📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Bernardino County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

San Bernardino International Airport

45 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 12 findings

F1 Page 140
When the contract was awarded in March 2014, a decision was made to issue the contract to only one proposer to cover all four regions. The Grand Jury was informed that there was a catch-all statement within the RFP that authorized the proposal to be issued to either one region or to all four regions. When the interviewees were asked to locate this statement in the RFP, they were unable to do so.
F2 Page 140
The Grand Jury determined that based upon interviews and the terms used within the purpose of this RFP, the proposers were led to believe that the contract would be awarded based upon past practices.
F3 Page 140
The Grand Jury found that the statement including one or more regions, up to all four regions, was omitted from this RFP.
F4 Page 140
Based upon the Grand Jury's interviews and documentation received, the Purchasing Department had no guidelines to define when a RFP should be re-issued.
F5 Page 140
When the Grand Jury inquired why State's Superior Court Judges were included, it was stated that they would be in the best position to know the reputations of the attorneys submitting the bid proposals.
F6 Page 140
The Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction to request interviews or obtain any documentation from the State's Superior Court Judges who served as two members of the panel.
F7 Page 140
Two attorney from County Counsel served as members of this panel. 2016-2017 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – RFP for the Indigent Adult Appointed Representation Service Contract 104
F8 Page 141
No process was in place to validate the legal entity of the proposer.
F9 Page 141
In reviewing the appeal letters, it was discovered by the Purchasing Department that one of the proposers was not a legal entity at the time the proposal was submitted.
F10 Page 141
The justification of the scoring of references could not be validated as no documentation could be located.
F11 Page 141
The Grand Jury noted that there were wide variations among the evaluators' scores within the same categories.
F12 Page 141
The Purchasing Department is currently working on training modules that will include specific guidelines for issuing of RFPs.

Recommendations 9