YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TO: FILE DATE: MAY 25., 2017 FROM: BERGIA RE: CASE NAME: MATRIXX CONST. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CMS NUMBER: 15-10888 CASE NUMBER: 15-215 CLOSING MEMORANDUM The frillowing is a pertaining to this investigmiun and does not ermmin each and ererrfact [earned during rite rift/1 is inrestigurirm. ORIGIN OF CASE AND NATURE OF ALLEGATION: On October 2 l. the New York ity Department til? lm-estigatinn Ol?l?ice nt?the Inspector General for the New York City Housing Authority received a rei?erral frum Audit Department regarding Matrixx Construction. inc. Reportedly". during a review nl? the payment prucess i?nr small prucuremenls by Aecriunting Operations Department. Audit identified questionable fair which Matrixx billed NYCHA and received payment lin- wurk purportedly N?r?t?lrlr?t employees at (ilenmnre Houses in April 3015. RESULTS OF THE- INVESTIGATION: Mntrixx was: in June 20M- and became a N?r?C?l-lr?t vendor nn nr about March 2% El}! 5, dncuments revealed that Matrix}; is uwnetl by - - a Ibrmer iA superintendent. who worked with from Matt)" l98~l until his retirement in August BUIB. at a base salary nl? Hume-m Resources records Show that throughout his tenure. - wnrked at various in as an superintendent l'rnm February 1993 Lu Ortuber 200i . and then as superintendent I?rnm Uctnher untii his retirement in Augunt I 3. In accordance with Standard Procedure 008:03:i VI. Small Prneurements. no competitive blur; are required when euntraeting for services or materials costing or iess. The initiatingF dereluni?nenl ulnnins nrnnusul l'rum ti enntractm?tvendnr. enters a reuuinitinn in N?r?f?llA'n il?meurement datahuse indicating the type ml" to he and attaches the tilting lwith. the vendor's; insurance information before submiggion in the designated buyer in Prerurement Department l?ur aplmwul. (finer. a purchase order is created sent to the render. and the PD buyer then emailu a cum ul'lht: 5mm: purchase under to the initiating In with Standard Prneedure Utilitihizi. develupment management staff is responsible fur reviewing and determining if repair requires Skilled Trades? 'lechnieal Services (?leach nr Emergency Serriecr statl?. ur a render. and I?m making nntilirutiens txrhere applicable. li'ur mute-nut attainments. the superftlesignee creates. an apartment inspeeliun mnvemut work order in Maximn and schedules necessary repairs; through the creation ni?ehild orders: using hrluximu. Fur vendor the vendur is required to pick up the work under limit the superfdesienee upon arrival tn the development. Sign the lug hunk. and return the signed work order tn the super?tlesigncc upon eumpleiinn ul'thc Wurlt, this part ul' his the super schedules pulrliu space l'luru, li?rivl anuuntm 5?1th Hume; ?fun linusvt -, lunu a .uul l?n'un'tll my. If ?t?nl ?it \?iliui it i iti?x?xt lill?x. that. MINCE: li?ltthi?il?i WI \llil it: work according lo the availability of stuff. and is rcnponsihle For initiating. monitoring. and inspecting the completed jobs ul' vendors to ensure that the work e-unlorntb to the purchase order specifications. The housing manager or super then enters it receipt in iProeurement. which triggers the payment of the invoice h} N?r't'l [A's Accounts Payable Division. A3 pert oi" its investigation. the GIG revien-ied data From Ot?aele/hrlarkview thereafter "Oracle?l databases for information pertaining to purchase orders iSSued to Matriiut. invoices submitted by Mntrixx to NYCHA For payment- and payment data The Oil? also reviewed the Maximo database for work order information related to the various purchase orders and invoices. in addition. the OIG obtained and reviewed documentation maintained at the respective developments and the Maintenance Repair and Skilled Trades Department. The GIG inspected EA apartments in which Matrim purportedi} performed work. and also interviewed residents. In addition. the DIG iI?ilerviewed N?i?Cl-lA staffers well us- the owner ul? Matrix'x. Further. liar purchase orders andr?or invoices that did not list it related work order. the DIG retrieveitl from lV'lthit?ttD it work order history for the respective apartments and attempted to match the description on the work orders to the respective purchase orders and invoices in order to identify existing work orders. and to ascertain whether the work was performed by lv?Iutrixx or 2-1 t-vorker- The (HG further reviewed the contractan log howl-z maintained at the developments in order to ascertain whether Matrinx was on site :11 the development on the date indicated on the work order. Oracle database revealed the! issued umull purchase orders in ext-ens to Matrixx from March it?lltt to the present. for work performed in NYCHA apartments and public spaces at various developments. The records further Show that in June Matrixx was awarded 3 requirements contract in the amount rd~ . 