Report 2012-301 Recommendation 13 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 #13 To: Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus

To ensure that the Stanislaus court receives the best value for the goods and services it procures, the court should advertise its solicitations of goods and services when required by the judicial contracting manual.

60-Day Agency Response

The Court strives to adhere to the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual and recognizes the need to advertise a solicitation for information technology service procurements over $5,000 in order to obtain goods/services at best value. Although one of nine procurements reviewed omitted the advertising step, we submit that our purchasing agent was instructed to expedite the referenced information technology services procurement and did indirectly solicit multiple vendors to make a procurement based on best value. Normally, the Court would advertise as required by the JBCM. We are treating this issue as a one-time (emergency purchase) incident.

  • Response Date: May 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

The court has demonstrated its awareness of the requirement to advertise procurements over $5,000. Given that the court acknowledges it would normally advertise such procurements, we consider this recommendation fully implemented.

All Recommendations in 2012-301

Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.