Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.1
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it evaluated delivery methods in its 37-page “Procurement Plan.” However, as noted in the audit, this plan was applied programwide and did not include a formal, documented, project-level evaluation for the Livestock Center.
The plan did not contain structured evaluation criteria, a project-specific risk assessment, or a documented comparison showing why the construction manager/general contractor method was the best fit for this project.
This approach does not align with leading practices outlined in the state of Colorado’s “Construction Manager/General Contractor Manual” or the city’s guidance, both of which call for project-level evaluations and documentation of delivery method decisions.
Saying that the method was “most advantageous” is not a substitute for a transparent, criteriabased process. Without project-specific documentation, the Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center cannot demonstrate that its decision was objective, risk-informed, or in the city’s best interest.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendation.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.2
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says that its management of construction manager/general contractor projects aligns with industry best practices and that it provided all requested documentation. However, the audit found the office lacked formal, written policies and procedures for managing construction manager/general contractor projects and design consultant contracts during the Livestock Center project.
Instead, staff relied on informal workflows and process flowcharts that did not provide sufficient guidance for managing complex capital projects. The audit identified no documented procedures for critical areas such as delivery method management, risk oversight, or day-to-day supervision of Populous and its subconsultants. Office leaders could not provide consistent records of meetings or management activities, and meeting minutes revealed gaps and extended periods without documented engagement.
The 2018 “Procurement Plan” cited by office leaders primarily focused on procurement and preconstruction services and did not serve as a comprehensive project management guide. This absence of formal policies is inconsistent with leading practices outlined in the city’s 2023 construction manager/general contractor guidance, the state of Colorado’s “Construction Manager/General Contractor Manual,” and the Government Accountability Office’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.” These sources emphasize the necessity of clear, documented procedures to ensure accountability, consistency, and effective oversight.
Also, the office relied heavily on cost data submitted by Populous, including payment certifications that consistently underreported costs by over $68,000 for multiple years. These errors went undetected until 2025 without explanation. Despite this, the office continued to rely on Populous’ documentation without independent verification or procedures to prevent such issues.
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center’s dependence on informal tools and professional judgment falls short of industry standards and increases the risk of mismanagement, cost overruns, and diminished public accountability.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendations 1.2 and 1.3.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.3
See the auditor’s addendum included with Recommendation 1.2.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.4
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it followed the Department of Transportation & Infrastructure’s “Defined Steps” process and complied with city record retention policies. However, the audit found no evidence supporting this claim.
The office did not retain key records including Selection Committee members’ scores, evaluation notes, and contract negotiation documents, despite the city’s policy requiring purchasing records be kept for seven years. Without these documents, the fairness and competitiveness of selecting Populous cannot be verified.
Committee member selection lacked documentation on how members were chosen, their qualifications, or how confidentiality was maintained. Instead, office leaders relied on undocumented verbal discussions, reducing transparency and accountability.
Leading industry guidance from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine emphasizes that design selection must be transparent to build trust and ensure successful construction manager/general contractor delivery. The absence of documentation violates these principles as well as city policies.
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center’s response does not address these significant gaps in documentation and transparency. Therefore, the recommendation to strengthen documentation and transparency remains necessary to protect public trust and ensure fair competition.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendation.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.5
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it formally evaluated the proposed subconsultants as part of the prime consultant’s team and that the prime consultant is responsible for retaining all records. However, the audit found no evidence that the office independently reviewed or approved any subconsultants or their contracts during the Livestock Center design project.
The office did not obtain or retain copies of subcontracts, nor did it verify that subconsultant qualifications, contract terms, or pricing complied with city requirements. This lack of oversight prevents the city from ensuring fairness, competitiveness, and quality in subconsultant selection.
While the city’s 2011 “Standard Specifications for Construction General Contract Conditions” apply to the construction phase, they require written city approval of subcontractors before work begins. This is a widely accepted control designed to ensure subcontractors are qualified and terms are appropriate. Applying similar review and approval practices during the design phase is consistent with leading public-sector procurement principles, including those used at the federal level.
Without formal procedures or access to subcontracts, the city risks overpaying, receiving substandard work, or encountering payment delays and disputes. The absence of transparent, documented review weakens public trust and increases project risk.
