Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Sacramento County and Ingentra: a Cautionary Tale

Published: April 15, 2011 9 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 9 findings

F1
1 There was no evidence of criminal activity by Sacramento County employees or undue influence held by Ingentra over Sacramento County employees.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
1 There was no comprehensive assessment or worst case analysis of the financial risk the county could incur with the proposed contract during the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 Involve risk management and the County Counsel while developing the RFP specifications for “special” contracts. A “special” contract is one that is the first of its kind for Sacramento County, a materially significant contract because of the amount of money involved in the transaction, or a complex contract.
F3
1 There was no mechanism for recognizing the significance of exceptions to or from the specifications offered by bidders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 Bid evaluators should be instructed to bring any exception or variance from the established specifications to the attention of the purchasing department. The “purchasing department” refers to the purchasing department in whichever county agency originates the RFP process, not just the Purchasing Department contained within the Department of General Services.
F4
1 The RFP process did not adequately check the backgrounds and reliability of bidders in special contracts, as defined in Recommendation 2.1, or when the bidder is a small corporation or business like Ingentra.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 Reference checking should include credit and asset checks of the bidders plus litigation searches to look for lawsuits against the bidder and/or bidders’ principals in jurisdictions in which the bidder has done or is doing business.
F5
1 There was no requirement that the bidders carry employee dishonesty and computer fraud insurance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1 Require employee dishonesty and computer fraud insurance in all cases in which the contractor handles public funds and makes payments to third parties. Require Sacramento County to be named an additional insured in the policies.
F6
1 Sacramento County used no mechanism to determine if the IRS or the California taxing agencies actually received the proper amount of withheld payroll taxes. 30 -2011
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
1 For any payroll services contract, or any contract involving a third party payee, the user departments or agencies should verify receipt of payment directly from any applicable third party payee.
F7
1 The contract with Ingentra did not require any financial or performance audit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
1 Special contracts should be subject to performance audits and the contractor should be required to have a financial statement audit in addition to standard computer audits.
F8
1 The contract renewal process was inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
1 Before any “special” contract, as defined in
F9
1 The final Ingentra contract renewal was for a term longer than that authorized by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
1 Any proposed extension of a contract that exceeds the term authorized by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors must be specifically approved by the Board. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to indicated

Conclusions 15

No Responses Found 3

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Sacramento Agency
Sacramento County County
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office