To ensure that it protects the State?s interest and receives the best products and services at the most competitive prices, the CHP should provide a reasonable and complete justification for purchases in cases where competition is limited, such as sole-brand or noncompetitive bidding purchases. Further, it should plan its contracting activities to allow adequate time to use the competitive bidding process or to prepare the necessary evaluations to support limited-competition purchases.
The CHP told us that is has implemented a new documentation process for its sole-brand purchases requiring authorization through its Administrative Services Division with final approval by the assistant commissioner for staff operations. CHP also noted that it takes the same approach with noncompetitive bid documentation to ensure that its noncompetitive justification documents address all the necessary factors. The CHP reported that it is verifying potential bidders through General Services? Small Business/Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Web site and other on-line searches, and through speaking directly with potential bidders. The CHP updated staffs? desk procedures to reflect the necessary verification. (See 2010-406 p. 72)
†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response 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 or subsequent to one year.
*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.