To the editor:

The Jan. 31 Journal-World article covering inconsistencies found during the audit of invoices and payments for the Rock Chalk Park infrastructure, demonstrates how poorly managed the costs, invoicing and payments were for this portion of the project.

The problem stems from the city using a development agreement versus a construction contract. A construction contract would require a “draw/progress payment system.”

A “draw/progress payment” system would require all invoices from vendors, subcontractors and the general contractor for all work performed and materials supplied during the draw/progress payment period, including copies of the checks the general contractor has written for those invoices be supplied with each payment request. Prior to payment of the draw/progress payment, the city should protect its interests by reviewing the invoices and checks to ensure they are consistent with the agreement/contract terms and the work was completed and materials supplied. These issues should have been resolved, as each draw/progress payment was made, not at a post project audit.

If the development agreement the city had with the general contractor did not explicitly require the above information be provided with each draw/progress payment, then the city is responsible and failed. If the information was provided at the time of the draw/progress payment request and these issues were not resolved with the general contractor prior to each payment, then the city has failed. If inadequate or incomplete information was provided, thus not justifying the payment request, and the payment was made anyway, then the city has failed.

We hope this issue does not exist with other vendors/projects.