The 82-page VA Office of Inspector General review, Government Accountability Office updates, and VA’s facility history.
Reader Guide
Why this project is in the CFIG demonstration set
Demonstration purposeThis project demonstrates full-life-cycle megaproject warning integration. It shows how CFIG makes separate design, cost, contract, staffing, and schedule warnings visible as one executive decision condition.
Primary CFIG capability
Integrated early warning, reforecasting, and responsibility control.
Decision sweet spot
When independent estimates first showed the design could not be built within the approved construction amount.
Client payoff
Makes compounding exposure visible early and supports accountable recovery decisions.
This is an independent historical demonstration built from public records. It does not claim CFIG worked on, advised, or was endorsed by the project.
Executive Summary
One condition. One decision path. Three usable outputs.
Cost warnings, incomplete design, complex scope, a changed delivery method, and weak decision controls were connected—not isolated.
ConditionCFIG connected repeated estimates above budget, design complexity, incomplete construction documents, delivery-method change, slow decisions, and unclear accountability into one escalating cost-and-schedule condition.
InterventionFreeze scope and design maturity, reconcile independent estimates, reforecast cost and schedule, and assign named executive decision owners.
BenefitMakes compounding exposure visible early and supports accountable recovery decisions.
Primary evidence spine
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
VA Office of Inspector General Report 15-03706-330 — Review of the Replacement of the Denver Medical Center
Physical PDF page 24, printed report page 17, “VA Officials Disregarded Warnings That Costs Trended Above the ECCA.”
“Senior VA officials disregarded numerous project cost estimates and information from various sources that VA could not build the Denver project.”
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
Several estimates said the plan cost too much, but leaders kept the same path.
Source Register and Coverage Ledger
What was reviewed—and what remains outside the claim
The register names each public record used here. “Targeted” means the listed project sections were reviewed for this demonstration. It does not mean every linked attachment or all project files were reviewed.
| ID | Original document and exact area | Coverage used | Status | Public source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | VA OIG Report 15-03706-330 82-page federal review; Findings 1–4, chronology, design phases, and management response. | Targeted review of the complete report with exact reliance on Findings 1–4. | VERIFIED | Open original sourceCLICK HERE |
| S2 | GAO-14-548T Government Accountability Office update on Denver cost, schedule, and scope. | Key findings and cost history reviewed. | VERIFIED | Open original sourceCLICK HERE |
| S3 | GAO-18-329T Government Accountability Office follow-up on cost estimates, schedules, and change-order tracking. | Key findings and follow-up status reviewed. | VERIFIED | Open original sourceCLICK HERE |
| S4 | VA Eastern Colorado facility history Official owner history through construction pause, Army Corps recovery, and 2018 patient transfers. | Outcome timeline reviewed. | SUPPORTING | Open original sourceCLICK HERE |
Full Project Lifecycle · Evidence Boundaries
Explore the VA medical center across all eight phases
Federal oversight follows the project from early decisions through recovery and operation. Each phase links to the relevant evidence or findings, with limits where the source set is narrower.
Land / Site Acquisition
Evidence reviewed: The Inspector General describes changing site concepts and the VA purchase of roughly 30 acres in Aurora by October 2008. The reviewed sources are not a complete parcel or title audit.
Decision use and limit: Connect site and care-delivery decisions to scope and budget without claiming a full land-record review.
Planning / Project Definition
Evidence reviewed: Changes to the concept, scope, design, budget, and completion dates across successive leadership decisions are documented in the Inspector General review.
Decision use and limit: Freeze the mission need, scope, funding ceiling, and executive decision owners before additional commitments.
Design / Preconstruction
Evidence reviewed: The Inspector General describes design complexity and a failure to ensure the design could be built within the target construction cost.
Decision use and limit: Demand a design-to-budget reconciliation and a documented constructability decision.
Contract / Procurement
Evidence reviewed: The Inspector General addresses contract provisions, acquisition strategy, and the effect of changing delivery methods and issuing incomplete construction documents.
Decision use and limit: Make scope maturity, contracting authority, price basis, and risk allocation visible at procurement gates.
Guaranteed Maximum Price / Cost Formation
Evidence reviewed: The report documents divergent designer and contractor estimates, a construction cost target, unreconciled design, and subsequent cost growth. It does not establish a guaranteed maximum price for this project.
Decision use and limit: Keep a reconciled estimate, contingency, and change forecast with an owner and decision date.
Construction / Project Controls
Evidence reviewed: The review identifies staffing and decision weaknesses, construction delays, and cost and design questions that continued during field work.
Decision use and limit: Join schedule, progress, design release, staffing, and unresolved decisions in one warning register.
Changes / Claims / Disputes
Evidence reviewed: Federal records describe slow modifications, work interruption, dispute, new contract arrangements, and Army Corps support for completion.
Decision use and limit: Track each change or claim with cause, cost, schedule, authority, and documented resolution; do not promise a different historical outcome.
Closeout / Warranty / Operations
Evidence reviewed: The federal review and GAO updates address recovery and activation, and VA history records the new center’s operation. This source set does not establish a complete warranty or final-account audit.
Decision use and limit: Preserve cost and decision lessons for the operating owner while separating activation from warranty verification.
Complete Portfolio Evidence and Lifecycle Record
The eight CFIG lifecycle phases
A phase may be evidence-supported, supporting, or requirements-only. No blank phase is presented as completed field proof.
| Phase | Coverage status | Project evidence | CFIG use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Land and Site Acquisition | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Colocation and site history appear in federal chronology and owner records. | Tie site and partnership choices to scope, cost, and delivery risk. |
| 2. Planning and Project Definition | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Changing concept, scope, budget, and completion targets. | Freeze mission need, scope, cost limit, and executive gate. |
| 3. Design and Preconstruction | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | OIG Finding 1 documents planning, design, complexity, and constructability problems. | Require design-to-budget and independent constructability proof. |
| 4. Contract and Procurement | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | OIG Findings 2–3 address inadequate plans and midstream acquisition-strategy change. | Test delivery method, design maturity, authority, and risk allocation before award. |
| 5. Guaranteed Maximum Price, Cost Formation, and Purchasing | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Multiple estimates, failed reconciliation, cost growth, and contingency pressure. | Maintain one reconciled estimate and change forecast. |
| 6. Construction and Project Controls | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Construction progress, schedule slippage, staffing, and decision-control findings. | Join design release, field progress, cost, schedule, and decision due dates. |
| 7. Changes, Claims, Disputes, and Commercial Resolution | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Slow modifications, work pause, litigation, settlement funding, and management transfer. | Build a cause, entitlement, cost, schedule, and settlement record. |
| 8. Closeout, Warranty, Audit, and Final Resolution | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Federal audit, Army Corps recovery, facility activation, and 2018 service start. | Preserve final cost, decisions, lessons, and operating handoff. |
Detailed Findings
Source language beside plain language
RMV-01Repeated cost warnings required an executive gateCOST / GOVERNANCE
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
VA OIG Report 15-03706-330
“Senior VA officials disregarded numerous project cost estimates and information from various sources”
Physical PDF page 24, printed report page 17.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
More than one source warned that the design cost too much.
WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE
Condition Found
The budget gap was a repeated control signal, not one uncertain estimate.
Significance
Continuing without a reset lets design and construction lock in more cost.
Lifecycle Effect
Design → Estimate → Executive gate → Contract and construction.
Decision Window
At the first reconciled estimate above the approved amount.
CFIG Intervention
Use the Cost–Schedule–Design Early Warning Register.
Responsible User
Executive sponsor, project controls, finance, and contracting.
Consequences of Taking No Action
The project can keep spending against a budget it cannot meet.
Expected Benefit
Leaders see the point where hold or redesign is cheaper than recovery.
Evidence status: Direct federal audit support.
RMV-02Construction moved without a stable design-to-budget basisDESIGN / REFORECAST
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
VA OIG Report 15-03706-330
“VA Initiated Construction Phase Without Adequate Design Plans”
Physical PDF page 32, printed report page 25, Finding 2 heading.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
Building started before the plans were ready enough.
WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE
Condition Found
Design maturity, price, sequence, and contingency were not locked together.
Significance
Late plan changes create rework, delay, and hard-to-price impacts.
Lifecycle Effect
Incomplete plans → Field release → Change → Delay and cost growth.
Decision Window
Before each construction package was released.
CFIG Intervention
Use the Change and Contingency Reforecast.
Responsible User
Designer, builder, project controls, contracting officer, and sponsor.
Consequences of Taking No Action
The forecast becomes less reliable as connected work proceeds.
Expected Benefit
A current forecast makes recovery choices visible before funds are committed.
Evidence status: Direct federal audit support.
RMV-03A midstream delivery change needed clear authority and skillsCONTRACT / RESPONSIBILITY
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
VA OIG Report 15-03706-330
“VA’s decision to change its acquisition strategy from a Design Bid-Build contract to an Integrated-Design and Construct contract mid-stream”
Physical PDF page 37, printed report page 30, Finding 3.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
The owner changed how the project would be delivered after work had already begun.
WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE
Condition Found
The new delivery method changed duties, risk, and needed skills.
Significance
A new contract method cannot fix design and cost problems unless authority and controls change too.
Lifecycle Effect
Delivery strategy → Roles → Direction → Changes → Dispute and recovery.
Decision Window
Before the acquisition strategy changed and before related agreements were signed.
CFIG Intervention
Use the Executive Responsibility and Decision Matrix.
Responsible User
Executive leadership, acquisition, contracting, design, and construction teams.
Consequences of Taking No Action
Decisions can fall between organizations and make delay harder to resolve.
Expected Benefit
Each material decision has one owner, one due date, and one record.
Evidence status: Direct federal audit support.
Tangible Options
Exactly three primary outputs
Each option is a usable work product. It names the user, the decision, and the payoff.
| No. | Tangible Option | Usable output | User | Decision enabled | Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cost–Schedule–Design Early Warning Register | One dated register joining each estimate, design maturity point, schedule impact, warning source, owner response, and decision due date. | VA executive leadership, construction management, project controls, designer, and oversight teams. | Whether to hold, simplify, redesign, add funds, or change delivery before more work proceeds. | Earlier control of compounding cost and delay. |
| 2 | Change and Contingency Reforecast | A reconciled forecast showing base scope, design growth, pending changes, contingency use, schedule effect, confidence range, and funding gap. | Project controls, contracting officer, finance, executive sponsor, and recovery manager. | What the real completion forecast is and which changes can still be avoided or sequenced. | More credible funding and recovery choices. |
| 3 | Executive Responsibility and Decision Matrix | A named map of who recommends, reviews, approves, funds, signs, and escalates each design, cost, schedule, and contract decision. | VA leadership, contracting, designer, contractor, Army Corps, and oversight bodies. | Who must decide each open issue and when authority transfers. | Faster decisions and a stronger accountability record. |
Completion Gate
Release controls and honest limits
No guarantee: Tangible Options describe defensible decision support. They do not promise a project result or claim that CFIG performed work on the historical project.