398.432 For installation of bathtub surrounds in various developments. With regard to the questionable lt??l?lSt??t?ll?n? identified at {lilenrnore l-louses, the GIG dbtained and reviewed the. Signed copies: of the work orders listed on the invoice that hilatrixx to 1hr payment. The OiG'u review revealed: Dunlicate Work Orders: PD zit 5i08lt). deted tillti/IS. and the related invoice, #39. for a mud cost of $1.439. which listed Ihur apartments. tlt-i well its the respective wort; orders. indicate that lVltul'iXh?. painted {fl emits) where repairs were made- For three of the Four apartments. the tilt] lhund duplicate Xerox copies of the same work orders. where one work order indicates that the work wins: purportedly pertitirrned hy a employee. while the other copy indicates: that Mntrinx performed the work. The work orders with original signatures: eould not he located at the development. inli'n'muti'un For thene three apartments; is us tiollowtzz I t. Christopher Avenue. Ant.- Work Order #3584875n retrieved from delt?tlt't. reported on 4.51 titfitllti and closed on 4.1?373 shin-v5 that Nt?t?l-ir?t paint t-vorlter. - pointed the kitchen on hen-teen tlt?tlpm and 3:3(lpm. l-iowevcr. ti Xerox copy of the same t-vtll'li order. signed by Matrixxt the tenant. and the super indicates that Mutrixx plastered and painted the entire kitchen also on 41:14:15 the time theme is listed on the work orderL liluring an tilt; apartment inspection the tern-int reported that ti N?r'tf'ilr?i worker did the work til the kitchen end that the workershoned ID as identification. i h! HIE- ?3.33qu tin \i 'sml I4: H-Hmhh i mi ?4 HM ii? The Ulij wake in -- who Stated that did puim work at the apartment. merexcr when it was pnimrd out that Hronns timekeeping, du hm 5hr!? any snipe iicmnuru i lunar-n. - Stated than in: ma} um hum rm inc-.1 in upmu arrixni at {he 3 I. I Avenue. - ()rrler #36736594 retrieved Maximo. rupurlul m1 and 0:1 4i?l?i?2ili in 9258:1111. alum-'5 that NYCHA paint marker. - "prep (K: primed ?nes" (prepped. primed and the. m1 itl?i? 15. heme-en [2:30pm. and 3:00pm. Tun Xerox cnpics of the: same nurk nrilur were obtained I?mm (iienmimi Houses ()nr Xernx mm" was signed by - and the tenam. while the uthnr Xerox mm- was painted rm between in?l?nm and Wurh Order 3673:2182 and 36737037 ruirinvcd l'rum Maximo For the {layer/hallway. rcportrd mi $301? 15 were tinned nn 4:47.45 at 9:373:11 um! 9:33um. i?uspuctivciy. The orders show then IA paint marker - prepped primed and painted the liiy'cr/linllway on between and Hiz?iinm: and 10:3{Jam and 13:.3hnin. reapuctirciy A dii'iirrcni h?cmx cop}- ni? the 5mm: 1m: urdrm >4an that Malrim 1hr: ihyw?hnilwziy mi 4317,45": between and i ?i116? interviewed. I - reviewed the work hearing; his; signature and stated that. the signalurc and handwriting. ?prime. prep and on each the M. or!" orciers is his and that he did mark in {he zipni'tmant. - shared that "tines" means panned. Kmnos time keeping rccurdzx shim- [hail - has; an Fur the twin: {in} on 4: In.? IS and :11 a dii?liirnm dcwiupmcm on 7" 5. During an: LNG apartment inspectinn. the tenant. the (NC: than private n-nrkers did Ihc repair and mini! n'nrk in the apartment am! that he {his hermisc they mid him 5r.- askcd the}: ?cm. MN Avenut- Work Order #36700488 From Maximm runni'lud UII Sr??fii?l and cloned (in 5 was I'm [his hulhrimm in he paimed. Th: work order shun-H than N?E?Cilr?i paint worker prrihrlm-ii rho wurk in the apartment an 5 whipm and 3:30pm. The Xerox cop}; ui?ihe same work shuns that Malrixx performed wash in the apartment nn 4r'lnr?i5 barn-sen l?ztll?lpm and Ezimpm. . ?hm: signature appears nn the bignud Norm run}.- of this work nrder. revienui the n'nrk girder the that the signature and hand rm the work nrder is hi5 and that hi: girrihrmcii tin: in the npu?mmil. Kmnus shun Ihm- nine; 3: iicimimil [in this emirc Lin} UH ii} and :11 Licxci?pmnm ?in During an zzpairimcnl {he [minim intirrnicd ihc Ihm mi: priune per?aims did Kin: i'iziinl mini; in tin: Hm Uh; ?puke in (ii'L?Hmm?E: Supcr Mm mired that. Mi-tll?ih? did {his mark in in: ihrci: shimmy-Irwiniunrd hui shr- wuid m3} uiih rui?i?ili?i} the mark was inwccicd slated than (hi: marl?. lJI?aiUlfh. which lismi the grnup as \wri: ii?ilL?luviL?li I'ur Inch Scrx'ircan minim imrhirm this: mark me?ux'ur. thI?C was :2 big push in chm: um unrh ?rulers. Mnlrim was gi'i'cli lhi: misting.? wink i?f?LiCi'H in arc-[er have the ?mic. culiipiuicii, Regarding tin: rinsed mu work in h-rhixinm Shim-in; that workers; inni t' \?al i \i?t\i lF?l-Il?th? \l [$2151 pcrl?ormed the work. - stated that her stall may not have done an tithing upon accessing Maximo and seeing the work orders already closed out. and added that it should have. been brought to her attention. - stated that ?Ufhcl?b From Tech Services come to the development with work. orders already in hand. and although thc} may swipe inr'out at the development. they do not always make their presence known. The contractor?s log book maintained at shows that Mittriiot did not sign in on any datc in April 20 IS or May 20 5. During his DIG interview. - reviewed the. live above-mentioned work orders and stated that his workers: did the work in the respective apartments. - also reviewed the applicable invoice and stated that having the work order" numbers listed on the invoice meant that he had the work orders prior to doing the job. Regarding the Maximo database showing NYC lA stal?l?crs as having done the work. reiterated that his workers did the work and stated that he has. no control over what the development did with respect to the Maximo data input. "to ascertain whether Matrixx received payment For work purportedly performed by N?t?Cl 1A workerss. the DIS retrieved from Oracle 65 purchase orders that