
24
construction market where pricing escalation is a concern. We recognize there are positive as well as
negative aspects with every delivery methodology, however, critically considering all options and adapting
along the way will provide increased flexibility for HISD.
As a result of insufficient policies and procedures governing the solicitation and selection process of
subcontractors and the lack of a fair and critical review process documented by HISD to help ensure best
value is achieved, HISD is risking:
Inconsistent practices by the different parties involved in the program, which compromises the
integrity of pricing and subcontractor selection process,
Lack of transparency that could impact the contractor pool bidding on district projects resulting in
decreased competition and higher prices,
Lack of accountability from process owners as roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined,
Highly subjective, convoluted and unbalanced evaluations which can be used to manipulate the bid
scores, and
Misevaluated subcontractor proposals, which may lead to bid protests and result it lengthy and costly
legal proceedings.
Recommendation
4a. HISD should consider additional delivery and contracting methodologies to supplement its current
bond program selections of CMaR (GMP currently negotiated at 100% design), and CSP. HISD
should consider negotiating the project GMP at 60% - 70% design.
4b. HISD should consider documenting their internal quality assurance oversight role in the
subcontractor bid evaluation practices in a formal district policy and procedure. The document
should:
Define a minimum number of subcontractor bidders a CMaR is required to receive when bidding the
work. If a CMaR received less than the minimum number of bids, a justification should be provided.
Define the minimum requirements and criteria that CMaRs need to include in their review process.
Define standard criteria and format to evaluate subcontractor bids so that highly different formats
and bid contents are avoided and a straight forward bid normalization is facilitated.
Require CMaRs to provide notification of intent to self-perform any portion of the work individually
or through an affiliate and/or provide Conflict of Interest Waivers.
Define a process to evaluate best value when CMaR bids to self-perform work.
Define a process for following up with subcontractors.
Management Response
With respect to recommendation 4a. Management disagrees that HISD should utilize any contracting
methodology other than CMaR and CSP for its major bond projects. The only other construction
contracting methods legally available to school districts are competitive bidding (lowest responsible bidder
with no ability to negotiate), design-build (contracting with a single entity or team who performs both
design and construction), and job order contracting. Management does not believe that competitive
bidding or design-build would result in best value for HISD, and such methods are rarely ever used by K12 public school districts for capital bond projects. While the job order contracting method may have
limited applicability and value for certain minor construction, renovation or repair projects initiated by CFS,
it is not a legally permissible method for large capital projects. Management would not, therefore,
recommend that the district deviate from the methods (both CMaR and CSP) that HISD has already
25
designated for the current bond projects. For future projects, Management will continue to recommend
only the CMaR or CSP methods, unless the unique nature of a given project lends itself to consideration
of an alternative method.
Management agrees with the recommendation contained in 4a. above concerning negotiation of a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) with the districts CMaR firms at 60-70% design, however HISD will
face both market-driven and logistical challenges if it elects to implement such a requirement at this point
in the bond program. Management recognizes and agrees that outside of the K-12 construction industry,
the typical practice is to obtain a GMP from a CMaR at 6070% design. In a market where this is
standard practice, there is a potential for cost savings. Unfortunately, however, virtually all K-12 school
districts in the Gulf Coast area utilize the same practice as HISD, which is to negotiate the GMP at 100%
design, and after the procurement of subcontractors. As a result of this prevailing practice in the K-12
construction industry, the pool of CMaR firms that serve Texas K-12 school districts area are highly and
collectively - resistant to proposing a GMP earlier in the design phase and prior to the solicitation of
subcontractor bids. It has been reported by representatives for other Texas school districts that, when
forced to do so at earlier stages of design, CMaRs typically offer inflated GMPs to protect themselves
from the risk and uncertainty of remaining design activities and subcontractor bidding results. If one of
HISDs CMaR refuses to negotiate a GMP earlier in design phase, or fails to offer an acceptable GMP,
HISD will have only two options: either (1) agree to accept a higher GMP and hope that the eventual
actual costs of construction will be lower than the negotiated GMP, or (2) if HISD is unable to negotiate an
earlier and reasonable GMP with the a CMaR, terminate the CMaRs contract and rebid the project under
the Competitive Sealed Proposal method. Should the Board direct the Administration to implement the
practice recommended by KPMG, Management is willing to do so, and will have to the weigh the risk of
project delays (and any additional cost resulting therefrom) against the potential cost savings to be
realized by terminating a CMaR and rebidding the project as a CSP to obtain a new general contractor.
Management agrees with the recommendations contained in 4b. above, concerning the need for
additional oversight into the Construction Managers subcontractor bidding process in certain areas.
HISD is in the process of completing development of its Standard Operating Procedures, which will
include procedural requirements for all CMaR firms in connection with the subcontractor bidding process.
HISD does, in its construction contracts, require its CMaRs to comply with all statutory requirements
associated with the subcontractor bidding process and the performance of self-performed work by the
CMaR. Additionally, HISD does, in practice, require CMaRs to provide advance written notice to HISD of
its intent to self-perform work. However, Management agrees that additional oversight and uniform
procedural requirements relating to such activities could minimize cost variances resulting from each
CMaRs potentially varying approach to subcontractor procurement solicitation and evaluation. HISD will
work to develop such policies in a manner that requires more oversight and uniformity in the process,
while not unlawfully infringing on the CMaRs statutory right and obligation to conduct the subcontractor
procurement process itself.
Action Item: HISD will await direction from the Board of Education as it relates to the implementation of a
practice to require GMPs earlier in the project design phase, and is willing to engage in further
discussions with the BOE regarding the pros and cons of implementing such practice for any future bond
CMaR contracts. HISD will identify the list of SOP sections needed to satisfy the above audit
recommendations within 45 days.
26
5. The program is not conducting sufficient project cost

