Report 2011-116.1 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2011-116.1: Department of General Services: The Division of the State Architect Lacks Enforcement Authority and Has Weak Oversight Procedures, Increasing the Risk That School Construction Projects May Be Unsafe (Release Date: December 2011)

Recommendation #1 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure public safety and provide public assurance that school districts construct projects in accordance with approved plans, the department, in conjunction with the division, should pursue legislative changes to the Field Act that would prohibit occupancy in cases in which the division has identified significant safety concerns.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The objective of this recommendation has been achieved through the implementation of an inspection card process similar to that used in most municipalities throughout the state. On June 1, 2013, the inspection card process was implemented for all new construction projects. The process allows for verification of structural integrity and fire and life safety at the completion of each applicable phase of the project. The use of the inspection card will result in the timely certification of structural and fire and life safety upon completion of project construction. This initial certification may also identify outstanding items to be completed for full accessibility compliance, which will be required to be addressed by the project's owner within a prescribed timeline in order to achieve final certification of the project by DSA.

  • Completion Date: June 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

According to the division, its new inspection card process ensures "school buildings are constructed in accordance with approved plans by providing sign-offs for significant milestones of the construction process." Further, the Legislature considered a bill during the 2011-12 session to create a workgroup to review school construction oversight and to consider changes to the Field Act. However, that bill died. We remain concerned that allowing school districts to occupy buildings with significant safety concerns places students at risk. Should there be future legislative action in this area, the division should provide an update to us.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

1-Year Agency Response

According to General Services, the State Architect determined that the division could achieve the objective of this recommendation through an inspection card system similar to one used in municipalities throughout the State. It indicated that such a system would allow for the verification of structural integrity and fire and life safety at the completion of each phase of a project and should result in timely certification upon completion of project construction. The division expects to implement the inspection card system in April 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 39)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #2 To: General Services, Department of

To better use the enforcement tools at its disposal, the division should continue and expand its use of both orders to comply and stop work orders, as defined in its regulations. The division should also develop performance measures to assess the success of any efforts it makes to address safety concerns and reduce the number of uncertified projects.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Effective January 1, 2013, DSA modified its policies for stop work orders and orders to comply to ensure the appropriate and consistent use of these enforcement tools as part of the construction project oversight function. The new process requires regional office managers to record the issuance of stop work orders and their resolution, and DSA headquarters' staff to monitor the regional office data entries and activities with respect to the orders.

  • Completion Date: January 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division substantially revised its policies related to stop work orders and orders to comply. Among the revisions, the division outlined more specific circumstances under which it may issue such orders, such as when construction is proceeding without an approved inspector or when non-compliant construction could be concealed by subsequent work. Also, in the division's training materials on the new policy, the division states that it will track stop work orders and correspondence related to stop work orders centrally and generate a quarterly summary to evaluate the effectiveness of procedures. Finally, the division is tracking and reporting on the number of uncertified projects, by fiscal year.


1-Year Agency Response

The division updated its policies for stop work orders and orders to comply and conducted trainings for staff on the new policies in the fall of 2012. According to General Services, the new policies will be effective January 1, 2013, and at that time the division's regional office managers will be required to record the issuance of stop work orders and their resolution, and the division's headquarters staff will be required to monitor regional office data entries and activities with respect to stop work orders. (See 2013-406, p. 40)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #3 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure that it clearly justifies the reasons a project's noted issues merit a particular classification, the division should either modify its current policies regarding classifying types of uncertified projects or develop new policies, including requiring documentation of the rationale behind project-specific classifications. It should use its classifications to prioritize its efforts to follow up on uncertified projects based on risk and to better inform the public regarding the reasons it has not certified projects.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

In October 2013, DSA issued new written procedures related to the certification process for completed construction projects. The procedures provide a required and prescribed method for compliance with applicable regulations related to project certification. Upon substantial completion of a project or the project becomes occupied, DSA initiates a project certification process. In brief, after DSA examines the project file to determine that all documents required for certification have been received and that there is no evidence of unapproved construction documents, the project becomes certified or not certified.

If the project is not certified, the school district and the project's design professional are notified by letter and online of the reason(s) for that action. The reasons are categorized as follows: (1) the district has not submitted a final cost report; (2) the district has not paid all required fees; (3) the required project scope has not been constructed; (4) construction is not in compliance with approved construction documents; (5) final required reports have not been received; and, (6) the final required reports that have been submitted are unacceptable due to incomplete or incorrect content.

Upon a project being identified as not certified, DSA actively works with the district and design professional to resolve any outstanding issues that are preventing certification. As part of these efforts, DSA focuses its resources on higher risk uncertified projects, such as projects that have safety deficiencies.

