Report 2012-301 Recommendation 12 Responses
Report 2012-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: Six Superior Courts Generally Complied With the Judicial Branch Contracting Law, but They Could Improve Some Policies and Practices (Release Date: March 2013)
Recommendation #12 To: Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
To ensure that the Sacramento court receives the best value for the goods and services it procures, the court should justify all sole-source or noncompetitively bid purchases according to its policies.
60-Day Agency Response
The Court addressed this issue immediately upon notification. The Court has taken additional steps to ensure adherence to the development of sole source documentation in all cases where it is required. Accordingly, such procurements will require that IT submit (along with its Purchase Request form) a Sole Source Justification form for approval by the Court CEO in these particular instances. This provides transparency for the Executive Office and will provide the necessary required audit documentation for future audit reviews. To reinforce this requirement, the Court's Contract Manager initially provided verbal communication of the matter to the IT managerial staff after receipt of the draft issue from the auditor.
- Response Date: May 2013
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
On Wednesday May 8, 2013, in an email provided to the State Auditor's Office, the court's Contract Services Manager instructed court staff that it is the court's policy to document justification for using a sole-source vendor and to receive approval for such a vendor from the executive office prior to the procurement.
Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.