Report 2012-301 Recommendation 14 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 #14 To: Superior Court of California, County of Sutter
To ensure that the Sutter court receives the best value for the goods and services it procures, the court should justify decisions to make sole-source purchases and document that justification in the procurement files.
60-Day Agency Response
The audit found that Sutter failed to justify a sole-source procurement. This procurement occurred in Jul 2012. Our Court Executive Officer has reviewed the procurement and verified that there was appropriate justification for the sole-source procurement as noted on the purchase requisition form, however, the justification was not fully documented as required by the Judicial Branch Contract Manual. Procedures are now in place to ensure the appropriate court manager prepares a sole-source procurement request that includes a description of the goods and/or services to be procured, an explanation of why the goods and/or services cannot be procured competitively, and documentation that the price offered is fair and reasonable.
- Response Date: March 2013
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
In its initial response to our audit, and published with the audit report on March 19, 2013, the Sutter Court provided an example form titled "Request for Sole Source Procurement." The form requires a description of the goods or services, an explanation of why the goods or services cannot be procured competitively, and a space for approval.
Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.