estimating, variance analysis, contingency management or
reporting activities.
In an effort to increase the visibility, minimize surprises and improve the project delivery process, leading
school districts and agencies develop delivery and status reporting requirements for their bond projects to
closely monitor budget, scope and schedule. All agencies are expected to deliver their projects within the
time frames and budgets provided in the delivery requirements.
Leading practices specify a number of reporting metrics, which can be used to identify potential budget
overruns and schedule slippage early on, if used correctly and reported on a regular basis.
The most comprehensive HISD program status reports are the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) reports,
which are issued quarterly.
Condition: The HISD bond program does not have a formal project or program status reporting process
documented. The bond management office communicates regularly with Construction Managers and
Program Managers. However, reports required by Program Manager and Construction Manager contracts
are not produced on a regular basis.
HISDs existing project status reporting process result can be improved to facilitate more effective internal
and external communication. Additionally, the information included with the current BOC status reports
can be expanded to include additional key metrics, which will allow HISD make timely informed decisions
and build trust and public confidence.
Estimated costs to complete

HISD currently does not have a process in place to develop estimated total costs at completion (EAC)
throughout the project delivery process. Estimate at completion is the forecasted cost of the project at
completion time, reported as the project progresses. There are a number of different ways to determine
the EAC. The most common way to determine EAC is a bottoms-up formula where the actual costs (AC)
are added to the forecasted remaining spending the estimate to complete (ETC). By comparing EAC to
the initial budget, variances can be calculated and analyzed. Additionally, by comparing EAC to the
budgeted amount on a line item basis, trends and overruns can be identified early and mitigating
measures put in place. Currently, the estimate to complete is calculated and reported by HISD as the
mathematical difference between the approved budget and costs incurred to date. The district uses the
Guaranteed Maximum Prices (GMP) in their CMaR agreements and the fixed fee in the other service
provider agreements to estimate its maximum cost exposure on a project. (This may be a valid
calculation, however there is also a chance that there are variances, which is why it is a leading practice
to give the project budget a fresh look every month.).
Variance and status reporting Budget and scheduling Accountability in

