Report 2013-302/2013-303 Recommendation 6 Responses
Report 2013-302/2013-303: Judicial Branch Procurement: Semiannual Reports to the Legislature Are of Limited Usefulness, Information Systems Have Weak Controls, and Certain Improvements in Procurement Practices Are Needed (Release Date: December 2013)
Recommendation #6 To: Administrative Office of the Courts
The AOC, the Supreme Court, and the first, second, and fourth districts should implement procedures to ensure that they follow a competitive process for their procurements when required.
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2016
The Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) believes its current Judicial Branch Contracting Manual contains adequate procedures to ensure judicial branch entities (JBEs) follow competitive procurement requirements and state law. The State Auditor has concluded that this recommendation is only partially implemented because it believes the Judicial Council should require courts to have competitive bid summaries in all procurement files. The Judicial Council believes its current practices and documentation complies with existing law and is pleased more recent reviews by the State Auditor have yielded only a minimum number of audit findings.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
1-Year Agency Response
Procurement/contract files contain documentation to support competitive or non-competitive bidding including the determination of fair and reasonable pricing when required. While we follow the JBCM in all areas and see no need for further procedures, consideration will be given to enhancement of procedures in the next update of the JBCM.
Additionally, Judicial Council (formerly the AOC) staff will review the competitive process for procurements, including documenting procurement summaries, with the Supreme Court, and the first, second, and fourth appellate districts during training.
- Completion Date: November 2014
- Response Date: December 2014
California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented
In the AOC's 60-day response, it indicated that it is was including a competitive bid summary in its procurement files. However, the AOC has yet to implement procedures, such as revising the judicial contracting manual, to ensure that the summary is included with all competitively bid procurements. .
- Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation
6-Month Agency Response
The procedural changes already implemented and discussed with the California State Auditor will be part of items being considered for the update of the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM) later this calendar year and effective Jan. 1, 2015.
- Estimated Completion Date: January 1, 2015
- Response Date: July 2014
California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented
60-Day Agency Response
The AOC has already implemented changes to its procurement process to ensure that each procurement/contract file has either a competitive bid summary or a non-competitive bid form; any amendments that add money to the procurement would require a non-competitive bid form. The non-competitive bid form has been revised to address the fair and reasonable pricing when required by the JBCM, regardless of the value of the procurement. This form was distributed to the referenced judicial branch entities in January 2014.
- Completion Date: January 2014
- Response Date: February 2014
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented
The AOC's response indicates that it is now including a competitive bid summary in its procurement files. However, the AOC has yet to implement procedures, such as revising the judicial contracting manual, to ensure that the summary is included with all competitively bid procurements. .
- Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation
All Recommendations in 2013-302/2013-303
Agency responses received are posted verbatim.