isancd to h?latrixx for the period March ZOI 5 to Octohcr Bill 5- (?lithe 65 purchase orders. l4 (including the purchase order For (ilenmore Houses previously- discussed} represent work performed in SI apartments.3 The remaining Sl purchase orders represent work performed in over 100 public spaces} For the l4 purchase orders reviewed. the Ulti found that the work indicated on live orders representing l4 apartments was performed by the vendor. For the remaining nine purchase orders representing 37 apartments. the ()lU's review revealed the litllowing: Cancelled Paint Work: Woodson Houses 365 Powell Street. Apt. . Purchase Order #liil U45. dated 4.33.3 IS. indicates that four apartments. which included Apartment I and Work Order if ShSEthil. were painted Coats needed due to plastering} For a total cost ol? $42130. The related invoice. 3ft for a cost of indicates repair walls by using wile mash. Stucco light. and plaster. After prepare for prime and painting with .3 coata for the {Four} locations." hilaximo - Work Order #3682240l for plastering. rcpolted on 4f24?3ll15 and scheduled l?or was closed on ?it"ZWleli hccause the resident called and cancelled. A 4.1.37le note indicates work order ?cancelled from call center." Nonetheless. a copy oi? the worlt order. purportedly signed by the tenant. and NY??l?l/?t snpewisory sign oil on St?Itlt'lS. indicates that on. ?Mon 4.537 ltit wall plastert'paint. paint bathroom. I wall in [ll-"Fl. radiator pipe. hull ?all." During. an (HG apartment inspection. the tenant informed the OiCi that in early lel?. her apartment was. plastered h} two workers who. when asked. advised her to contact the call center to schedule an appointment for the apartment to he painted. the tenant stated that the call center representative told her that the earliest available appointment for painting would he in lel?; therethrc. she cancelled the paint job Liliti has been painting the apartment. herself. 'l?he tenant rex iewed the work Wort; in-rlinnwil tiplirnnenb plastering and painting nl nulls, repairing tech and toilet removal cleaning dripping and writing tli thine. ill ?mun illitl preparing: apartment Iii: mine?in nail} condition. ill-ink In politic lltL?lUtiL?lJ [updit' n-l :nid tripping; inwards. .Itnill luhln .nidur llJ-?al?llciil dons. tut~ hushed upzti: nl fans-n. and. .m Min dorm dIi-m- lenintj wit-er .uhl rlmir? lT?l'l?k. dripping :md ?nun-A ii'l Viriinm ch, 4 \hl \K?tllii li'tllx'l?x?at li?x?wl lx'l I NH ??51 Hill-.H: Hit} it? lfirll?i order and that the signature thereon in hers. The Gift observed that the tenant was. still in the process of painting the apartment. Woodson management was unable to locate the original signed copy 01" the work order. Further. the contractor log. book was not signed to indicate that Matriax was; present at the derelnpn?ient during the month oi"April or May 2015. in separate GIG interviews. l-lonsiag Manager and Super in auhstancc- could not con?rm that lv?latrixx performed paint work in the apartment on Howexcr. they provided the BIG with work order 3722U8l 3. which shows. that on di/flii/l In? between ll:l0am and 1 1:35am. a Staff visited the apartment and noted on said work order that the plasterint:l was done and that the apartment now needs painting. They both stated that the supcra signature on the nan-k order doca not mean that the wort: t-ras inspected. and explained that in general. a wort; order hearing. the signature of the vendor and the tenant would he approved in Oracle For payment. - and_ stated that work orders are required lor all work whether perl'ortned in apartments or public spaces. and that if there is no n-ork order one would he created in Maximo alter the nod?; is completed. reviet-tred Work Order it 3682240] and acknowledged that the signature [or the super on the work order is hers. but could not explain why there is a cancelled work order in Maximo when the signed copy oi" the work order shows. that the work was In his intertiew. - recalled there being small holes in the apartment that needed plastering mark. which his workers did. and aloe: painting of the area that was repaired. When Shown Work Order 1; 37220818. showing that a NYCHA stall" visited the atartment on 4128/15 and the notation about the apartment heing plastered hut in need of painting. stated that the notation is vague because it does not specify where. paint work is needed or il?thc entire apartment neede painting. Work performed before Purchase Order Date: Inward Houses til Thatl'ord Street. Apt. - Purchase order i5 1 ?349. created on 4r23ii5 reads. ?repair/debrce rennwai. Addrcas is 61 "i'hati?ord Apt. is for a total coat ol?S?fitltl. the related invoice. it 19. for $3.900 and dated ~1l?i'25i'l5. reads. "repair Icahn-1g Conditions in the bathroom and kitchen. also remote debree. This; includes clearing stoppages: and toilet replacement. labor and material included.? Neither the purchase order our the invoice listed a work order numher. However. the hi'laxinto Work Order. a Rhona that on alf?leJIS. Isl-t maintenance u-?orker - veri?ed a leaking. condition in the toilet and replaced the. toilet on ~l-i22fl5 under Work Order it 37085434. which is prior to the it?EEi-ii? purchase order date. During an apartment inspection. the lA tenant informed the Ultj that a NYCHA worker replaced the toilet and that he has seen the t?t?Gt'ltc?l' around the development. Super - inlormcd the {)ltii that the original signed cop}.