Related to informing the public, the new procedures provide that the school district has 45 calendar days to resolve all outstanding certification issues. If not resolved in that timeline, DSA will post to its website the uncertified status of a project and the reason(s) the project has not been certified.

  • Completion Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division's new procedure establishes two categories, certified or not certified. When the division does not certify a project, it will complete a form listing the specific reasons why a project is not certified. This control addresses our recommendation, as it creates a record of the specific reasons for lack of certification and gives the division and the public the information necessary to assess the risk that an uncertified project could be unsafe. However, we have not audited the effectiveness of this new process.


1-Year Agency Response

In December 2012 the division conducted training for staff on changes to its procedures for project certification letters, which will be effective January 2013. In that training, the division outlined three certification letters it will use: one to indicate certified projects, a second to indicate projects not receiving certification because the division needs additional documentation, and a third to indicate projects not receiving certification because the division has noted deficiencies in the project. General Services said that for projects that cannot be certified due to missing documentation, the division will specify in its letter the required documents and the steps required to obtain certification. In addition, the division will no longer close project files for projects with outstanding noncompliance issues and will monitor the projects until these noncompliant conditions are resolved. General Services' response did not outline how the division would use these new classifications to prioritize follow-up efforts or inform the public. (See 2013-406, p. 40)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #4 To: General Services, Department of

To reduce the number of uncertified projects, the division should implement initiatives to follow up with school districts on uncertified projects. Those initiatives should include, at a minimum, regularly sending each district a list of its uncertified projects and assessing the success of the division's follow-up efforts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

As noted in previous status reports, DSA has taken numerous actions to ensure that uncertified projects are identified, followed up and tracked until resolution. These actions include implementing an outreach plan that contains provisions for notifying school districts of their uncertified projects and regularly communicating with districts on those projects. DSA also engaged with school districts that had uncertified projects with evidence of unresolved safety deficiencies and conducted site visits to each of those projects as part of its outreach efforts.

Additionally, in October 2013, DSA has created a CertificationBox (DSA's cloud based internet solution) with folders for all uncertified projects and invited school districts to collaborate on their projects. DSA posted the items required for the project to be certified within specific folders under the school district, campus and application number. The school district has the ability to submit the required documents over the internet to the appropriate location. The submitter, date and document information is tracked by DSA. The system allows metrics to be run to capture activity and to maintain a record of progress of certification.

  • Completion Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

General Services stated that the division has implemented an outreach plan that includes regular communication with school districts about uncertified projects. In April 2012, the State Architect sent school superintendents a letter that advised them of the outreach effort. According to that letter, the State Architect plans to send letters to all school districts with uncertified school construction projects. The letter also said that each notification will include the names of the uncertified projects and the original closing letters that state why the State Architect was unable to certify the projects. According to the department, beginning on June 1, 2012, the division sent out copies of the original closing letters for more than 9,000 uncertified projects and will continue with outreach efforts for the remaining uncertified projects. Finally, as it states above, the division set up an online system that provides information on uncertified projects and allows districts to submit correspondence related to these projects.


1-Year Agency Response

General Services stated that the division has implemented an outreach plan that includes regular communication with school districts about uncertified projects. In April 2012 the State Architect sent school superintendents a letter that advised them of the outreach effort. According to that letter, the State Architect plans to send letters to all school districts with uncertified school construction projects. The letter also said that each notification will include the names of the uncertified projects and the original closing letters that state why the State Architect was unable to certify the projects. According to General Services, beginning on June 1, 2012, the division sent out copies of the original closing letters for more than 9,000 uncertified projects and will continue with outreach efforts for the remaining uncertified projects. The division also plans to develop correspondence procedures that ensure regular follow-up with districts that have uncertified projects. The division stated it would develop correspondence procedures by June 2013 and provide districts with original closing letters by September 2013. Finally, according to General Services, the division's outreach efforts have resulted in the reduction of uncertified projects from 16,386 to 14,334, and the division has conducted site visits of each uncertified project that has evidence of unresolved safety deficiencies. (See 2013-406, p. 41)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #5 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure it is providing adequate oversight of school district construction projects, the division should develop robust procedures for monitoring inspectors' submission of semi-monthly reports. The division should also maintain all semi-monthly reports in its project files.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

DSA has taken additional actions to fulfill its responsibilities related to tracking, obtaining and filing the inspector semi-monthly reports. Toward this end, the division updated its automatic project tracking system to record the date of receipt of the most recent semi-monthly report. Further, in November 2012, staff training was conducted to review the procedures for receiving, reviewing and documenting the filing of semi-monthly reports. In December 2012, DSA also issued guidance to project inspectors on filing semi-monthly reports, including a list of who must receive the report and a report template. Finally, additional staff training was provided in February 2013 that included information on monitoring the filing of semi-monthly reports and steps to follow related to late or missing reports.

