Report 2015-116 Recommendation 4 Responses

Report 2015-116: City of Irvine: Poor Governance of the $1.7 Million Review of the Orange County Great Park Needlessly Compromised the Review's Credibility (Release Date: August 2016)

Recommendation #4 To: Irvine, City of

To make certain that it conducts its competitive bidding process in a more transparent and fair manner, Irvine should examine and update its preferred selection criteria listed in its contracting manual and abide by these criteria when creating RFPs and evaluating bidders by December 2016.

60-Day Agency Response

Irvine has already, and will continue to, implement Recommendation No. 4.

Although the City does not concede that the robust policies and procedures that were in place during the relevant timeframe were inadequate, the City has enhanced its procurement procedures and supporting documents. Specifically, the City implemented the steps noted in Recommendation No. 4 and the related Recommendation No. 3. For example, in September 2014, the City added detailed instructions regarding RFP selection criteria to the city's RFP checklist. These enhancements include providing the recommended weight to be given to preferred selection criteria. To ensure that the City's methodology and criteria are followed, the City is requiring staff members responsible for City purchasing to collaborate with project managers during the preparation of each and every RFP and to provide training, guidance, and oversight during the procurement process. Note: Listed as Recommendation 3(b) in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

On page 27 of the audit report we acknowledged changes Irvine made to its contracting manual related to the proposal review and selection process. While we agree that this recommendation is fully implemented, we caution Irvine to continue to follow this revised criteria to ensure its future competitive bidding processes are transparent and fair and to examine and update its criteria as appropriate.


All Recommendations in 2015-116

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















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