The Village of Groton failed to competitively procure $135,900 in goods and services added during construction of its new municipal building and fire station, according to a state audit that found six change orders weren’t handled in accordance with state bidding requirements or the village’s own procurement policy.
The New York State Comptroller’s Office found the project’s original construction contracts, totaling about $3.7 million, were properly procured. Auditors instead focused on later changes to the project, concluding that $99,100 in work should have been competitively bid under state law and another $36,800 should have been subjected to competition under village policy.
The audit covered the period from Nov. 30, 2017, through Feb. 19, 2026, and examined a project that ultimately cost $4.1 million. The combined building serves the village and the Groton Fire Department, a nonprofit corporation made up of volunteer members that provides fire protection and emergency services in the village.
State auditors said the procurement problems left the village unable to ensure it obtained quality goods and services at the lowest possible cost. Village officials generally agreed with the recommendations and said they have begun or plan to begin corrective action.
Project was redesigned after early bids came in over budget
The project grew out of the deteriorated condition of the former Village Hall. The Village Board purchased property for the project in 2017 and, in November 2018, authorized construction of the combined building at a maximum estimated cost of $5.4 million.
The financing plan called for up to $4.4 million in bonds, an $800,000 contribution from the Groton Fire Department and $160,700 from the village’s capital reserves.
Initial competitive bids received in 2019 ranged from $8 million to $10 million, well above the project’s budget. The board paused the project and redesigned the plans in an effort to bring the cost back within the authorized maximum.
The village restarted the project in 2023 and awarded construction contracts totaling about $3.7 million.
During construction, the board approved 12 change orders. Ten increased project costs by a combined $181,700, while two reduced costs by $55,000, producing a net increase of $126,700.
Auditors reviewed all 12 and determined that six, representing $135,900 in increased costs, required some form of competitive procurement.
Three change orders should have been competitively bid
The Comptroller’s Office determined three change orders totaling $99,100 materially differed from the project’s original bid specifications and therefore should have gone through competitive bidding under General Municipal Law.
One, totaling $39,800, upgraded overhead doors to include more glass on the fire department’s bay doors and improved the display door for an antique hose cart.
Another $37,900 change added brick veneer to the fire department’s side of the building.
Both changes were requested by the fire department, which reimbursed the village for the added costs. Auditors nevertheless concluded the modifications were aesthetic changes that materially varied from the original competitively bid specifications and therefore should have been separately bid.
A third change order, totaling $21,400, upgraded flooring in portions of the building after the material originally selected became unavailable.
The mayor told auditors the original flooring could no longer be purchased when the contractor attempted to obtain it, requiring officials to choose another option. The Comptroller’s Office said the replacement flooring was still subject to competitive bidding requirements despite the original material’s unavailability.
Sign, sewer work and memorial garden also drew findings
Auditors identified three additional change orders totaling $36,800 that should have been handled under the village’s procurement policy, which requires various forms of quotes or requests for proposals depending on the type and cost of a purchase.
The largest was a $15,800 change involving an electronic sign and a sewer line.
The project’s accepted bid included $20,000 for the sign, but the board ultimately chose signage costing $33,300, an increase of $13,300. Auditors said the bid specification was vague, describing the sign only as “style to be chosen by Village,” and said more detailed specifications could have helped contractors provide more accurate estimates.
The remaining $2,500 covered installation of a sewer line that auditors said was separate from that portion of the project and hadn’t been included in the original bid specifications. The Comptroller’s Office concluded the sewer work should have been procured separately.
Another $12,300 change order added a memorial paver garden with a clock. Because the work included both materials and installation, auditors said village policy required at least verbal quotes and may have required written quotes depending on how the material and labor costs were divided. Those costs weren’t itemized in the change order.
A third change, totaling $8,700, added a window and countertop between the kitchen and apparatus room, along with a fire-rated rolling door. Auditors similarly concluded that the village should have obtained at least verbal quotes and potentially written quotes or a request for proposals, depending on the breakdown between materials and installation.
The village’s procurement policy generally calls for written or faxed quotes or written requests for proposals for purchase contracts between $8,000 and $19,999, while purchases between $2,501 and $7,999 require verbal quotes. Public works contracts between $12,500 and $34,999 require written proposals or requests for proposals, while contracts between $2,501 and $12,499 require verbal quotes.
The policy says officials should make a good-faith effort to obtain at least two quotations and document their attempts if two can’t be secured.
Comptroller recommends tighter oversight of change orders
The Comptroller’s Office issued three recommendations.
Auditors said the Village Board should solicit competition for future change orders when required by state law or local policy. They also recommended that officials develop a more thorough understanding of the overall scope of capital projects and include enough detail in bid specifications to produce more accurate bids.
The village should also separately procure work that isn’t related to, or was omitted from, a project’s original bid specifications rather than adding that work through change orders, auditors said.
The audit said allowing substantial contract modifications or adding work without further competition can disadvantage potential bidders and unsuccessful bidders who weren’t given an opportunity to compete for the revised work.
Village says it is strengthening procedures
In its written response, the Village of Groton acknowledged that work beyond the original contract scope requires careful review, documentation and compliance with procurement requirements.
Mayor Christopher Neville said the village will put greater emphasis on documenting why each change is proposed, whether it is necessary to complete a project, whether it results from material availability or unforeseen circumstances, whether it is an elective upgrade and what financial effect it will have.
The village said it also plans to require sufficient written justification for change orders, identify funding sources, ensure appropriate review and authorization before work proceeds whenever practicable, maintain complete project records and continue providing procurement and financial oversight training to officials and employees.
As part of that effort, the village hosted an all-day training program June 23 called “Municipal Capital Projects from Start to Finish.” According to the village’s response, 47 participants representing 25 municipalities and one accounting firm attended the program.
The Comptroller’s Office requires the Village Board to prepare and submit a written corrective action plan addressing the audit’s findings and recommendations within 90 days.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.