Alameda County's Lack of Vendor Evaluation and Debarment Policy

Recommendations 4

• 11-26

  Page 93
  The Alameda County General Services Agency must evaluate every contractor’s job performance in the Small, Local and Emerging Business Program at the conclusion of the contract. This evaluation must be maintained on file and considered in the award process for new or renewed contracts. In its 2011-2012 Annual Report, the Grand Jury examined the procurement process as it related to most county large-dollar contracts ($10 million to $123 million). The Grand Jury found there was no requirement for written evidence-based evaluations of the vendors; there was no central database for sharing information; and that a systemic problem exists within the county involving a lack of contract oversight and evaluation. To date, the county has still not implemented a county-wide vendor evaluation system. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report: General Services Agency must add a vendor evaluation field to the Alameda County contract database so that formal evaluations can be available to other county departments. GSA, under new leadership, has taken steps to establish a best practices model for vendor evaluation. In 2016, it chose the county’s Building Maintenance Department (BMD) to participate in a pilot vendor-evaluation program because this department deals with a large number of outside providers. Two providers are being used as examples, one large and one small. Under this new vendor evaluation and debarment program, contract managers are required to evaluate contractors on a quarterly basis using specific performance criteria that include quality, timeliness, price, business relations, customer service and deliverables. Upon completion, contractors will be provided with a copy for their review. Staff is being trained to ensure that agreed upon standards are being applied. It is imperative that this information be available to all county departments so that when the same vendor bids for future contracts with multiple agencies, its past performance record is available to all. Departments should ensure that contractors are aware of the evaluation process and the categories used to evaluate performance. The Grand Jury recognizes that there are many contracts within the county that involve direct services to individuals that make evaluation more complicated. The pilot project needs to validate the applicability of these evaluation criteria as they apply to all goods and services, including those provided to individuals. For example, service delivery for mental health counseling is not the same as the delivery of office supplies. Any contract would need to be evaluated to ensure services were effective, timely and delivered by appropriate licensed staff. Debarment and Litigation Policy These evaluations have limited value unless under-performing and fraudulent vendors can be held accountable. A debarment policy identifies vendors that have defrauded or mismanaged their contract(s). A litigation policy bars vendors that are suing a public agency from bidding and/or doing business with that agency. The Grand Jury believes that GSA’s pilot evaluation Debarment is the state of being excluded from program should be expanded enjoying certain possessions, rights, privileges, or to all county departments, but practices and the act of prevention by legal means. without a debarment policy, For example, companies can be debarred from the data collected on contracts due to allegations of fraud, performance will not protect mismanagement, and similar improprieties. – Wikipedia the county against fraud. Businesses have a constitutional right to be considered for government contracts. Before this “liberty interest” can be suspended or a fraudulent vendor can be prohibited from doing business with a public agency, the business must be given notice of the allegations and be provided a fair hearing to rebut the charges. These allegations/charges must be described in a debarment policy adopted by the county. These policies are best practices in federal and state contracts and nearly universal at the local level. The County of Alameda has no debarment policy. The Grand Jury heard testimony that to prevent another fraudulent double billing incident from happening, GSA changed its bidding requirements. Because there is no debarment policy to flag problematic businesses automatically, GSA banned large retailers from some RFPs. This action had the potential of stifling competition, causing the county possibly to overpay for some goods. The Grand Jury has learned that GSA will soon be presenting
• 17-18

  Page 90
  The Grand Jury recommends that a uniform county-wide email retention policy must be implemented for all departments, agencies and elected officials.
• 17-19

  Page 90
  The Grand Jury recommends that all email correspondence must be retained and available for retrieval for at least a two-year period, consistent with state law. This directive must be included in the county-wide policy.
• 17-20

  Page 90
  The Grand Jury recommends that each county department must develop individual training for staff and elected officials regarding email retention and the Public Records Act.