Garbage In, Garbage Out:

Conclusions 9

• CL1 Page 18
  The County has not addressed the known inaccuracies of public contract data; neither the public nor the Board of Supervisors can determine, with accuracy, the total value or expiration dates of contracts.
• CL2 Page 18
  The Civil Grand Jury (consistent with the findings from the Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 2021 Management Audit of the County of Santa Clara Procurement Department report) finds that there is a lack of standardized processes to effectively input and validate contract data; the SAP and Ariba databases contain many errors and omissions, thereby rendering the Active Contracts list unreliable.
• CL3 Page 20
  The Civil Grand Jury finds that, although the Procurement Department produced training materials, the County does not mandate that employees participate in the training before entering contract data into ERP systems.
• CL4 Page 20
  The County failed to fully implement the contract management module of the SAP system purchased a decade ago for millions of dollars. This lapse has prevented the timely integration of contract data from the Ariba and SAP systems, creating incompatibility issues.
• CL5 Page 17
  The Civil Grand Jury conclusions, based on independent investigation, are consistent with the Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 2021 Management Audit of the County of Santa Clara Procurement Department report. The County of Santa Clara’s public reporting of its multi-billion-dollar contract data is not accurate and therefore not transparent. Transparency of County contract data has fallen victim to the classic garbage in, garbage out phenomenon. The public, vendors, and Board of Supervisors cannot see the dollar value of each contract, let alone the annual grand total. The County has been on notice of this deficiency for months. The County has fallen behind professional transparency standards for procurement officers: there is currently no integrity, efficiency, or accountability in Santa Clara County’s public contract data. The County is in the heart of Silicon Valley, where many ERP companies were formed and have thrived. It is ironic that the County has not been able to properly leverage the expertise in its own backyard.
• CL6 Page 18
  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The County has not addressed the known inaccuracies of public contract data; neither the public nor the Board of Supervisors can determine, with accuracy, the total value or expiration dates of contracts. Recommendation 1a The County should mandate (1) contract data accuracy protocols, (2) employee contract management training, and (3) implementation and use of contract management modules in SAP. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023. Recommendation 1b The County should designate and hold one person (akin to San Francisco’s Chief Data Officer) responsible for contract data accuracy. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023. Recommendation 1c The County should fully audit (as opposed to a “spot plan audit”) and correct the contract database to provide accurate data in the current Active Contracts list. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023. Recommendation 1d The County should continue quarterly accuracy audits on the contract database, documenting statistical evidence of error reduction, until all decentralized department employees are trained on contract management. This should be implemented following the March 15, 2023, date of Recommendation 1c. Finding 2 The Civil Grand Jury (consistent with the findings from the Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 2021 Management Audit of the County of Santa Clara Procurement Department report) finds that there is a lack of standardized processes to effectively input and validate contract data; the SAP
• CL7 Page 19
  and Ariba databases contain many errors and omissions, thereby rendering the Active Contracts list unreliable. Recommendation 2a The County should reconcile the Term Contracts list with the Active Contracts list to ensure accuracy and consistency in contract purpose descriptions, before it is distributed and made public. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023. Recommendation 2b The County should centralize the initial input of contract data as much as possible in each department or in one centralized department to mitigate input errors and inconsistencies. Once the contract terms are in the database, the decentralized departments should continue to manage their own contracts. There should be one quality assurance function in the Procurement Department that is responsible for the accuracy of all contract data. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023. Recommendation 2c The County should establish protocols that ensure that data related to amended contracts, including the value, expiration date, or terms of the contract, are accurately inputted into the ERP system with the addition of a data field to be used for version control. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023. Recommendation 2d The County should add new fields to the contract databases, including a field showing an identifier for the person tasked with verifying the accuracy of public contract data. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15 2023. Recommendation 2e The County should require that all active contracts are contained on the Active Contracts list and none are hidden from public view. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
• CL8 Page 20
  Recommendation 2f The County should post an electronic copy of the actual contracts for public view, ensuring transparency and mitigating human input error. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023. Recommendation 2g To facilitate Public Records Act inquiries, the County should include both the computer-generated number as well as the County’s original contract number on the Active Contracts list. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023. Recommendation 2h The County should include new data fields (BOS Approval Date and ID, Authorizing Agency, Revised Expiration Date, Version, Total Contract Value after Change Orders or Amendments, and Detailed Contract Description), as indicated in this report, so that vendors and members of the public may trace the contracting authority and date of action. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023. Finding 3 The Civil Grand Jury finds that, although the Procurement Department produced training materials, the County does not mandate that employees participate in the training before entering contract data into ERP systems. Recommendation 3 The County should require mandatory contract management training for County employees and ensure that satisfactory completion of the training is documented before the employee is allowed to enter contract data into the ERP systems. This recommendation should be implemented by February 28, 2023. Finding 4 The County failed to fully implement the contract management module of the SAP system purchased a decade ago for millions of dollars. This lapse has prevented the timely integration of contract data from the Ariba and SAP systems, creating incompatibility issues.
• CL9 Page 21
  Recommendation 4a The County should insist that the current pilot program regarding contract data at the Social Services Agency contain all the necessary elements to ensure a quality evaluation of the material management module before the process is rolled out to other departments. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023. Recommendation 4b To fully implement and integrate the contract management ERPs, the County should implement the contract management module within SAP for all departments and agencies. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023.

No Responses Found 1

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