- of \h?ork Drder it 37085434 could not he located. and stared that the whose name appear on the. \v?laaimo printout is the pcrarm who did the work. When naked whether any vendors; did Wt?il?lt in the bathroom at Apartment recalled that - hired to replace the toilet in the apartment. - also recalled going to the apartment. writ} ing the Icalting condition. reporting hedhnu inhalation {if ?min-.1 me-ET UI pm: ,idmm?H-i luminp 11 mm Mrs-.113 pm! 5;?th ?mud in mm limit-J." wen whim-?I1 n11 4?mj-1Llu-WLI w- manna ?umiull xnlif?tm? Jununlwacmh mung rm}: ?nmw umuuminu :11? .qu umgxuw an: 31.1mm .aq; 5.53111? ?Hmaunmcm .qu 111L511 - 139133.13 ?ugaq .mpm 31mm .mpum 1? sump usaq am; ?qu 11mm at? mm 13911213 pm: am no {)9an mugunmcin inmamtu mg: _m man u; 4mm nm-mmu Dill up - 51:5:me pans-3m 3.14110 3mm cam 31m 350;?? 01 .mpm u! mummy u! mum; 511; panama ?amp mm am mm mam an ssnmaq pm: n; max; mnqa u; summadsu! gym; 3511mm] u! swam mum mu asap 0] :3 SUM mam mm mu pmumlu! pun [?115 1:1 ?es-anjc.? 3.1me mo amp 4.31 .mpm ug u! [mm-mun mm mum: syncing; 111121839?, 01;: mm pun pau'?gs mu Japm rpm-u mp, amqm Qa-?tlmSUi MID man; '92qu Sam 1! azaclng 111131 u; aumu an.? mugs mm mm mu pnuucuug- 'Japm 31.10..? pau?s luug?gm mp 011130; mu mum ulnum?uumu mum Jinn? 'g I may no ml} 312 51m 113m gamut: 31mm :30] "5 un pm: LUHOQZQ uaanaq umuundu am 1.15 aim,? my. mp mm 13:1me 3:41. 5:9 - -.mdng; [3qu 11:? 5.23pm \pt?m m? damn 3m 1m my: ?ugumnus pun 11.10;? am paymlapg put? umunmdn my mugmw Lung {.Imsgq .mpm paLumqu {310 ?aagomg .Iu aanmnd am no pans? Jaqmnu .mpJu 21mm nu mug}; 15.100? an.? ?ugxnm pm: pm: ?uaqmq pur: Luomqwq amine fiuyunap ?5435.03 mnnu pun mi?? [[11 ?ugmnm ?mauumdu 9.1mm mu Buguuap pllU ?Iuaunmdiz am LUCIJJ quap a.-xgssanxa J0 [mamas Jug sum ?um" I53 ~m mm 1? 'gung Damp ?gag, 33mm! puma all}. pug gumytv [Tramp #4 .mpJQ mauumdu Inmamw (15' mung ugg "mm mm LlapJ??J?.? 110 aumu 1331.103!? ?530p mamdowmp at? 1mm Jam [0.1mm ou an put: mamdopmp am Heads Inuum mg ?Imp paws - ?951531: 5! amp .lapm am Help? gum?? no 3100;] 50} 1331:7315 at} 1131!] .m lumulJu-dt: am ll! mum at? paaugdm .1931me VHJAN 1m? ?uymuqs ,apm 3mm am ?go .?idm Gulgxuw am qu? pause uoqm my; u! mam suns pmznu .IBBM 01 pan .133mm 351] pm; at; mm 53311335 - 'lalgm 9111 u! 1110.? ?Eda: am, up 01 mm 13mm: mdm: ml] pup. ?In?mmus ?uyumnl 3m (9:371:11 pang) mum 9mm asnmaq put: 1mm gammy; mm 11' 59?. umummdu all} 112141 pawn: - pun mm; ul sgq?m auc: :3me ug [333.10% ?nnuusmd aq mm {11311215 - mg. ml ?Luaummia at? u! mum ml} paamldm -mq1 paugmugmu 1mg Knuawgsumug 5m} ugmdxa aiqeun 512m 'amp 43pm asmimmd g4 all] 01.10ng s; qagqm ?'mgmu 112 uaw om? ?ugmagpug "g1 HQ :30] sq] psu?gs 11am smoqs wamdqmap mp 112 paugmugnm ?jmq ?ul .mwmuoa 9m 39 magma: 55910 at?; 21mm unumq 1! mq "mum mu panama: mu] ?unuagpug mugxm u; we mama sum. ?t .Iap?m yum .{um uguidxs mu mm: "ng'laldumn undn 51.1ch am. pmandsu! -) .11] mm mm wamucdu at? in 191301 am 339.de 01 pmgt] sum - saumr .m??mmgq ?ugannH 111!? 11! mm mum - 911] 3111 Mains pun glluatl .mq 111mm sumauna ?uum; pm: u! pmuaulmop} bif?ii 1\ INK 3 1\ Pa'l I mun I t?il'il' "h 'tHi'. \l i ltl?t?t than lit l'u 1?51". ?illti' ii: i \?Hl \l \liil'l?i: l5~314 maintenaneetearetalrer nta'l'l?. i'l?the YC A Sta if is unable to do the tar-ark. that work order wotlid he close-d and a vendor work order should he opened. When irtterriewed.-. reviewed the purchase order. related int-'oiee and work orders and stated that he personally did the work in Apartment and that he may not have been given the work orders. and has no control over what the development management did. - explained that the development should have closed out in Maximo the work order intended For a atal?l?iand open a child work order under a vendor work order. Van I Houses V?r?ork in apartments: Five purchase orders. dated between Bil?1H5 and that issued to i?vlatrixx and the related imvoiees that Matrixx antanitted to N?t?CllA for payment did not list work order numbers for work in 20 mote-out apartments and 8 occupied apartments. Therefore. the retrieved from the Maximo data bane work orders that matched the work deaeriotion listed on the respective purchase orders and invoices in order to identity existing work orders and to ascertain whether the work was by htlatrixa or a worker. The GIG also obtained the original andtor copies ol'signed work orders where avaiiable From the development. the 0le; review revealed that the contractor's tog book maintained at the development was never signed. by Matrixx For any Work performed at the development. The review also rev rated the tijitlowing: 1. Purchase. Order 1508125. dated near I 3 and related inroiee tr 2. dated 36th I 5. in the amount of $3,953th was for work in three apartments. ?strip the Floors and removing debris. Remove all outlet covers. clean bathroom and ltritehen. Light Fixtures secured." Work performed heiin'e ottrehaae order date: 41?) Blake Avenue. Apt. 71) 7 h-r?lartimo Shows more out strip {caretahem work one done by NYCIM tt-orker Sandra Stitlt tinder Work ()rder it 35697?? I lit and by NYCHA worker Vernon Corbin under WU it 35607913 on lf'lott?. which it; before the 3:?2?41?15 pureltaac order date. Both work orders. were closed in Maximo on 3f4r'l5. which is also before the 3t34r?l5 put-chaste order date as well as the 3.33le 5 invoice date. 395 Livonia Avenue. Ant. 12C Maximo shows more out strip wort; lmaint} was done by? NY A worker Venom Corbin tinder Work Order it 35697968 on 15 and closed out in Maximo on 3:13:15. which it; before the purchase order date as well as the .3r?30fl5 invoice date- Further- N?r'C?i'lA worker Rickey Nesbitt did nnwe out strip work under Work Order it ESd?itw?b (caretaker) on which was cloned out in h-lmtimo on 3H .I ll Both dates are before the Mild/15 purchase order date and the 3.930245 invoice date. h'laxitno ?lth) shorts Work Order Sitit?t?i?tmt} tearetaker hottonatp} work done by a vendor on Mott the. work order was closed out on :t/tnn 5. 