reporting
HISD does not have formal policies and procedures around project cost variance analysis and reporting.
HISDs current cost management practices consists of tracking actual project expenditures. The BOC
reports shows the original budgets approved for the projects on a one-line item basis and compares this
to actual expenditures. This is not a good measure of the overall financial health of a project as it leaves
out many other reporting metrics commonly used in industry, which serve as better indicators.
27
Similarly, HISDs reporting on schedule is limited and shows the most current high level target schedule.
A better measure of progress should include the original baseline schedule compared to the most current
schedule.
The bond management office works closely with the Office of Bond Fund Accounting in monitoring and
tracking project costs but there are no formal processes to produce periodic reports on project cost
variances. The Office of Bond Fund Accounting produces ad-hoc reports on an as requested basis for the
bond management office.
Contingency management
There are currently no HISD policies and procedures on contingency management with the exception of a
draft policy Contingency Allowance Expenditure 1.09.08 which discusses utilizing a portion of the
contingency included in the general contractor (GC) or CMaR contracts. Project policies and procedures
documents should address the different kinds of contingencies, how they are established and valued, the
need for allowances, who controls them, and what should happen to them if they are not expended. They
should also include precise and consistent definitions for terminology. The term contingency in particular
needs a consistent definition, as it often means different things to different people.
Criteria
HISD Standard Operating Procedures
AACE International promulgated Recommended Practices
Construction Industry Institute (CII) promulgated Best Practices
Project Management Institute of America (PMI)
Elements of budgeting practices for a variety of agencies and school districts previously reviewed by
KPMG
Construction Management Association of America, Construction Management Standards of Practice
Cause: As previously mentioned, HISD experienced high turnover at the senior management level which
resulted in construction management practices changing with the changes in personnel and the SOPs not
being continually updated and refined. Since several of the key SOPs were not implemented until 2014, it
was not possible for CFS team members to follow them until this time. At present time, the current CFS
leadership do not have time or resources to accomplish this task.
Effect: Without a process in place to adequately consider and estimate the costs to complete (ETC), the
financial health of individual projects and thereby the entire bond program may be incorrectly represented
and unfavorable trends and budget overruns may not be identified in a timely manner.
A robust policies and procedures around the districts forecasting processes such as variance reporting
and cost forecasting will allow the bond management office to evaluate savings and needs on a project by
project basis allowing them to reallocate funds, as needed, to maintain the overall program budget. As
provided in the guidance in SOP 2.04.01, identified savings should be returned to the bond program, not
the individual facility.
Without leading practices in place for project cost estimating, variance analysis, contingency
management and reporting, HISD is risking:
Inconsistent application of existing district practices by the different parties involved in the program.
Limited visibility into estimated costs at completion limiting managements ability to implement
mitigating strategies in a timely manner.
28
Stakeholder distrust when project variances or program adjustments are communicated without
previous communication or visibility into the project or program issues.
Recommendations
5a. HISD and the BOC should consider expanding the BOC reports to include initial budget, revised
budget, current costs, commitments, and EAC. These metrics should be reported by project, by
budget category (construction, contingency, design, program costs, furniture fixtures and equipment
(FFE) and technology equipment). Any variances and changes from previous reporting period
(preferably each month) should be discussed, explained and thoroughly justified in the report.
5b. HISD and BOC should also consider including the original baseline schedule compared to the most
current schedule in the reports presented to the constituents. Any variances and changes from
previous reporting period should be discussed, explained and thoroughly justified in the report.
5c. As part of enhancing its policies and procedures, HISD should consider developing and
implementing policies and procedures for cost estimating, cost variance analysis, contingency
management and reporting.
5d. HISD should consider developing standardized project reporting template that all project managers
must use to report on project related matters including a standard schedule for the project status
reporting to the bond management office.
Management Response
Management agrees with the above recommendations and is in the process of implementing more
effective forecasting tools and templates that will enable HISD to prepare more detailed, frequent and
expanded reporting, as appropriate, between various parties and stakeholders.
Action Item: Management intends to have the additional reporting capabilities and templates available by
the October 2016 BOC meeting.
29
Appendices
30
Appendix A
Supplemental Bond
Funding
31
Proposed Supplemental Funding 2012 Bond Program

