County of Santa Clara’s Doomed History Book 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury

Conclusions 5

• CL1 Page 27
  The County failed to adequately specify the scope of the Contractor’s work on the history book project. This resulted in an unusable manuscript.
• CL2 Page 28
  The County makes it impractical for members of the public to review contracts like the history book contract, causing the public to rely on whistleblowers and news reporters to understand the County’s business.
• CL3 Page 26
  Under the leadership of the former County Executive, the County Executive’s Office circumvented procurement guidelines and failed to follow the County’s rules. The County failed to make plans for the project to be completed and published, and further failed to monitor the project, resulting in $1 million of public funds being spent on an unusable product. The County did not adequately define the scope and terms of the history book contract, with only one paragraph in the contract and scant details. The manuscript, submitted over a year after the contract extensions had expired, did not cover the areas mentioned in the contract. Procurement best practices dictate that contracts be awarded through competitive bidding whenever practical and, once awarded, be monitored by measurable standards. The entire process for the history book project defied commonly accepted practices within County procurement as well as the publishing industry. The failed history book writing project provides an example of how violations of the County’s procurement policy increase the risk of misuse or inappropriate expenditures of public funds. Had the County followed correct procurement procedures, the County would have competitively bid the contract, selected an appropriate awardee, identified a project manager, and fully defined the project scope and cost with appropriate payment terms. The end result of violating procurement policy was the expenditure of more than $1 million in public funds for an incomplete and unpublishable manuscript.
• CL4 Page 27
  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1a The County Executive’s Office, led by the then-County Executive, violated Board of Supervisors policy commitments to an open competitive procurement process that ensures fairness and equal access to business opportunities. Finding 1b The then-County Executive modified and extended an existing grant writing and professional writing contract so it could award a history book project to a specific Contractor despite the fact that the Contractor lacked relevant experience. Recommendation 1 The County should enforce adherence to its existing provision that requires all County contracts (including non-competitively bid contracts) to be re-bid after five years and expand existing contracting guidelines to explicitly cover contract extensions, defining conditions for when contracts should be bid competitively rather than extended, such as a significant change in scope. This recommendation should be implemented by November 1, 2024. Finding 2 The County failed to adequately specify the scope of the Contractor’s work on the history book project. This resulted in an unusable manuscript. Recommendation 2 The County should analyze ways it can improve its policies to ensure that contracts include the appropriate specificity regarding terms and conditions to enable the County to pursue legal recourse when those terms and conditions have been violated by the contractor, including but not limited to County Counsel’s and County staff’s role in this process. This recommendation should be implemented by November 1, 2024.
• CL5 Page 28
  Finding 3a The County approved and awarded a book contract on an hourly wage basis, inconsistent with publishing industry practice, resulting in over $1 million being spent on a manuscript that was not publishable. Finding 3b The County regularly paid invoices without verifying contract performance and without documentation of work done and extended the book contract for a second year without requiring any proof of progress. Finding 3c The County failed to clearly delineate project roles and responsibilities, especially for the project manager role. Recommendation 3 The County should evaluate its current contracting policies for needed safeguards to prevent the situation here, which permitted a County department to place a contract on the consent calendar even though there were multiple aberrations from existing contracting policies and a failure to monitor the contract. Given the independent role of the County Counsel and its existing role in approving contracts, the evaluation should include how County Counsel, in addition to County staff, can play a role in these safeguards. This recommendation should be implemented by November 1, 2024. Finding 4 The County makes it impractical for members of the public to review contracts like the history book contract, causing the public to rely on whistleblowers and news reporters to understand the County’s business. Recommendation 4 The County should require the County Executive’s Office to implement a practical contract search system for the public to view all contracts, including non-competitive (sole and single source) Board contracts and extensions. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2025.

No Responses Found 1

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