Review of the County of San Mateo’s Procurement of Goods Issue | Summary | Background | Methodology | Discussion |

Additional Recommendations 7

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R6
  Procurement should review expired Vendor Agreements for cost savings opportunities. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: 1) All expired vendor agreements, current vendor agreements, and possible new vendor agreements are reviewed with each buyer monthly. Purchasing updates expired vendor agreements as buy time allows; 2) Purchasing has responded to the list provided by IA (internal audit); 3) Buyers notes, communication, and vendor price offerings are maintained in the vendor agreement file. 2015: Although there is no formal documented process for the review of expired VAs, please see above for the informal process. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. Not Implemented: Formal documented process does not exist for review of expired VAs. As of yearend 2014, 20% of VAs were expired.
• R7
  Procurement should implement a formal documented process for vendor evaluation. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: A formal process has not been addressed. Purchasing does not agree that failure of having a formal evaluation process of all vendors undermines our ability to comply with laws and to have fair and open competition. 2015: There is no formal documented process for vendor evaluation. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. Not Implemented: Formal documented process does not exist for vendor evaluation.
• R8
  Procurement should establish clear guidelines for vendor selection and retention of bid/selection documentation. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: A formal process has not been addressed. Purchasing does not agree that failure of having a formal evaluation of all vendors undermines our ability to comply with laws and to have fair and open competition. 2015: There is no formal documented process for vendor selection and retention of bid/selection documentation. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. Not Implemented: County departments set their own guidelines/criteria for selecting vendors on their projects.
• R9
  Ensure pricing information is available to facilitate checking to invoiced prices. 2010: In Process. Purchasing Manager has communicated to his staff that invoices should have sufficient detail to facilitate price checking. Management Response: Purchasing includes prices for vendor agreements depending on what makes sense: order release forms in AVAS such as [vendor name], web site contract prices such as [vendor name], formula pricing such as [vendor name], and retail prices such as [vendor name]. 2015: Specific pricing information to facilitate checking to invoiced prices is not included in all VAs. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. This recommendation has been partially implemented.
• R10
  Evaluate buyer performance on quantitative measures that contribute towards Procurement’s overall goals and objectives. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: Development is pending. 2015: Per DDHR, self-evaluations were completed by staff in October 2014. Annual evaluations are being delivered now. Goals are being set in the Collaborative Performance Management System (CPMS) system for 2015 and will include quantitative measures like days to complete Purchase Orders (POs), customer satisfaction, total POs processed, etc. Additionally, Procurement staff participates regularly with California Association of Procurement Officers (CAPPO)16 meetings/trainings/list servers. Staff has attended the last two annual conferences where 35-40 hours of training / continuing education were provided by CAPPO. Two Procurement members will sit for the Certified Public Procurement Officer (CPPO). Implemented however no Procurement members are yet certified as Certified Public Procurement Officers.
• R11
  Procurement should post guides and manual on the Intranet. 2010: Not Implemented. Management Response: Intranet not currently available. 2015: Not implemented. Per DDHR, PCC will update and post the manuals on the Intranet. Has been implemented.
• R12
  Automate and streamline Procurement processes where possible so that the necessary monitoring and control capabilities are available to Procurement and other units to proactively manage countywide Procurement and maximize cost saving opportunities. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response 3rd party software has not be explored. Purchasing advocates the development of the IFAS Purchasing module to streamline the process. 3rd party software is costly and lacks the interface with IFAS for encumbrances and reporting. If IFAS is not a logical choice for future use the RFP process should be used to find a solution. Purchasing will include the Controller and ISD in the development and evaluation of any RFP. 2015: Not implemented. The DDHR agrees that this will be the function of the PCC and PUG. There has been a great deal of work done around the evaluation and selection of a bid-quote system with vendor management. A system for Procurement will be selected shortly after the contracting system has been selected. Not Implemented: The planned selection and implementation of a countywide e-Procurement system will include tools and reports to help monitor and manage procurement activities. In addition, the September 2015 update to IFAS will include 102 new reports and plans for the future include installing an ad hoc report writer all of which should further help Procurement to manage the purchase of goods across the County. Issued: July 13, 2015 16 CAPPO was formed in 1915 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of professional behavior and ethical conduct in public procurement. As the oldest public procurement association in the United States, CAPPO works to provide tools to buyers in the public sector that will help them develop their professional skills for their benefit and the benefit of their agencies. http://www.cappo.org/overview.