⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
The County cannot find accurate contract information in a timely manner. This hinders the County Executive’s Office in decision making, prevents procurement cooperation that could save money, and unnecessarily wastes many hours of effort.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County should: • Investigate other counties to find out if and how they solved the problem of finding up-to-date contract information in a timely manner by December 31, 2024. • Develop a plan for a countywide contract-search system by March 31, 2025. • Evaluate the cost and benefits of using outside expert resources to plan, select components for, and develop a countywide contract-search system by June 30, 2025. Response 1 The County agrees with the finding, but the recommendation requires further analysis. The County conducted surveys of other public entities in 2019 and 2023 to determine which enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and/or applications they are using, the pros and cons of their systems, and whether they are considering alternative systems or application solutions. Additionally, the County issued a Request for Information (RFI) in July 2024 to a selected list of contract management vendors. County staff will determine whether consultants or other resources are needed to assess and implement a countywide contract management system by November 30, 2024. If the County decides to procure a different solution than Ariba, a subsequent Request for Proposal (RFP) may be initiated for a recommendation for a plan
F2
The County saves multiple, sometimes inconsistent, copies of contract information on department storage devices and multiple procurement systems, making it difficult to find accurate, up-to-date information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County needs to identify where the most up-to-date information is located by December 31, 2024, and create a plan to eliminate inconsistent contract information by March 31, 2025. Response 2 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be implemented. The County plans to centralize all countywide contracts within a contracts management system that will be identified through the processes described in Response 1. The contract management system will be the record of source for subsequent countywide contract- search processes and information.
F3
Due to the absence of a uniform contract search system, County departments are not able to learn if other departments already have contracts that are relevant to their needs and, thus, are not able to take advantage of cooperative procurement opportunities. Further, if the County had a publicly accessible contract-search system, other government entities could use that resource to partner with the County on cooperative procurement opportunities to the benefit of the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The County should discuss cooperative procurement methods with potential government partners and ask these partners to provide their requirements for a countywide contract- search system accessible to them by December 31, 2024. Response 3 The County partially disagrees with the finding, and the recommendation requires further analysis. While the County does not have a uniform contract search system for professional services contracts managed by departments, County departments do have visibility to all countywide contracts for goods and related services. Departments are also able to identify and take advantage of existing agreements via communication and support from the County Decentralized Procurement Division and Office of Countywide Contracting Management (OCCM). The County intends to implement a formal advance acquisition planning process to further identify opportunities for internal consolidation of solicitations where there are shared needs, as well as potential opportunities to partner with other governmental entities for cooperative purchases. Since the County intends to have its “countywide contract search system” be a part of its countywide contract management system or Procure-to-Pay system, the County will consult with other jurisdictions to determine if this recommendation is feasible, with recommendations
F4
Multiple departments in the County do not have a department policy for contractor evaluations and do not evaluate contractor performance. This violates the Policy Manual guidelines and could lead to departments making a poor choice of contractor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County should provide employees with a contractor evaluation template that includes criteria such as overall satisfaction, quality, cost-effectiveness, and timeliness, and guidelines that explain when and how to evaluate a contractor by December 31, 2024. Response 4 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be implemented. The County will develop and implement minimum vendor evaluation requirements, an evaluation template, and guidelines by June 30, 2025, in consultation with County Departments.
F5
The County lacks a countywide process to store and share evaluations of contractors. County departments do not have the ability to view other department evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The County should develop a short-term plan for a simple countywide system for storing and sharing contractor evaluations by December 31, 2024, and a long-term plan for an integrated procurement and evaluation system that requires employees to enter an evaluation for appropriate contracts by March 31, 2025. Response 5 The County agrees with the finding, but the recommendation requires further analysis. Long-term plans for storing and sharing contractor evaluations depend on whether the County will continue with its current contract management system or procure a new system. This decision will be made by November 30, 2024. If the decision is to procure a new system, the County will also implement an interim solution.
F6
Multiple County departments with professional service contracts manage their procurement process using custom spreadsheets instead of using a procurement system. This leads to the County having multiple inconsistent copies of contract data and makes it difficult to measure county-wide procurement performance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The County should develop a plan for the implementation of one or more procurement systems that departments must use instead of custom spreadsheets to improve efficiency, help automate the procurement of professional service contracts, and allow integration with existing procurement and financial systems by December 31, 2024. Response 6 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be implemented. The County is in the process of determining whether to continue with its current contract management system or procure a new system, and the timeline for implementation will be a multi-year effort.
F7
County departments cannot practically measure procurement contract lead times. The County has no way of determining if a department performing its own procurement consistently fails to establish contracts in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The County should establish contract lead time targets and require all departments with procurement employees to use a procurement system that makes it practical to track contract lead times by December 31, 2024. Response 7 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be implemented. The County intends to implement a new eSourcing systems platform that will allow monitoring and reporting on sourcing/contract cycle times. However, it is impractical to establish a uniform set of sourcing/contracting cycle time requirements.
F8
Most employees engaged in procurement do not know about the County’s procurement performance goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The County needs to inform all County employees involved in procurement of the procurement performance goals and make clear how their individual performance connects to department and countywide goals by October 31, 2024. Response 8 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be implemented. The County will increase efforts to communicate goals and expectations with staff involved in procurement, along with Department/Agency executives. Discussions about new Procurement Department performance goals will be conducted on a quarterly basis effective October 31, 2024.