383 Livonia Avenue. Apt. IIC Maximo shows more outatrin work was done by N?r'?ilr?t t-t?nrker under - - ih-"orh Order it 3(35253l2 tearetaitert on 3t?l5r?l5. which is; before the 3H 5: f? pttrehaae order date. and elmeri out in hilartinm nn arm 5. More not strip work tea?. alnn done h} lr't marker htlauriee Yard under ti 3(i5253lv'l tmaint} on 3.45.115. \?a-?lliCl? is belbre the purchase order date. and closed out in h-laxinm on i 5. int ?s WI ll \H'?l?kh tt'w?l tilt I lt?t?w. . ?lm it: 354th NI ?tltl-?lt: 1572:; 1-4 J1 I Purchase Order l503657. dated 3227.515. and related invoice Fl- 3. dated 3r30tl5, in the amount of?iftf?lttm was for work at three apartments. "remove debris. Sll?lp entire apartment. cover all tight ?xtures. remove all out let covers. clean entire bathroom and kitchen. clean windows and window sills, reinstall all outlet covers. strip ad wan entire apartment as needed.? 362 Sutter Avenue. more out strip work was done by a NYCHA worker under Work Order at: 356080l4 on 2/l4f15 and under 3569MB on 'Ph'SflS. The work orders were closed in Maximo on 3? Hi ?3 and SEGA reapeetively. .362 Sutter Avenue, 8F - more out strip work was done by a NYCI IA worker under Work Order it 3h097927 olt 31'3fl5 and under Work Order it 36097929 on MSJIS. The work orders were closed out in Maximo or: 3f] HI 5 and 3/37 I 5. respectively. 429 Dumont Avenue, Apt. IA - more out Strip work was done by a Vendor under Work Order .i?r 36820! 13 and by," a 1A worker under Work Order it 36821? l4 on 4/311? 5. The work orders were closed out in Maximo on 4191? 5- Maximo shows. that the more out strip work was done in Apartments 11C and SF prior to the purchase order data and in Apartment IA IVS-3W 15 invoice date. Order [509589. dated 4t6r'i? and related inroire ti 7. dated 4! i4? 5. in the amount was for work at tour apartments. ?remove debris. strip entire apartment. cover all light ?xtures and outlet covers. clean entire bathroom and kitchen. clean window and window Sills. strip and wax apartn?ient as needed.? 414 Sutter Avenue, HE more out Strip work was darn: by a NYCl-lr?t worker under Work Order tr 367373 7 and Work ?rtler it 3672733 8 on 4.1'2rl 5. which is: inelhre the ri/?fl? purchase order date. The work orders were closed in htlaximo on and SfolS. respectively. .375 Blake Avenue, out tit-rip work wart done h} a EA worker under Work Order 3(3787458 and Work Order at 3(678i458 on Liflf?lfi. which is before the trog?l? purchase order date. The work orders were closed in l?vlaximo on 4;"99/ 5. 4H) Blake Avenue. 4C more out strip work was done. by a NYC?lle worker under Work Order it 36827805 and Vr?ork Order r'r 36827807 an M4115. which is before the Littl?fli purchase order date. Hath work orders; were elnsed in htl'aximo or: Lift}! 5. 429 Dumont .r?wiznue. HG move out Strip work was done by a NYCHA Elicia-k t?h'dcr :3 36737ll77 and Vt-?ork Order at 367870?9 on 453.515. which is before the 4/6! 15 purchase order date. The work orders Were closed in Maximo on 5. slum-3 that the ll?lt?t?r?? out strip t-t-nrk was done in aforementioned four apartments prior to purchase order date. - war unable to explain why the difference between the purchase order dates: and jolt ocrl'i'irmanee date listed on the carriers retrieved From hv'lttximn. hut ornamented that a work order created fill? a atal'l' in Maximo cannot he clog-ed out under a vendor's; ?Lll?l'lt?. - stated Ihat the Wl'il'k ordera intended l?or alat?Tahoukl l?it'tt't?: bee-lit closed out and a new vendor work order should hut-e been created as a child work order in Maximo. - stated that he is tlnahie to apeak to the h? i ?tNi? \?i?tll ?Il \ltll?t?t if Uh?ilttl'l iiti?r. I?d. ialts "xl ?Hi 14: Hlilzlt: Maximo data and added that he has no control over what the development does with respect to creating vendor work orders or the data entered in hr'lanimo. - further stated that he does not rccali iJClI'ig given work orders for any work he perl'i?u?metl at Van inlx'c and stated that. it is on the development to provide the work orders. - stated that he dealt with the super. - and on occasions with one ot? the assistant suners (he couid not recall the name), dated LUSH :3 and related invoice it?ll. dated 4/l0i'15. in the amount was for glazier work at i5 t-tpartments (7 more-outs and 8 occupiedl. "40 pieces of the Following windtm- {Sash} glass were removed and replaced in No work order numbers were listed on the purchase order or related invoices. For the 7 move?out apartments. an apartment search in Maximo revealed. glazicr work orders For 6 of the 7? apartments. one oi" which was done by a vendor. white the other work orders were purportediy performed by a NYCi-ln worker either before the 4/8? 