Report 2014-105 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 2014-105: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - Consequences Linked to Its Premature Launch of Its Customer Information System May Push Total Costs Beyond $200 Million (Release Date: March 2015)

Recommendations to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Number	Recommendation	Status
1	To ensure that the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners (board) can more effectively exercise oversight for the department's significant information technology projects, the board should establish a standing committee comprised of board members to oversee and critically evaluate the status of the department's various information technology projects. Given the limited tenure of board members and the potential for multiyear and high-cost information technology projects, the board president should consider appointing as many committee members as practicable in order to promote continuity of oversight.	Partially Implemented
2	To ensure that the board can more effectively exercise oversight for the department's significant information technology projects, the board should develop reporting standards for the department's management to follow when discussing the status of information technology projects with the standing committee or the board. Such reporting standards should, at a minimum, specify the frequency with which the department's management makes such reports and require the following disclosures about each information technology project: o The amount of project growth, in terms of both budget and scope of work, from initial project estimates through current projections. o The results from system testing and a listing of the critical defects that exist and must be fixed prior to system use. o The concerns the quality assurance contractor has raised and how the department is addressing them.	Partially Implemented
3	To ensure that the board can more effectively exercise oversight for the department's significant information technology projects, the board should develop a process for the board to designate certain information technology projects as having a potentially significant effect on business operations or customer relations, and require that department managers first obtain the board's approval before launching such critical new systems.	Partially Implemented
4	To ensure that the department can demonstrate compliance with the board's conflict-of-interest policy, the department should develop and implement a process by June 30, 2015, that results in a centralized listing of all employees participating in each stage of the contracting process (proposal development, bid evaluation, and contract award), and who are required to submit conflict-of-interest disclosure forms per the board's policy.	Fully Implemented
5	To ensure that the department can demonstrate compliance with the board's conflict-of-interest policy, the department should develop and implement a process by June 30, 2015, that results in a central depository of the conflict-of-interest certifications submitted by each employee.	Fully Implemented

Print all recommendations and responses.