Laserfiche WebLink
<br />VI. CONTRACTlNC <br /> <br />:n O:robtr 1986, a re~ie~ ~a5 made of contracts. T~enty-six contracts O~ <br />se\'e~ r(~cent wtre arbitrarily selected and reviewe~ in detail. There ~ere E: <br />moc:ficatjo~~ ~3j€ or the 2b contracts. Thjs represents an average of 3.1 <br />.odifications per contract. One of the contracts was cancelled at the reques: <br />of the participant. ~o funds Werf expe~ded on this contract. <br /> <br />A total of 59 pa,ments were made on these contracts. This represents an <br />averabe of 2.3 payments per contract. These payments were made an average of <br />15 days after the invoice was signed by the contractor. Based on this random <br />sample, the 366 complete contracts required over 1,000 modifications and 800 <br />separate payments. <br /> <br />Overall, contract operations and payments appear to have been handled properly <br />and in a ti~ely manner. <br /> <br />It is our opinion that the procedure for handling contracts worked very veIl <br />in the "ellton-:lohawk. This four-step process included: <br /> <br />(1) Development by the Project Office <br /> <br />(2) Reviev by the Area Office <br /> <br />(3) Approval and Obligation of Funds by Contracting Officer <br />(State Administrative Officer) <br /> <br />(4) Project Office records and documents results for use in <br />later installation and follow-up. <br /> <br />All pa,~c~ts to farmers were approved and disbursed from the SCS State <br />Office. Billings for reimbursement from the Bureau of Reclamation were made <br />O~ a q~2rter:y basis. <br /> <br /> <br />Large irrigation water turnout with <br />energy dissipators and erosion apron <br /> <br />-8- <br />