Report 2016-104 Recommendation 2 Responses

Report 2016-104: California Public Utilities Commission: It Should Reform Its Rules to Increase Transparency and Accountability, and Its Contracting Practices Do Not Align With Requirements or Best Practices (Release Date: September 2016)

Recommendation #2 To: Public Utilities Commission

To ensure that the choice of a vendor is sufficiently justified and that the vendor represents the best value, the CPUC should explain in its final decision how the vendor was the most qualified in all cases when the CPUC does not competitively select the vendor it directs utilities to contract with.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

Will not Implement. The Policy and Governance Committee did discuss this issue at one of their meetings and decided that it was not necessary to establish a formal rules change to address the requirement of competitive bidding in vendor selection and directed Legal and ALJ Division staff to follow the applicable contracting requirements. Therefore, this issue has been addressed and resolved. Please let me know if you need anything further.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We find it puzzling that the CPUC asserts that this issue has been addressed and resolved. Aside from referencing a discussion related to this issue and a directive to follow existing requirements, it is not clear that the CPUC has taken any action to address our recommendation. Our audit found that the CPUC could have better justified its choice of a contractor that it required energy utilities to hire and, had it done so, it could have avoided the appearance of improper influence in its proceedings. Accordingly, we recommended that the CPUC explain how vendors it does not select through a competitive process are the most qualified. By declining to implement this recommendation, the CPUC is not taking all the steps it could to guard against the appearance of improper influence in contractor selection.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The General Counsel and Chief Administrative Law Judge hope to prepare the issue for referral by the end of the year.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 12/31/2107

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The General Counsel and Chief Administrative Law Judge hope to prepare the issue for referral by the end of the year

  • Estimated Completion Date: 12/30/17
  • Response Date: September 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The General Counsel and the Chief Administrative Law Judge will be referring this to the Policy and Governance Committee to adopt a formal policy.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 4/30/2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The General Counsel and the Chief Administrative Law Judge will be referring this to the Policy and Governance Committee to adopt a formal policy.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 6/30/2017
  • Response Date: November 2016

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


All Recommendations in 2016-104

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.