A
Appendix A
CONSTRUCTION
Original Total
Project Budget
Original
Construction
Budget
Inflation and
Proportional
Proposed Revised
Reserves
Funding
Construction
allocated to Distribution Based
Budget (Column B
Original
on Original
+ Column C +
Construction
Construction
Column D)
Budget
Budget
Proposed Revised
Total Project
Budget (Column A
+ Column D)
Group 1 Bond Projects

Debakey High School
Delmar-Tusa Fieldhouse
Furr High School
Grady Middle School
HSPVA
Lee High School
Mandarin Chinese
Mark White Elementary
Mickey Leland
Milby High school
North Early College
Sharpstown High School
South Early College
Sterling High School
Waltrip High School
Washington High School
Worthing High School
64,512,000
16,225,000
55,100,000
14,825,000
80,178,000
73,801,000
32,161,000
23,417,000
28,675,000
68,810,000
13,500,000
54,944,000
13,500,000
72,304,000
30,115,000
51,732,000
30,180,000
41,483,501
9,447,498
29,792,812
8,816,000
48,397,050
43,626,429
19,138,988
13,920,000
16,328,160
40,162,694
7,200,000
34,166,925
7,200,000
41,198,668
18,116,239
29,975,845
16,773,441
5,581,920
1,787,432
9,448,811
1,394,635
10,585,997
9,194,086
3,563,640
2,758,814
3,342,402
8,069,639
1,549,221
5,350,098
1,549,221
10,373,184
3,022,485
6,767,706
3,602,248
8,863,862
2,018,666
6,365,889
1,883,732
10,341,093
9,321,745
4,089,465
2,974,314
3,488,870
8,581,642
1,538,438
7,300,515
1,538,438
8,803,001
3,870,933
6,404,998
3,584,014
55,929,283
13,253,596
45,607,512
12,094,367
69,324,140
62,142,260
26,792,093
19,653,128
23,159,432
56,813,975
10,287,659
46,817,538
10,287,659
60,374,853
25,009,657
43,148,549
23,959,703
73,375,862
18,243,666
61,465,889
16,708,732
90,519,093
83,122,745
36,250,465
26,391,314
32,163,870
77,391,642
15,038,438
62,244,515
15,038,438
81,107,001
33,985,933
58,136,998
33,764,014
106,724,000
46,764,000
59,125,000
10,875,000
107,974,000
29,485,000
59,481,000
64,708,764
26,600,884
35,294,856
4,940,000
64,418,950
17,525,453
34,614,584
11,885,555
5,449,507
6,556,900
2,377,600
11,972,378
3,266,070
7,788,880
13,826,450
5,683,864
7,541,522
1,055,540
13,764,525
3,744,698
7,396,167
90,420,769
37,734,255
49,393,278
8,373,140
90,155,853
24,536,221
49,799,631
120,550,450
52,447,864
66,666,522
11,930,540
121,738,525
33,229,698
66,877,167
26,632,000
36,693,000
101,428,000
27,159,000
15,755,841
21,461,136
60,649,140
17,419,606
2,946,350
4,305,360
11,253,326
2,740,908
3,366,582
4,585,643
12,959,022
3,722,082
22,068,773
30,352,139
84,861,488
23,882,596
29,998,582
41,278,643
114,387,022
30,881,082
68,429,000
26,678,000
1,125,000
17,000,000
82,736,000
7,989,000
12,566,000
6,125,000
40,006,000
14,225,000
14,225,000
35,603,000
18,914,000
39,899,550
15,183,862
706,893
10,167,706
47,765,288
3,840,000
7,354,863
3,866,127
22,686,890
8,187,500
8,187,500
18,928,600
12,522,720
7,541,235
2,921,479
126,527
1,886,257
11,196,861
839,519
1,369,967
689,745
4,376,882
1,562,500
1,562,329
5,251,047
61,992
8,525,416
3,244,366
151,043
2,172,554
10,206,104
820,500
1,571,528
826,083
4,847,553
1,749,439
1,749,439
4,044,511
2,675,754
55,966,201
21,349,707
984,463
14,226,517
69,168,253
5,500,019
10,296,358
5,381,955
31,911,325
11,499,439
11,499,268
28,224,158
15,260,466
76,954,416
29,922,366
1,276,043
19,172,554
92,942,104
8,809,500
14,137,528
6,951,083
44,853,553
15,974,439
15,974,439
39,647,511
21,589,754
Totals
District-Wide Projects
1,681,940,000
208,060,000
988,430,963
197,870,713
211,200,000
1,397,501,676
1,893,140,000
208,060,000
Bond Program Total
1,890,000,000