5 purchase order date or alter the 4i i [it i :3 invoice date; and no work order was found for one ofthe moreout apartments. For the 8 occupied apartments. no glazier work orders were Found for 6 ol? the 8 apartments. and the remaining two apartments For which work orders were Found. Maximo shows that the work was performed by alter the. 4/ {it IS invoice date. During his DIG interview. - stated that separate work orders would not be Found For glaxier work in more?out apartments lJCC'dtl?C that work is considered to be part ofthe tnoveout work being done in the apartment. With respect to the glaxier tit-nth for occupied apartments. - stated that no work orders were Iii/en to him- and to his recollection. he listed on the invoice. only the apartments in which he worked. stated that he cannot speak for the development and reiterated that he has no control over what the development does with respect to creating vendor work orders or the data entered in hilaximo. Purchase tirder- I5 I 06:89. dated 4.11 St I 5 and related invoice #20. dated 4.124! I 5.. in the amount tit-"as For work at three upartmente. "remove excess debris. strip entire apartment. cover all light ?xtures and outlet covers. clean entire bathroom and ltitehcn. clean windows and window sills. strip and wan entire apartment. in. I?iecded." 398 Sutter Avenue. 8F Maximo shows vendor cleanup work under Urder it 36323923 on still! I5 and that the work order was closed out in Maximo on 5. which is prior to the Lifijflipurchase order date. Maximo also Show that more out strip work was done by a NYCHA worker tinder Work Order it 36823923 on 4/6! l5 and that the work order was closed on MW 5. which is prior to the S'pureltase order date. 422 Make Avenue, Maximo shows 1Hernlor cleanup n-?ork performed under V'i?tirlt Order it" 36834tii5 started on 5 and ended 43? i i5. and closed out in h?i?xlli'1t') on 4ft 5. which is prior to the 5 purchase order date. h-lasimo also show that mot-e out strip work was done by a worker under Work Order it 3638-4024 on ~h?9s?l5 and closed on 4! HHS, which is prior to the. ?it lift 5 purchase order and invoice date. 393 Dammit Merino. Ant. 1C - more out atrin work was done in" a NYCl?ir?t worker under Work Order it 36943054 on bitty l5 and under 'tkv?nrlt Order it 36943155 on is helbre the 4M purchase order tinte. The wort. orders were closed in Maximo on i. li?tllx; \l ?t li?shl ill ll. lltl\. i?st . Ki l5 ??rth \l "tutti?: Iii?ll}? - repeated the same in Formation as previously stated about not being given work orders and being tumble to speak to the Maximo data that the stdl?l?cts entered in h?laxin?to. During an Cali} interview; the Former super at Van Dylan l-luusca. in aunt and substance Stated that work orders are not always created For all jobs performed at the development. especially those in public spaces. - stated that to his recollection. in early lel? er thereabnut. there. was a concerted el?lbrt to keep the work order numbers down and to get as many work orders closed out in time for the PHAS inspection? - stated that through Housing Manager and Borough Administrater (could not stay with]. he and the other sewers and annintant nupers were advised that the general manager wanted them to ?think outside the box" in order to get the turnaround on more-out apartments: down to l0 day's instead of the ?20 day's; it generall3,r took to have mtwe~nut apartments move-hr ready. and that ?they? (meaning det-elepn'ient staff) are to keep the work order numbers low.h Stated that based on this information. ?r'r?L'tt'li orders were not alt-rays created for every job. eapeciully those For which vendors were hired. reviewed the abate?referenced purchase orders. payment data from Oracle showing. that he authorized the respective inruicea in Oracle for payment. and the applicable original work orders where andr?ur retrieved from Maximo. - stated that he rarely approves invoices in Oracle for payment and that although that is one. of his reanonsihilitien. he had the atnrernnm clerk that function on his behalf by providing her with his access code to Oraele so that Stilt? could input the recital information to facilitate the payment at irn'nicea.v - stated that he was: not that he was: not supposed to share his access code with anyone. When shown the purchase orders for which no work orders were found in. Maximo matching the description ol? n-?ork listed on the purchase orders or stated that it is not a requirement to list work order numbers on purchase orders or invoices. However. there are times when requesting a purchase order in Oracle. a system prompt would require that a work order number be listed. - stated that the name nl'a in worker appearing in Maximo as having. done the may net necessarily have done the work. but that the name mag.? have been entered in hilaxinmjust to close out the work order. - Further Stated that a marl; order listed under a l?l?t?C?l-IA ft deer; nuceesaril}; in *an that a N?r?Cl lA worker did the work because a vendor could have done the work t-t'ilhout ?1 vendor work order being created h} uliliaing the same \tork order intended For a N?t?Cl staffer. reviewed \tsork orders hearing. the gutters purported Signature. that he signed off