  • Completion Date: February 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

We noted in 2013-406 that the division had updated its tracking system, conducted staff training in November 2012 and issued guidance in December 2012 on the semi-monthly reports. In February 2013, the division offered staff training on a "field review status report." According to the training, this report allows field staff to monitor submittals of semi-monthly reports, for example by identifying projects with overdue reports. Also, the division's checklist for its field visits includes a review of the project inspector's semi-monthly reports. In addition, the division is beginning to use a cloud-based system for receiving and retaining various documents relevant to projects, including semi-monthly reports.


1-Year Agency Response

The division updated its project-tracking system to record the date of the most recent semi-monthly report and conducted staff training on the procedures for receiving, reviewing, and documenting the filing of semi-monthly reports in November 2012. The division also issued revised guidance in December 2012 to inspectors on filing semi-monthly reports, including a list of who must receive the report and a report template. Finally, the division indicated that there will be additional training in January 2013 on monitoring the filing of semi-monthly reports. (See 2013-406, p. 41)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #6 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure it is providing adequate oversight of school district construction projects, the division should develop and document an overall strategy that establishes specific expectations for conducting site visits and monitoring construction. The division should then record and compare its actual visits and monitoring efforts to its planned actions. The division should document explanations for any deviations from its plans.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

DSA finalized its site visit goals for all projects and provided staff training on this subject in November 2012. As part of this process, the division developed a monitoring tool to record and compare actual site visits by its field engineers to the policies requiring regular site visits. The monitoring system has been established to compile site visit data and compare to site visit goals. In February 2013, DSA conducted additional staff training that included: (1) using the monitoring system to generate data on field activities; and, (2) procedures for ensuring that site visit goals are met using the available data.

  • Completion Date: February 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division provided evidence of its site visit goals, monitoring tool, and the February 2013 training mentioned above. Additionally, in response to another recommendation the division provided a tool showing how it reviews its staffing levels in relation to its site visit goals.


1-Year Agency Response

The division conducted training in November 2012 on its objectives for conducting site visits based on project characteristics. For example, for new building construction the division expects to visit a project inspector every four to eight weeks. Additionally, the division has developed a monitoring tool in order to record actual site visits completed by its field engineers and to allow it to compare those visits to the number of site visits expected. According to General Services, the division is developing a two-phase staff training program that will include using the monitoring system to generate data on field activities and procedures for ensuring that site visit goals are met using the available data. The division expects to conduct the training in the first quarter of 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 41)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #7 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure it is providing adequate oversight of school district construction projects, the division should establish consistent criteria for entering data into its database on key aspects of projects, such as the dates for the start and end of construction.

1-Year Agency Response

The division developed standard criteria for documenting the start and end dates of school construction projects and accordingly updated its guidelines for project inspectors in December 2012. The guidelines state, for example, that the inspector will use as the construction start date the date the contractor mobilizes on the project site to begin construction. (See 2013-406, p. 42)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #8 To: General Services, Department of

To mitigate risks arising from the relationship between inspectors, school districts, and project managers, the division should develop formal procedures and explicit directions for field engineers to ensure that they establish a presence on project sites and provide adequate oversight of inspectors during construction.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The DSA has initiated a training program that focuses on ensuring that consistent construction oversight is being provided by its field engineers. The training includes modules that address overseeing project inspector performance and record keeping during construction. The first module was conducted in August 2012 and provided instruction on monitoring project inspector recordkeeping. A second training course on documentation of field oversight activities, including site visit goals, was completed in November 2012. The final training session, held in February 2013, outlined procedures for generating field status data to ensure adequate oversight of active construction projects.

  • Completion Date: February 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division provided evidence of the trainings mentioned above.


1-Year Agency Response

In August 2012 the division conducted training on monitoring project inspector recordkeeping. A second training in November 2012 focused on documentation of field oversight activities, including site visit goals. According to General Services, additional training sessions will be completed by February 2013. These sessions will outline procedures for generating field status data to ensure adequate oversight of active construction projects. (See 2013-406, p. 42)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #9 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure that it approves inspectors prior to the start of project construction, the division should streamline its approval process by reviewing inspectors' workloads and past experience using the data it already maintains.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

To assist in ensuring the approval of inspectors prior to the start of project construction, DSA has enhanced its electronic project tracking system to report on inspector workloads and past experience. The system enhancement allows division field engineers to obtain data on an inspector's current workload to inform decisions regarding his/her approval for a specific project. In February 2013, training was provided to all field staff and supervisors on this enhancement.

