Report 2016-301 Recommendation 2 Responses

Report 2016-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: The Five Superior Courts We Reviewed Mostly Adhered to Required and Recommended Practices, but Some Improvements Are Needed (Release Date: November 2016)

Recommendation #2 To: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo

The San Mateo court should follow the requirements and recommended practices of the Judicial Council and the State to ensure that it obtains the best value for the goods and services it purchases through contracts. Specifically, the San Mateo court should follow the recommended process for applicable noncompetitive procurements to ensure that vendors' prices are fair and reasonable.

60-Day Agency Response

In general, though not including LPAs, the court's practice has been to obtain at least three quotes for noncompetitive procurements. The court revised section 5.1 of its Local Court Contracting Manual (see page 7) to read "When considering the use of a LPA, even when the LPA was competitively bid, the Buyer should make an effort to seek better pricing and other terms with the vendor. The Buyer should include documentation on efforts made in the procurement file." For LPAs, the court is now following the newly added practice.

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

All Recommendations in 2016-301

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.