on the Work orders. and that hi5 Sign ut'l' does not mean that the work was necessarily inspected. During. his interview. - stated that he did a lot nt? work in move-nut apartmentn at Van Dyke Houses. hut does not recall getting any work orders For any ol' thejnhs. - stated that things were very Regional Fist-tut t- Mist-d I-uutnce l-?mnertj. lilamngemcut Department. the tilt?; that ?lming utatk tit-um tnwmo has nothing to do with Lu. :nqpeelinnr. hut requires u: attire t?tUl time orders that could he eluted and make arrangements tn net the marl; ?lune rare-?Pl F3133. the nut ucneralh dune ion litr In admin: ?in scheduled l?l MEL luxpectinn inspection Murmur} ltcpert slums that Van [bylaw has scheduled for let}; nopectinn lotul?lh the end with: year. in him-umber Elli - also stated that ill eurh there an; :1 pint: In reduce the turnaround tune tin more-nut :tparununtk true: 1? thus to ahnat 15 w. and lit-l an tn gel the umk dune lu the develtupmenn hurt the t'rptinn to hum: it; alul'l vmrl. tn'urtinte. hermit :tlt-tther or nr inn?; tie the it'url. .. tr aunt and whwtuncc hl?lCLl the same tn- and added that reducing the tune lt?i" mote-nut tiltl not mean that he - explained that" thinking a?Ittl?ldL? the hm." mount than instead til waiting liar nuclei l'n: any Skilled traders mull.? ll? do i. got). the yuan 1hr.- ?prim: nl null" harm;- z:Inl'f hurl. met tune, ur harm}: it render do the unlit heeded lnuunn unto] that hurt. for all mud. net thrmerl in t-cutlma. whether done it: nuhlic mecca. Hinteruuni ?icrk dented cxci u'unu - tnrrolc hummer] tn laminate put-nicer til and that the I'lul intuit g?Ih?mihth ts: \?Ml \Hil': ti \ilil'k?xt tt?wt llt?t\. EM. ?tf'i'l \Hil'ii; hill-"r hectic at the development because of the hig drire to make more?out apartments movedn ready in dealing with the Department of llrmieless Services. pending PHAS inspections, Next Generation preparations. and being short worh orders were rarely git-en to him. - stated that he tie-nit with and that In: t- aha-toys made nun: that In: was given purchase. orders {?or the jobs he was hired to and nth-rays listed the addresses and apartments in which he worked on the invoices. Work performed in public spaces: The DEG also reviewed the Si purchase orders. and related invoices for work purportedhr perliormed by Matrixx in public Spaces For over llJO locations throughout derelopmente in Brooklyn. Queens. end the Bronx.? MYC?l?lek?s Accounts Payable records; Show that Matt-inn received payment For the imoiees anhmitted to N?tT?l lA. in the amount the (MG attempted to obtain original work orders for the'nrork purportedly performed by hrtatrixrt- hut was able to obtain work orders for only two ot?the invoices. one for Woods-on Housea and the other for East River i?louses. The spoke with snipers, assistant supers. and or the [lensing Manager ("management stall?) regarding the missing work orders. In sum and substance. some nntnagement staffers the DIG that work orders. are required For all work. 1whetl?nu? in NYCI IA apartments or in public spaces. and whether done by a N?r'f?l in worker or vendor. while others stated that work orders are generally not created For work done hy vendors in public spaces. Regarding invoices. submitted by Matt-inn for payment. the management stall could not say with certainty that all worlt purportedly performed by Matrixn was inspected. hut mated that in general. the purchase must have been used in eitpnitmction with verbal that development stal?l?inspected the work and veri?ed that the work was completed. During his (JIU interview and in relation to work performed in publie spaces.- reiterated that he was rarehr git-en work orders and stated that his workers did not ash for any upon arrival to do work in public spaces. Upon drawing his attention to the feet that the contractor?s log book at Van Dyke l~louses was never signed upon arrival to do norlz. - stated that his stall. which could he one. two or three workers depending on the need For the joh at hand- was inatructed to Sign the col-itraetnr?a log hook upon arrival at the development. but stated that the book was not tllei?yt-l to them. - stated that he aleo instructed his stalT to always have Someone From the of?ce verify the completed work. and reiterated that he has no control over what the deil'elopment does or entered in the h'laximo database. in order to ascertain whether - was in any type of lticlthaelt to N?r?i?l?l?t employees to- secure work at developments. the subpoenaed the banking records Matrix); and - l'rom Citibank. Chase Manhattan Bonk. and Paci?c NJ. as indicated on the cancelled checks. The Oltj's review til the subpoenaed records did not reveal an}! anomalies. As. the mainrity {lithe cancelled NYCHA checks were negotiated at Paeil?ie Hi. the (MG spoke with. - the compliance otl?ieer liar linellie. - inlijirmed the tilt] that it is thirty eon-unon for husinemes melt HH amall continuum in use check cashing lheilities hecause ol?the need for immediate cash ?rms for continued operations. The OlCi spoke to - - Deputy Director- Department oi" Management and Planning. who it the ope?ation liaison for lnl?m'nnuion 't?ee-Iinolopy Ht?) regarding any changes pertaining tt?r Maximo. - stated that nith at ten exceptions tie. deterred maintenance. violations. court mac and elevator work orders. etc.). there is nothing in that would prevent a user from closing any work order the?; included liaising. Home? l?mt rite: Homes. Ilnpu thudunn. liirn 1nd thinner? humor? linemen- ?rm-lurid (hunt: l-?mj. .Iiunue'm Smith llunaen. Justice Stimulator ?t?tth'w. throng? Nicol; inilj l?iill?tl. l'rui [it la.