State finds problem with Grant County construction

EPHRATA — The Washington State Auditor's office found problems with a construction change for the Grant County Fairgrounds.

The state auditor’s office reported finding a $900,480 change order made in March 2008 as part of the county’s $12 million package of improvements at the fairgrounds. They claim the change did not comply with state bidding laws.

The original $2.3 million bid made by Halme Construction, of Davenport, to improve the electrical, water and sewer systems at the fairgrounds, included one septic system designed to handle sewage for the fairgrounds.

While the county originally had permission from the state Department of Ecology to build the septic tank, the department revoked its approval after learning of a nearby sewer line.

This caused the county to look for an alternative, changing the plan to five smaller septic systems. State auditors indicated the initial bid complied with the law, but the change order did not because it was more than $200,000.

“Although the four systems were part of the overall plan for improvements at the fairgrounds, this additional work was beyond the scope of work in the original contract,” the report states. “Therefore the change order constitutes a significant change in the contract scope.”

The change should have either been included in the original bid, or put through a separate bid process, according to the state.

“As a result, the public was not made aware of the project. The county also cannot ensure all interested parties were given the opportunity to bid and that the project was completed at the lowest possible price,” the report states.

Grant County Commissioner Richard Stevens said the county was under a time constraint to get the project started so it would be finished in time for the fair. When the commissioners met with the Fair Facilities Advisory Committee, the group recommended using the same contractor since they were already working on the fairgrounds.

“We went to them and asked if they were interested in doing the job, and they said, ‘Yeah,’” Stevens said. “Nobody gave it a second thought at the time. I’m 99 percent sure they would have been the low bidder.”

While the county admits it did not follow the correct procedure, the commissioners felt the change order saved the county “a considerable amount of money,” according to the county’s written response to the findings.

“The state never came out and said we broke the law,” Stevens said. “We will be more careful. We thought we were expediting the process and saving money.”

The problem was listed in the state auditor’s report, focusing on Jan. 1, 2007, through Dec. 31, 2007. The state conducts audits on governmental entities, examining financial reports, accountability and compliance with state laws.