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center’s contractual right to request documentation does not substitute for active oversight and enforcement of subconsultant selection. We reaffirm the finding and recommendation that the office develop and enforce formal procedures for subconsultant selection and approval.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.6
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it implemented an independent cost estimate process and that the estimate used was unbiased and separate from the construction manager/general contractor’s estimate. However, the cost estimator, Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd., was subcontracted to Populous, the prime consultant. Because the estimator was selected and paid through Populous, it was not independent.
Office leaders did not participate in selecting the estimator and did not perform an independent estimate to evaluate design proposals. Instead, they said they compared multiple cost proposals to judge reasonableness, which is not a substitute for a formal, third-party review.
Leading practices from the state’s construction manager/general contractor manual, the city’s guidance, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation all recommend an independent cost estimator to ensure pricing is fair and objective. The state’s manual was available when the contract was procured and is widely used by public agencies. It makes clear that cost estimators should not be financially or contractually tied to the firm whose costs they are reviewing.
By relying on a cost estimator hired through Populous, the Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center compromised the objectivity of cost validation. This increased the risk that costs were inflated and not subject to adequate oversight.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendation.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.7
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it followed and continues to follow the city’s fiscal rules. However, this does not address the core issue.
As documented in the audit, Fiscal Accountability Rule 1.2 clearly says Workday must be used to manage and store all financial transactions and supporting documentation to ensure the integrity and validity of data.
The office’s belief that it is not responsible for ensuring Fiscal Accountability Rule 1.2 is followed resulted in the bulk of critical financial documents not being secured in Workday. The overly simplistic solution proposed by the office of informing Transportation & Infrastructure of the issue ignores the fundamental intent of Fiscal Accountability Rule 1.2: to memorialize critical financial documents by agencies closest to their creation and to ensure the city can benefit from them for decades to come.
The belief that this rule is not in the purview of the office exposed the city to document integrity issues and the potential loss of critical financial documents that will be relevant well beyond the completion of this project or the life of the office.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendation.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.8
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it enforced contract requirements and followed the city’s prompt payment ordinance. However, this does not address the core issue.
As documented in the audit, Populous delayed submitting more than 200 subconsultant invoices by over 90 days. These delays affected nearly $3 million in labor payments and created financial strain for subconsultants. On average, it took 82 days to process an invoice, with one taking nearly a full year.
Although the office eventually issued a formal “Notice of Concern” in October 2022, this was almost two years after the delays began in December 2020. By that point, some invoices were already eight months overdue with only about $192,000 in subconsultant payments being processed. The office approved a one-time catch-up invoice, but delays continued. The office also acknowledged that it lacked a direct contractual relationship with subconsultants and could not enforce invoice timelines.
This hands-off approach, combined with the office’s reliance on Populous to manage invoice processing, resulted in repeated late payments and weakened oversight.
The issue is not whether the city eventually paid invoices after receiving them. It is that the office did not have sufficient controls in place to ensure subconsultants were paid promptly in the first place.
In addition, the office’s disagreement with this recommendation effectively acts as a warning to all future subconsultants that the city will not have their backs should they work on a city funded project through a prime contractor. This disagreement will have both direct and indirect impacts on relationships between the city and subconsultants for the foreseeable future.
This disagreement exposes the city to reputational harm, potential cost increases, and potentially reduced competition on future projects.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendation.
Auditor’s addendum to agency response for Recommendation 1.9
The Mayor’s Office of the National Western Center says it disagrees with disabling dormant users as their future input may be needed later in the project. The office also disagrees that the ability to share data from Procore with non-users outside of Procore via links presents the risk of inappropriate data disclosures.
However, these disagreements miss the core risk that both issues are symptoms of the reported root cause: the lack of formalized system governance. Both issues the office disagrees with can and should be formally authorized by office leaders by using a governance framework.
Governance frameworks recommend developing policies and procedures for IT systems that address matters like risk assessment and acceptance. Furthermore, governance frameworks also outline how managers can use formal processes in accepting risks they deem acceptable.
Because no governance framework was used to establish policies and procedures for accepting these risks, and no documentation of these decisions was available, office leaders did not establish formal criteria by which to assess their actions. Consequently, we relied on leading practices, compared to which, the office fell short.
We reaffirm our finding and recommendation.