Bellaire High School
Davis High School
Dowling Middle School
Eastwood Academy
Lamar High School
Parker Elementary School
Yates High School

Askew Elementary School
Jordan High School
Sam Houston
Young Women's College Prep

Austin High School
Garden Oaks Montessori K-8
Jones High School
Kashmere High School
Madison High School
Pilgrim Academy K-8
Scarborough High School
Sharpstown International High School
Westbury High School
Barnet Fieldhouse
Bulter Fieldhouse
Wharton Dual Language School
Wilson Montessori K-8
2,101,200,000
September 2015
Contact us
Clay Gilge
Principal
(206) 913 4670
cgilge@kpmg.com
Erika Alvord
Director
(503) 820-6603
ealvord@kpmg.com
Carlos Torres-Rivera
Manager
(713) 319-3142
ctorresrivera@kpmg.com
www.kpmg.com
kpmg.com/socialmedia
2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG
International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. NDPPS XXXXXX

KPMG Houston ISD Audit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KPMG Houston ISD Audit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KPMG Houston ISD Audit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the purpose and scope of the audit?

What was the purpose and scope of the audit?

What were some of the main findings of the audit?

What were some of the main findings of the audit?

Making

August 11, 2016

+1 206 913 4000

August 11, 2016

Dear Members of the Committee,

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership,

Construction Change Directive

Construction & Facility Services

Construction Manager at Risk

Competitive Sealed Proposal

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Estimated Total Cost

Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment

Houston Independent School District

Job Order Contracting

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Local Minority/Women Business Enterprise

Project Advisory Team

Program Management Team

Request for Proposals

Request for Qualifications

Standard Operating Procedure

Report to Houston Independent School District

Report to Houston Independent School District

Partial replacement of three high schools

Incomplete project assumptions and differing conditions;

Report to Houston Independent School District

Pre-2012 bond program

Report to Houston Independent School District

All schools Total

District Athletic Improvements

Districtwide Land Acquisition

Middle School Restroom Renovation

Please see Appendix A for the Proposed Supplemental Funding.

Audit scope and

Performance audit plan

Report to Houston Independent School District

Report to Houston Independent School District

Report to Houston Independent School District

Evaluation of overall Bond Program strategy and coordination of construction efforts.

Report to Houston Independent School District

Audit results and

Project assumptions and differing conditions

Estimated bid date

Furr High School

Lee High School

Sterling High School

Sharpstown High School

Policies and procedures

Programmatic specifications and project advisory teams (PAT)

Construction bid evaluation

Report to Houston Independent School District

Report to Houston Independent School District

2. HISDs policies and procedures for capital projects are not

Report to Houston Independent School District