  • Completion Date: February 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division provided evidence of the February 2013 training mentioned above. That training included elements on using the field review status report to identify active projects for individual inspectors. Also, the division's updated procedures require that, for more complicated projects, design professionals consult with field engineers assigned to the projects prior to submitting forms for inspector approval. That meeting should include discussion of an inspector's workload and past experience.


1-Year Agency Response

General Services stated that the division has updated its electronic project-tracking system to report on inspector workloads and experience. According to General Services, the updates allow division field engineers to obtain data on an inspector's current workload and that information can inform decisions regarding inspector approval. General Services stated that the division is developing procedures for statewide staff training on this system update scheduled for the first quarter of 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 42)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #10 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure that certified inspectors are knowledgeable about current code requirements, the division should not excuse inspectors from required trainings and should improve its process for identifying expired certification exam scores. Further, the division should consistently follow and document its procedures for verifying the past employment of inspector applicants.

1-Year Agency Response

In January 2012 the division updated its written policies regarding inspector certification. These policies directly state the specific training required for inspectors who are taking the certification exam and also state the number of years for which a partial exam score is valid. In addition, in January 2012 the division issued an updated policy regarding the verification and documentation of an inspector candidate's past experience. The policy directs certification unit staff to verify a candidate's experience and indicates the way to document that experience. The division has developed experience verification forms that feature “Verified By” and “Date Verified” fields for completion by staff. (See 2013-406, pp. 42-43)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #11 To: General Services, Department of

To ensure that it formally monitors inspectors' performance, the division should reestablish a process for evaluating inspectors that provides consistent documentation of performance. The division should make this information accessible to appropriate staff.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The objective of this recommendation has been achieved through DSA taking significant additional actions to monitor and document whether project inspectors are sufficiently fulfilling their duties as prescribed in statute and regulations. The actions taken by DSA related to monitoring inspector performance include initiating a process for review of project inspector recordkeeping and conducting staff training for field engineers who interact with project inspectors. Further, as part of its outreach and training for project inspectors, DSA has updated its guidelines for project inspector recordkeeping and reporting duties. DSA also developed enhancements to its automated project tracking system that allow the field engineer to document project inspector completion of reporting duties throughout the duration of a construction project.

In addition, as previously noted, on June 1, 2013, an inspection card process was implemented for all new construction projects. The implementation of this process included DSA providing detailed requirements related to a project inspector's role in ensuring the success of this key construction inspection activity. The inspectors are held responsible and accountable for complying with the requirements.

Overall, the current process allows inspector performance to be monitored based on information from job file reviews of required activities rather than information of a more subjective nature.

  • Completion Date: June 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division provided evidence of increased efforts to monitor the performance of project inspectors during a project. Further, the divsion's job file review checklist indicates that, during a field visit, division staff will review the project inspector's files for evidence of continuous inspection and for completed semi-monthly reports.


1-Year Agency Response

General Services outlines a number of actions the division has taken to track inspector performance, including establishing a process for reviewing inspector recordkeeping, and enhancing its automated tracking system to allow field engineers to document project inspectors' completion of reporting duties throughout the duration of projects. Although these changes provide the division with additional information on inspector performance, General Services did not indicate when it would reestablish an inspector evaluation process. (See 2013-406, p. 43)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #12 To: General Services, Department of

To address areas in which its staff do not currently have expertise, the division should finalize its field pilot and take subsequent steps to ensure it has qualified staff to provide oversight of accessibility; fire and life safety; and the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing aspects of construction.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2014

DSA revisited the results of the field pilot to determine the current feasibility of expanding its construction oversight for schools beyond structural safety. DSA determined that, based on the current statutory based fee structure, sufficient resources are available for project oversight activities involving only structural safety, fire and life safety and accessibility issues.

As to ensuring that adequate oversight is provided, DSA has reviewed the field pilot report's recommendations and developed alternative means to achieve the objectives of the field pilot for enhanced oversight of the fire and life safety and accessibility aspects of project construction. Specifically, the division developed a training program for its field engineers that will increase their expertise in the fire and life safety elements of construction as well as accessibility compliance.

The accessibility training was provided to all field staff and supervisors in October 2013. Additional training for field review of fire and life safety based on the new inspection card process was provided to all field staff and supervisors in May 2014.

