Report 2012-301 Recommendations

When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.

Recommendations in Report 2012-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: Six Superior Courts Generally Complied With the Judicial Branch Contracting Law, but They Could Improve Some Policies and Practices (Release Date: March 2013)

:
Recommendations to Administrative Office of the Courts
Number Recommendation Status
1

To comply with state requirements, the Judicial Council should include policies in the judicial contracting manual regarding the State's small business preference for information technology procurements.

Fully Implemented
2

To ensure complete reports to the Legislature, the AOC should review and modify its methodology for excluding certain transactions from the semiannual report to ensure that the AOC is not inadvertently excluding legitimate procurements. Further, the AOC's methodology should ensure that all procurements or contracts—such as those related to court security, court reporters, and interpreters when such services result in payment by a judicial branch entity to a vendor or contractor—are included in the semiannual report unless specifically excluded by state law.

Fully Implemented
3

To ensure accurate reports to the Legislature, the AOC should ensure that its process for extracting data from the courts' common accounting system provides accurate information—including, but not limited to, data describing the item or service procured and data reflecting the amount courts actually paid to vendors—for use in the semiannual report.

Fully Implemented
Recommendations to Superior Court of California, County of Napa
Number Recommendation Status
4

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Fully Implemented
10

To ensure that court executive management is aware of and approves large purchases, the Napa court's staff should restrict approvals to established dollar levels. Further, to demonstrate adherence to its approval policies, the court should implement its new procedure to record executive committee approvals in the procurement file.

Fully Implemented
Recommendations to Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Number Recommendation Status
5

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Fully Implemented
Recommendations to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Number Recommendation Status
6

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Fully Implemented
11

The Sacramento court should ensure that managers restrict their approvals to established dollar levels so that managers with sufficient knowledge of the court's resources approve purchases.

Fully Implemented
12

To ensure that the Sacramento court receives the best value for the goods and services it procures, the court should justify all sole-source or noncompetitively bid purchases according to its policies.

Fully Implemented
Recommendations to Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus
Number Recommendation Status
7

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Fully Implemented
13

To ensure that the Stanislaus court receives the best value for the goods and services it procures, the court should advertise its solicitations of goods and services when required by the judicial contracting manual.

Fully Implemented
Recommendations to Superior Court of California, County of Sutter
Number Recommendation Status
8

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Fully Implemented
14

To ensure that the Sutter court receives the best value for the goods and services it procures, the court should justify decisions to make sole-source purchases and document that justification in the procurement files.

Fully Implemented
Recommendations to Superior Court of California, County of Yolo
Number Recommendation Status
9

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Fully Implemented
15

To ensure it receives the best value, the Yolo court should document that it compared the offerings of multiple vendors when using leveraged procurement agreements unless the judicial contracting manual or guidance on the particular leveraged procurement agreement does not require such comparison.

Fully Implemented


Print all recommendations and responses.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader