Performance Audit of Capital Budget Processes. Proposed Final Report February 8, 2005 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee Karen Barrett & Isabel Mu ñ oz-Col ó n. Small State Facility Projects $2 billion 17% of total. Major State Facility Projects $4 billion 30% of total.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Proposed Final Report
February 8, 2005
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
Karen Barrett & Isabel Muñoz-Colón
Study Conclusions in Brief:
OFM is not well positioned for front- end project review. Improvement depends on greater clarity about the Capital Division’s role, priorities and resources.
Assessment:OFM spends time further on the cost continuum with agencies at points where the greatest opportunity to influencemajor projects has passed.
Why? It is a result of OFM’s workloadcompared to the Capital Division’s resources(2-3 analysts).
The biggest driving factors are:
OFM’s activities are heavily weighted toward managing construction allotments; also challenged to execute requisite work efficiently.
Weak management information systems make project analysis more time consuming and do not support investment oversight well.
See Appendix 8, pg. 71
Portfolio of Major Projects (200+)
Project Performance Indicators & Benchmarks
OFM could refine these tools to monitor performance and identify problem areas on a statewide basis.
See Figure 6 & 7 on pgs. 24-25
OFM should develop a plan in consultation with fiscal committees and agency capital officers to address weaknesses in oversight outlined in this report.
The plan should address the following issues:
The Office of Financial Management Concurs