Translate
Performance audit of Facilities Management Division capital programming and planning
February 12, 2008
This audit focused on the preliminary planning and predesign phases of capital improvement projects. The management practices we reviewed include operational and capital needs analysis and project prioritization, evaluation of capital project alternatives and their relative risks and costs, and the facilitation of effective legislative oversight and approval through project management and communication practices. The audit also reviewed the county’s broader policy-making framework and oversight practices for capital programming and planning, including the county code and countywide policies and procedures.
The Auditor has followed up on the report to evaluate implementation of our recommendations. See the most updated information below.
Of the 11 recommendations:
| DONE | 3 | Recommendations have been fully implemented. Auditor will no longer monitor. |
|---|---|---|
| PROGRESS | 0 | Recommendations are in progress or partially implemented. Auditor will continue to monitor. |
| OPEN | 0 | Recommendations remain unresolved. Auditor will continue to monitor. |
| CLOSED | 8 | Recommendations are no longer applicable. Auditor will no longer monitor. |
Summary
Capital planning frameworks, when in place, help ensure comprehensive analysis and promote transparency and more effective communication with decision-makers for expensive and risky capital projects.
FMD’s Capital Improvement Program is not comprehensive, which limits the ability of the county to conduct long-term planning and to ensure that FMD’s capital projects further the county’s and agencies’ goals. In addition, FMD lacks standard frameworks for major components of project planning, including alternatives analysis, cost planning, risk assessment, and development of project management plans. The County’s overall policy framework did not always offer clear guidance or promote the widest application of best programming and planning practices.
We recommend more consistency and accountability for capital programming and planning. We make recommendations to clarify code and institute requirements, such as predesign reports, that would improve the information council has available when making capital funding decisions.
Reports related to this audit
Click on the image(s) below to view related reports.
|
November 17, 2011 |
November 5, 2008 |
November 13, 2001 |
Audit team
Rob McGowan; Kathy Scanlan, Cedar River Group, LLC; Susan Baugh; Elizabeth DuBois; and RL Collier, LLC conducted this audit. If you have any questions or would like more information, please call the King County Auditor's Office at 206-477-1033 or contact us by email KCAO@kingcounty.gov.