📋

Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

The Sacramento Sheriff Call and Dispatch Center (scc) is shoe-horned into the Sheriff’s downtown office, an older

Published: January 04, 2010 12 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 9 findings

1 There was no evidence of criminal activity by Sacramento County employees or undue influence held by Ingentra over Sacramento County employees.

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.

1 There was no mechanism for recognizing the significance of exceptions to or from the specifications offered by bidders.

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.

1 There was no requirement that the bidders carry employee dishonesty and computer fraud insurance.

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

1 The contract with Ingentra did not require any financial or performance audit.

1 The contract renewal process was inadequate.

1 The final Ingentra contract renewal was for a term longer than that authorized by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

Recommendations 8

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
R8

1 Before any “special” contract, as defined in
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