Orange County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi-billion Dollar Contracting Operations Grand Jury 2013-2014
⚠️ 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 6 findings
F1
County government does not have an identified re-centralization strategy of its contracting assignments in order to pro-actively reduce the fragmentation, inconsistency, and inequality that currently exist. Several County executives and senior managers have noted a need is indicated for a substantial reorganization of intra-agency contracting/procurement responsibilities and personnel assignments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors and County Executive Officer should adopt a re-centralization strategy and a corresponding implementation schedule for the contracting functions of a majority of County Agencies and Departments. The goal of said strategy will be to ensure that the contracting/procurement procedures and decision-making will be a collaborative and constructive process in an effort to provide for consistency, thoroughness, and transparency with the County Purchasing Agent. (F.1.)
F2
The County Contract Policy Manual, as adopted in 2012, performed an admirable job in response to the critique published by the 1997-1998 Orange County Grand Jury. A majority of the recommendations were implemented and have continued to be helpful in attainment of long-range goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County Executive Officer, utilizing the services of the County Purchasing Agent, should revise and expand the County Contract Policy Manual. The revision should include: a) Procurement Guidelines; b) RFP and IFB methodology; c) Rules of Procedures and Evaluation; d) Procurement Ethics Guide (comprehensive version); e) Risk Assessment; f) Contract Management; and g) Best Practices for Contracting and Procurement. (F.2., F.3. and F.4.)
F3
The 2012 County Contract Policy Manual is a helpful guide that has value as a reference tool; however the Manual is not a comprehensive document inclusive of specialized training courses, complete planning calendars, an extensive catalogue of procedural standards, and occupational proficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The County Executive Officer should implement expanded training curricula and workshops for Deputy Purchasing Agents and other subject matter experts performing contracting and procurement assignments pursuant to the County Contract Policy Manual. This would include increased training frequencies of longer duration, and staff membership councils that are comprised of peer level conferences and collaboration at least quarterly. (F.5.)
F4
The Contract Policy Manual lacks a summary for development of all contracting and procurement personnel, with broadened curricula, sample standard documents, and added seminars and workshops.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County Executive Officer as well as department heads should ensure that County staff members, who act as the department’s Purchasing Agent, should focus primarily, if not exclusively, on procurement and contracting responsibilities as their principal work assignment. (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses to Recommendation R.1. and R.4. are required from the County Board of Supervisors. Reponse to Finding F.1. is required from the County Board of Supervisors. Responses Requested: Responses to Recommendations R.2., R.3. and R.4. are requested from the County Executive Officer. Reponses to Findings F.1. and F.2. are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to Findings F.3., F.4., F.5. and F.6. are requested from: CEO – County Purchasing Agent CEO – Information Technology Office Health Care OC Community Resources OC Public Works
F5
Contracting and/or Procurement staff members expressly engaged in contracting are not given focused and thorough training designed to present topics in project management, contract administration, and risk assessment. In addition, there is an absence of objectives designed to enhance personal expertise, productivity, and effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The County Executive Officer create a Procurement Policy working group reporting to the CEO (in that official’s capacity of County Chief Administrative Officer) to develop and a. administer the new and improved County procurement system, comprised of the County Procurement Code and implementing regulations. Designate the Chief Procurement Officer of the County to chair the group, with membership to include representatives from the ranks of the Purchasing Council, the Contracting Council, and knowledgeable members of the public.
F6
There are County departments that assign staff members to perform contracting or procurement tasks that are unrelated to their regular roles. Such fragmented assignments present negative impacts to accuracy and productivity as a result. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 County of Orange Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury presents the following 4 recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The County Executive Officer establish standards and provide suitable training for County employees who perform the principal contracting functions.
Additional Recommendations 20
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R7The County Executive Officer encourage use of the Commerce Business Daily for the advertisement of specialized County procurement requirements.
-
R8The Internal Auditor participate with the Chief Procurement Officer in the annual compliance reviews of procurement activities.
-
R9The Auditor-Controller use EPS to track contracts. In collaboration with the Chief Procurement Officer, institute a proactive approach to ensure the timely payment of purchase orders and contracts in accordance with their terms and applicable statutory requirements.
-
R10The Office of the Public Defender cease the practice of using oral (not written) orders to acquire the services of expert witnesses. ~ ~ ~
-
R11By what method are Panel members instructed on evaluation procedures?
-
R12How is the weighting of percentages assigned to the various rating factors for any individual project?
-
R13What type of rating procedures is normally employed?
-
R14Are Evaluation Panelists instructed on the requirement for confidentiality during their deliberative proceedings and thereafter, pending Board of Supervisors final action? Is a written Confidentiality Statement utilized? “Yes” or “No.”
-
R15What procedures are established that are designed to ensure that all submitted bid/proposal documents are kept confidential until presented to the Board of Supervisors?
-
R16What measures are in place to restrict the efforts of non-participants from seeking to improperly influence the decision-making process?
-
R17What are the penalties/sanctions for the contractor’s non-performance or poor performance?
-
R18What safeguards are in place to ensure that services, products, or other deliverables provided conform to the specifications or statement-of-work identified in the contract?
-
R19Who on your staff monitors contract compliance by the service provider/vendor?
-
R20What is the frequency of contract compliance inspection and documentation?
-
R21If the contract requires revenue to be submitted to the County, what are the prescribed verification and auditing procedures?
-
R22In the case of payment by the County to vendors, are the payments issued as a result of an invoice? “Yes” or “No.”
-
R23What is the internal method of verification that payments are properly supported?
-
R24What is your agency’s record of the number of contracts that have been terminated “for cause” within the last ten years?
-
R25Has your agency conducted debarment proceedings of a contracted entity? “Yes” or “No.” If “Yes,” how many?
-
R26List the number and type of Master Agreements administered by your agency/department. Include the cost to the County or the revenue received by the County. ~ ~ ~
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.