Report 2015-116 Recommendation 9 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 #9 To: Irvine, City of

To maintain appropriate, transparent fiscal accountability, Irvine should amend city contracting and purchasing policies by December 2016 to make certain that all of its contracts and contract amendments with a proposed cost exceeding the threshold requiring city council or other approval receive the appropriate approvals, including approval for sole-source contracts. Further, city policies should require appropriate approvals when increases in spending authority are accomplished through a purchase order or other means.

Agency Response*

The status of the recommendations the City of Irvine has indicated it will not implement has not changed.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: October 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval.


Agency Response*

Please see the City's 60-day response

  • Response Type†: 1-Year
  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response:

It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval


Agency Response*

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Response Type†: 6-Month
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response:

It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval.


Agency Response*

Irvine agrees that all city contracts and contract amendments should be approved by the appropriate persons or governing bodies. Irvine also agrees that appropriate approvals should be obtained when increases in spending authority are provided through a purchase order or other means. The City's contract management system blocks the issuance of a purchase order where prior approval was not obtained.

Irvine, however, disagrees that the City's contracting or purchasing policies need to be amended to ensure that the requisite approval is acquired. The CSA's audit findings do not indicate any reason to amend the City's contracting or purchasing policies. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 7 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Response Type†: 60-Day
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement

It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval.


All Recommendations in 2015-116

†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.


Report type

Report type
















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