Report 2016-301 All Recommendation Responses
Report 2016-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: The Five Superior Courts We Reviewed Mostly Adhered to Required and Recommended Practices, but Some Improvements Are Needed (Release Date: November 2016)
Recommendation #1 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
The San Joaquin court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the San Joaquin court should follow the recommended process for applicable noncompetitive procurements to ensure that vendors' prices are fair and reasonable.
60-Day Agency Response
The Court agrees with this recommendation. The Court has revisited its practice with regards to non-competitive procurements, and has created a revised internal non-competitive procedure form to ensure Judicial Branch Contracting Manual requirements are followed.
- Completion Date: December 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #2 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
The San Mateo court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the San Mateo court should follow the recommended process for applicable noncompetitive procurements to ensure that vendors' prices are fair and reasonable.
60-Day Agency Response
In general, though not including LPAs, the court's practice has been to obtain at least three quotes for noncompetitive procurements. The court revised section 5.1 of its Local Court Contracting Manual (see page 7) to read "When considering the use of a LPA, even when the LPA was competitively bid, the Buyer should make an effort to seek better pricing and other terms with the vendor. The Buyer should include documentation on efforts made in the procurement file." For LPAs, the court is now following the newly added practice.
- Completion Date: January 2017
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #3 To: Superior Court of California, County of Tehama
The Tehama court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the Tehama court should follow the recommended process for applicable noncompetitive procurements to ensure that vendors' prices are fair and reasonable.
60-Day Agency Response
The [Tehama] court has revised its Contracts Checklist Form to include fair and reasonable pricing.
- Completion Date: October 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #4 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
The San Joaquin court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the San Joaquin court should follow the judicial contracting manual's recommendations for procurement processes, and it should provide and consistently retain in contract files its justifications for entering into contracts that it has not competitively bid.
60-Day Agency Response
The Court agrees with this recommendation. To ensure the Court is in compliance with the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual, the Court has adopted a procurement/contracting checkoff list that was developed by the Judicial Council to assist the Court with being consistent with JBCL procurement/contracting procedures.
Furthermore, the Court is in the process of developing a more specific/detailed Local Procurement Manual that will be used to maintain consistency with JBCL procurement processes and procedures.
- Completion Date: December 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #5 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
The San Mateo court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the San Mateo court should follow the judicial contracting manual's recommendations for procurement processes, and it should provide and consistently retain in contract files its justifications for entering into contracts that it has not competitively bid.
60-Day Agency Response
In general, the court's practice has been to obtain at least three quotes for noncompetitive procurements and include the quotes in the procurement file. The court revised section 5.1 of its Local Court Contracting Manual (see page 7) to read "For all NCB procurements, the Buyer should retain in procurement files the justifications for entering into contracts, including documentation on efforts made to determine fair and reasonable pricing." The court is now following the newly added practice for all NCB procurements.
- Completion Date: January 2017
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #6 To: Superior Court of California, County of Tehama
The Tehama court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the Tehama court should follow the judicial contracting manual's recommendations for procurement processes, and it should provide and consistently retain in contract files its justifications for entering into contracts that it has not competitively bid.
60-Day Agency Response
The [Tehama] court agrees with the recommendation and has implemented a process for retaining justifications for entering into contracts in the actual contract file.
- Completion Date: October 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
.
Recommendation #7 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
The San Joaquin court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the San Joaquin court should ensure that contracts include all required elements and are properly approved.
60-Day Agency Response
The Court agrees with this recommendation. The Court has revisited its practice with regards to non-competitive procurements, and has created a revised internal non-competitive procedure form to ensure Judicial Branch Contracting Manual requirements are followed.
- Completion Date: December 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #8 To: Superior Court of California, County of Tehama
The Tehama court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the Tehama court should ensure that contracts include all required elements and are properly approved.
60-Day Agency Response
The [Tehama] court has revised its Contracts Checklist Form to indicate whether the a contract has been signed and approved.
- Completion Date: October 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #9 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
To ensure that it properly authorizes payments and purchases only allowable items, the San Joaquin court should process payments in accordance with the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State. Specifically, the San Joaquin court should implement a process to ensure that its staff adheres to the requirements within its policy when exceeding the $1,500 per transaction limit for purchase cards as established in the judicial contracting manual.
60-Day Agency Response
The Court agrees with this recommendation. The Court's written policy has been revised to state the following:
"If there is a specific business need for exceeding the $1,500 per transaction limit, the requestor must obtain prior approval and provide a written explanation of the business reason for the higher transaction amount."
- Completion Date: December 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #10 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
To ensure that it properly authorizes payments and purchases only allowable items, the San Joaquin court should process payments in accordance with the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State. Specifically, the San Joaquin court should make sure that it is receiving the goods and services it ordered. It should also pay vendors only after verifying receipt of the goods or services.