Overall, the training program in conjunction with an automated statewide metric to measure field oversight workload and the new inspection card system addresses the field oversight issues that initiated the field pilot project. Therefore, the DSA determined that an update to the field pilot project was not necessary.

  • Completion Date: May 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The DSA provided sign-in sheets and materials related to the additional training noted in its response. The training materials included a module on mechanical, electrical, and plumbing as it relates to fire and life safety.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

DSA revisited the results of the field pilot to determine the current feasibility of expanding its construction oversight for schools beyond structural safety. DSA determined that, based on the current statutory based fee structure, sufficient resources are available for project oversight activities involving only structural safety, fire and life safety and accessibility issues.

As to ensuring that adequate oversight is provided, DSA has reviewed the field pilot report's recommendations and developed alternative means to achieve the objectives of the field pilot for enhanced oversight of the fire and life safety and accessibility aspects of project construction. Specifically, the division developed a training program for its field engineers that will increase their expertise in the fire and life safety elements of construction as well as accessibility compliance.

The accessibility training was provided to all field staff and supervisors in October 2013. Additional training for field review of fire and life safety based on the new inspection card process is scheduled to be given to all field staff and supervisors no later than the first quarter 2014.

Overall, the training program in conjunction with an automated statewide metric to measure field oversight workload and the new inspection card system addresses the field oversight issues that initiated the field pilot project. Therefore, the DSA determined that an update to the field pilot project was not necessary.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


1-Year Agency Response

General Services stated that the division revisited the results of the field pilot and determined that, based on the current statutory-based fee structure, sufficient resources are available only for oversight of structural safety, fire and life safety, and accessibility issues. General Services also said that to achieve the field pilot's objectives for enhanced oversight, the division is developing a training program that will increase the expertise of its field engineers in the fire and life safety elements of construction as well as accessibility compliance. Training is planned for the first quarter of 2013. (See 2013-406, p. 43)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #13 To: General Services, Department of

To better manage its construction oversight and close-out functions, the division should develop measures to assess those functions and it should periodically report the results to the public on its Web site.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

As noted in previous status reports, DSA has developed measurements and reporting for its field oversight program including those related to the number of projects under construction and the rate of project certification. Subsequently, in October 2013, DSA posted to its public website information on projects under construction, certification rates for the last four fiscal years and total outstanding uncertified projects.

  • Completion Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division provided evidence of the metrics mentioned above.


1-Year Agency Response

General Services stated that the division has developed measurements and reporting for its field oversight program, including site visit activities and the rate of project certification. It also said, however, that the division is in the process of evaluating the data reported and correlating reporting procedures between offices to ensure consistent statewide reporting. Subsequently, the division will develop external reporting based on the results of this evaluation. General Services did not provide a timeline for completing these actions. (See 2013-406, p. 43)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


Recommendation #14 To: General Services, Department of

To address possible staffing problems, the division should use documented workload metrics to perform an assessment of its current staffing levels and determine its staffing needs. It should revisit the field pilot and make necessary changes to reflect its understanding of its current staffing situation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

DSA has implemented enhancements to its electronic project tracking system and developed an automated statewide workload metric to measure its field oversight workload. Consequently, the division uses this metric to conduct assessments of its staffing levels, which, at the present time, are commensurate with its site visit goals, i.e., in general, visiting active projects every four to eight weeks. The assessment report contains information by regional office on active construction projects, staffing levels and site visit frequency. The report is used by management to evaluate if site visit goals are met and to anticipate future staffing needs for field oversight.

In addition, DSA revisited the results of the field pilot to determine the current feasibility of expanding its construction oversight for schools beyond structural safety. DSA determined that, based on the current statutory based fee structure, sufficient resources are available for project oversight activities involving only structural safety, fire and life safety and accessibility issues.

  • Completion Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The division provided evidence of changes to its project tracking system and of its statewide workload metric. It also provided evidence of its workload assessment by regional office. According to the division, there was no formal documentation of its reconsideration of the field pilot.


1-Year Agency Response

According to General Services, the division developed an automated statewide metric to measure its field oversight workload. The division used the metric to conduct an assessment of its staffing level which, according to General Services, is commensurate with the division's site visit goals. The division will conduct this review on a regular basis to reassess its staffing needs for oversight. Further, according to General Services, the division determined that, based on the current statutory-based fee structure, sufficient resources are available only for oversight of structural safety, fire and life safety, and accessibility issues. The division did not provide evidence of its staffing assessment. (See 2013-406, p. 44)

  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented


All Recommendations in 2011-116.1

Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader