Report 2016-301 Recommendation 5 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 #5 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 judicial contracting manual's recommendations for procurement processes, and it should provide and consistently retain in contract files its justifications for entering into contracts that it has not competitively bid.

60-Day Agency Response

In general, the court's practice has been to obtain at least three quotes for noncompetitive procurements and include the quotes in the procurement file. The court revised section 5.1 of its Local Court Contracting Manual (see page 7) to read "For all NCB procurements, the Buyer should retain in procurement files the justifications for entering into contracts, including documentation on efforts made to determine fair and reasonable pricing." The court is now following the newly added practice for all NCB procurements.

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

All Recommendations in 2016-301

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.