60-Day Agency Response
The Court agrees with this recommendation. The Court paid an invoice for four bottles of water, for jurors, without ensuring the receipt was signed by the receiving Court department. The Court has notified the vendor that invoices will not be paid if signed receipts have not been received by the Accounting department. In addition, the Court has reminded the receiving departments to provide all signed receipts to Procurement and Accounting.
- Completion Date: December 2016
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
The court provided documentation to support the actions it has taken to implement our recommendation. These actions are important because as stated on page 18 of our report, the court purchased bottled water and related items at a cost of more than $8,000 for fiscal year 2015-16.
Recommendation #11 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
To ensure that it properly authorizes payments and purchases only allowable items, the San Mateo court should process payments in accordance with the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State. Specifically, the San Mateo court should make sure that it is receiving the goods and services it ordered. It should also pay vendors only after verifying receipt of the goods or services.
60-Day Agency Response
The Judicial Council's Trial Court Policy and Procedures Manual, section 6.2.2 of FIN 8.01, and JBCM 10.3 both address the payment approval process. The court revised Section 7.9 (General Conditions) of its Local Court Contracting Manual (see page 16) by adding item D as follows: "Inspection of Goods and Services. Consistent with JBCM 10.3 and section 6.2.2 of FIN 8.01, department managers are required to send all pertinent documents relating to the acquisition of goods and services to the accounts payable unit prior to payment. Managers must sign delivery packing slips but only when all goods have been received."
The court's Deputy Court Executive Officer informed applicable managers, supervisors, and staff of this change to the court's local manual and the court's Finance Director discussed the requirement with accounts payable staff.
- Completion Date: January 2017
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #12 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
To ensure that it properly authorizes payments and purchases only allowable items, the San Mateo court should process payments in accordance with the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State. Specifically, the San Mateo court should take steps to ensure that appropriate employees authorize all payments.
60-Day Agency Response
The court's Finance Director reviewed with accounts payable staff the Judicial Council's Financial Policy and Procedure Manual concerning payment approval, specifically FIN 8.01, and the court's approval process and approval matrix. Staff were reminded to check that documents contained all the necessary signatures from authorized signatories before processing payments.
- Completion Date: January 2017
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
Recommendation #13 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
To ensure that it properly authorizes payments and purchases only allowable items, the San Mateo court should process payments in accordance with the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State. Specifically, the San Mateo court should amend its bottled water service contract to ensure that water is purchased for use by jurors and court room staff only.
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023
Pursuant to current agreements with SEIU Local 521 and AFSCME Local 829, the Court is required to provide bottled water in commonly accessible work areas for court employees. However, court is planning to install water filters.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022
Pursuant to current agreements with SEIU Local 521 and AFSCME Local 829, the Court is required to provide bottled water in commonly accessible work areas for court employees.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2021
Pursuant to current agreements with SEIU Local 521 and AFSCME Local 829, the Court is required to provide bottled water in commonly accessible work areas for court employees.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2019
Pursuant to current agreements with SEIU Local 521 and AFSCME Local 829, the Court is required to provide bottled water in commonly accessible work areas for court employees.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
1-Year Agency Response
The court does not plan on amending its bottled water service contract to ensure that water is purchased for use by jurors and courtroom staff only, because the Court believes it is infeasible to restrict water consumption through the vendor agreement, as that is something that would be monitored/controlled internally. During the course of the audit, court staff discussed with the auditors any reasons that would justify the provision of bottled water. The Court understands that bottled water cannot be provided unless there is a compelling reason, like no access to drinkable water, or public health concerns about the on-site water supply, or a contractual requirement in a labor MOU. Since May 31, 2017, pursuant to agreements with SEIU Local 521 and AFSCME Local 829 resulting from a wage reopener and pending SEIU grievance negotiation, the Court has been required to provide bottled water in current commonly accessible work areas for court employees. The agreement language will be sent via email to johnb@auditor.ca.gov.
- Completion Date: May 2017
- Response Date: November 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement
The San Mateo court's response indicates that it will not implement our recommendation. The court put itself in an awkward position by agreeing to continue to provide water to its employees in its employee bargaining unit agreements. However, as the court states, state policy is clear that there are limited circumstances in which the court can supply water to its employees and the court acknowledges that those circumstances were not a consideration in its decision. Therefore, we stand by our recommendation.
- Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
6-Month Agency Response
San Mateo Court is still discussing how best to address this audit issue
- Estimated Completion Date: November 2017
- Response Date: May 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending
60-Day Agency Response
The court is still in the process of determining how to best address this audit finding .
- Estimated Completion Date: November 2017
- Response Date: January 2017
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending
All Recommendations in 2016-301
Agency responses received are posted verbatim.