- ?litmus. ltl'tl lli'ttl??L?s. Vt? \l?thl?Ut t? .. 1til ll: llth?N wit \1 \liil?KZ ii-Zl?? in Maximo. regardless ol? erttl?l. which includes; vendor u-?orlt ordt?rrs.q Also. there is nothing that prtiihihits vendor work order From being clotted out in Maximo under the name of NYCl?lh worker. vice verso. With respect to having at new work order created when the crul't intended tor a vendor is performed by it n-urher and tier: vernal. - stated than there is no need to create a new work. order because the user can access the owner group ?eld in Maximo. which is not locked ?eld. and change the owner group from Skilled Trades or "l?eehniettl Services?: to Development as needed. and vice versa. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The (110?s: investigation into whether Motrin Ins; paid for work it did not perform the; inconclusive because NYCHA stall" did not Follow mitt order procedures by thiling to: I) always create work ordera for all "work performed by NYCHA vendors. whether clone in apartments or in public spaces: (2) accurately input into Maximo whether work orders were completed by NYCHA staff, or by a vendor: (3) ensure that the log book maintained an the development is signed by vendors upon ttrrirnl to perform tr job: and inform mat-ragement of duplicate work orders. where one copy of the work order showed NYCHA slnl'l' as having performed the t-vorlt. while the other copy shot-red the vendor. h-?loretwer. the derelt'iptnent management staff was unable to locate numerous nigned original work orders For work purportedly eompleted the vendor nndr'or workers. Additionally: the was unable to independentl}r determine whether the work performed by the vendor inspeeted und veri?ed by management hel'ore approval l?or because. prool' oi? was not documented. The DIG: ulso had difficulty in identitying applicable ordera for the respective purehtnie modern and related invoices because order numbers are not required to be listed on purchase orders andior related invoices. information obtained through review ot?pnrehnse orders and i nroiees retrieved from Oracle. as well as apartment inspections. and interviews nith NYCHA residents and development staf?i?support the DlG?s ?nding-5.. Rusted on the nhrwe. the DIG mnlter the lhllowing policy and procedure recommendt-ttitn'ts: 0 N?t?C?llA retrain its with respect to Maximo usage. with an emphasiu on adherence to existing policies and proeedures concerning. n] the importance ol?ensuring that the name of the indit-iduttl or 1trt'nnlorwho did a job is; accurately entered in Maximo: h) that NYCHA staff list their mono and hedge number on completed \Hll?lii orders for work they ll" not in poseennion of? a Portable Dotti Device; e] that Maximo users update the Maximo dotnhane when at work order from one owner group {such tot Skilled 'l'rttderl in being reansigned to another owner group {such as the development): and d} that work orders he for all norlt vendors in public as well its in apartments. Ifnnure that till original signed t?t-?ork orders are nmintoined on file at the development management ol?liees for auditing, purposes. During an Olti interview. (the former Von Dylte l-louses; Superintendent) claimed that he prtwided the storenmm clerk with his Oracle password nee-ens to perform receipt Function in Oracle. which facilitates the payment ol? vendor invoices. .?thhongh the clerk denied - claim. the tilt"; makes the policy and procedure reeommendntion: ta on: o: tltret?nn??. in ht ulna-ll 1-: rue ot?thr matter group-t ?1 \?wl nurt- ttl?t?kt {?rst 3 Hi ?in, i?xt t?tta \t Hutu: Wt warn: I staff bc rol?ninded that their computer atndr?or access pasmx-ut'dts'} must not bl: shared n. other employers. The (MS also recommends that thir. case. be Closed and that tho lindintts he re ?erred to with the lbliot-uing additional policy? and procedure recommendations: - Rovis: work ordcr form so that vcndor nan]: andfor assigned vendor number must hr: noted on the work order upon completion ot?work and be reflected on closed vendor work orders in Maximo. Require that staff performing the work order close-out function in Maximo inform the respective supervisors iftlto work order in hand is already closed out in Maximo. Requirr: that vendors performing work under small purchase orders submit a NYCHA Statement of Service Form alongI with signed copies of work orders; for all work performed. This form requires Lln: vendor to list the purchaser: order number on the form. and must bc signed by a employee certifying that the work porl'nrmed by the rundor has; huun satisfactorily completed tutti This form further facilitates payment of invoices submitted by vendors. and is currently in use for ltlt?mkot purchase order contracts. 0 Requost that vendors list all work order numbers on invoices for which payment is. being requested. ?l . Submitted by: 'Jf rut? m" Bergiti ?felosforti Deputy Inspector (Eerie fut Reviewed by: Unto: Pamela Salt -. 1' - f" i?ll?El? Doputfr denot'ul/ .3 Mr r? r?tpprovcd by: ,2 Ralph-NI. inspector General -