The Corps carried out most of the renovation work for the school system from fiscal years 1999 through 2001. GSA Concerns With School System’s Use of the Contract

After we raised questions about the school system’s use of the Washington Gas contract, the GSA contracting officer responsible for the contract sent a May 2001 letter to the school system’s contracting officer stating that (1) the contract is not intended to provide general facility improvements and maintenance that are not energy-related and (2) continued use of the contract for services outside the scope and intent would jeopardize the school system’s ability to continue using the contract. The school system failed to adhere to review and oversight requirements. The District of Columbia has controls in place to ensure that it obtains fair and reasonable prices and to provide contract oversight. Such requirements are in place to ensure that the District obtains the best price and service, contracts are legally sound, payments to contractors are justified, and work has adequately been competed. In addition, we checked to see whether the subcontractor had been paid by Washington Gas. Here, there is a material difference between GSA’s contract with the Washington Gas Light Company for gas utility and energy management services and the orders placed by the school system under the contract. These subcontractors included general contractors and heating and plumbing contractors.
Why GAO Did This Study

By the mid 1990s, most of the District of Columbia's public schools were more than 50 years old and in poor condition. Deferred maintenance had led to a host of safety problems, from fire code violations to leaky roofs.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the D.C. school system mismanaged a contract with the Washington Gas Light Company. GAO found the use of the gas contract to obtain school renovation services, including painting, carpeting, plumbing, and electrical work, was outside the scope of the contract. In addition, in carrying out the renovation work, the D.C. school system failed to adhere to controls and procedures intended to (1) ensure that the District obtained the best price and services and (2) maintain a proper relationship between the contractors and the D.C. government. These problems raise serious doubts about whether the District obtained fair and reasonable prices on the renovations and whether the school system should continue the gas utility contract.