F9
The County does not track procurement performance measures of individual departments involved in procurement. The County cannot evaluate the performance of those individual departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The County needs to monitor individual department performance using procurement measures such as contract lead time, competitiveness of solicitations, and cost savings by December 31, 2024. Response 9 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be partially implemented by June 30, 2025. However, many aspects of implementation will depend on how quickly the County can implement its new eSourcing platform and countywide contract management system.
F10
The County does not have a countywide strategic procurement plan to address the long- standing issues of finding contracts in a timely manner, eliminating data consistency issues, measuring performance, evaluating contractors, and the choice of procurement systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The County should develop a countywide strategic procurement plan with objective performance measures that encompass all County departments, offices, and agencies by March 31, 2025. Response 10 The County agrees with the finding, and the recommendation will be implemented. The County Procurement Department is currently developing a countywide procurement strategic plan that includes areas relative to people, technology, and processes that will address mitigating those long-standing issues pertaining to contracts—Compliance, Cycle Time, Cost Savings, and Customer Satisfaction—
F11
The County has made minimal progress in implementing procurement technology over the last decade because the County has failed to make this a priority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
The County should evaluate if it has the appropriate talent and resources to develop and implement a countywide technology plan to address the procurement shortfalls by December 31, 2024. Response 11 The County partially disagrees with the finding, and the recommendation requires further analysis. The County deployed core components of a procure-to-pay system (SAP/Ariba) in 2015/2016. All County departments and agencies currently have access and utilize Ariba to purchase goods and related services; however, the County has not fully deployed select modules, nor has the County fully configured the system for use in professional services contracting. The County will evaluate and determine if consultants and/or other resources will be necessary after its contract management system RFI and determination of whether there is an alternative system solution to the current SAP/Ariba Contract Management system. This analysis will be completed by November 30, 2024. Follow Up Of the 11 recommendations made, the County agreed to implement seven, while four required further analysis. The 2024-25 Civil Grand Jury confirmed that the County has already implemented three of those recommendations, including departmental solutions to collect and store reports on contractor performance, procurement measures of success, and OCCM Quarterly Data Reviews, including spot audits for accuracy and completeness. In August 2024, the County initiated an RFI to obtain information from procurement management system providers. The RFI was completed in October 2024, and in November 2024, the Procurement Department recommended conducting an RFP for a new Countywide Procurement Management System and Contracting System. The new system will address identified procurement operational shortfalls. FLAWED INFORMATION, FLAWED DECISIONS: THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP, GOVERNANCE, AND OVERSIGHT AT THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Summary of 2023-2024 Report The 2023-24 Civil Grand Jury investigated a complaint related to the September 2022 sale of an office building located at 3553 North First Street, San José (Property) by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) that resulted in a total loss of $16.2 million of public funds. Factors that precipitated the loss included: • Executive management of SCCHA presented incomplete and misleading information to their Board of Commissioners (Board), • Executive management failed to develop and present analyses of other viable options for the use or repurposing of the Property to their Board, and • The Board failed to exercise its fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets and financial stability of the SCCHA. Further, while investigating the loss on the sale of the Property, the 2023-24 Civil Grand Jury uncovered the following issues: • Executive management did not have a long-term plan with measurable objectives that would enable the Board to assess the impact of their decisions on SCCHA's operational, staffing, and space requirement needs, • The Board could not articulate its role and responsibilities as SCCHA Commissioners. • The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors (BOS) lacked job requirements that support their recruitment, nomination, and appointment of SCCHA Commissioners, and • The BOS has been remiss in filling SCCHA Board vacancies. Key Findings, Recommendations, and Responses County of Santa Clara (Responses 4, 5, and 6) Santa Clara County Housing Authority (Responses 1, 2, and 3)
F12
A Multi-Use Community Facility at the Stadium was one of Measure J’s original promises and was memorialized in the Stadium Lease. The current designated space for the Community Room at the Stadium is not easily accessible nor is it pragmatic for most civic events.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
The Stadium is not an appropriate location for a Community Facility. The Stadium Authority should work with the 49ers to identify and procure an alternative space for community needs by June 30, 2025. Response 12 The City/Stadium Authority agrees with the finding and will implement the recommendation. Staff will aim to discuss with StadCo/ManCo and identify alternatives
F13
The FIFA World Cup commitments for the City and the Stadium Authority were made without consultation with the City/Stadium Authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
By December 31, 2024, the Stadium Authority should insist on consultation and prior notice before any major Stadium event commitments are made. Response 13 The City/Stadium Authority agrees with the finding. This is a matter of ongoing discussions between Stadium Authority and ManCo, with improved communications and opportunities for input already implemented. The Stadium Authority intends to further implement this recommendation as follows: Within the next two Non-NFL Event booking cycles, Stadium Authority staff's intent is to formalize this consultation and notice process, including Stadium Authority opportunities to approve certain major events in advance. Follow Up Of the nine recommendations made, the City/Stadium Authority agreed to implement or partially implement eight of them, while one required further analysis. The 2024-25 Civil Grand Jury inquired about the progress of the recommendations; the City/Stadium Authority confirmed that four (Recommendations 1, 3, 9, and 10) have been completed and the remaining five are in progress.