Report 2018-301 Recommendation 2 Responses

Report 2018-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: Some Superior Courts Generally Followed Requirements but Could Improve Their Procurement Practices (Release Date: January 2019)

Recommendation #2 To: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Los Angeles court should ensure that it documents best value in its procurement files when selecting vendors from leveraged procurement agreements.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles will document best value in its procurement files when selecting vendors from leveraged procurement agreements.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Resolved

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, modified its forms to more clearly indicate whether a leveraged procurement agreement was competitively procured or not when selecting venders from such an agreement.

1-Year Agency Response

The Los Angeles court continues to follow the Judicial Branch Contracting manual by documenting best value when required.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Based on the absence of new information in its most recent response and on the LA Court's stated position in its earlier responses, we conclude that the Court will not implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

As mentioned in our original response, the Los Angeles court does follow the practice of documenting best value when required by the Judicial Branch Contracting manual.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

In a letter to the State Auditor dated July 15, 2019, the Executive Officer of the Los Angeles court stated that no actions have been or will be taken to implement this recommendation. The Executive Officer disagreed with the finding, stating that 1) the Judicial Branch Contract Manual (contract manual) does not require documentation for each purchase from a leveraged procurement agreement and 2) the selected agreement was not a leveraged procurement agreement; it was an agreement resulting from a competitive procurement process. The Executive Officer also stated that when a court uses its own agreement, by contract manual definition, it is not a leveraged procurement agreement.

The Executive Officer's disagreement with our finding is misplaced, and we continue to stand by our audit work and our recommendation. First, the Department of General Services identifies master services agreements as a type of leveraged procurement agreement. We make this point on page 9 of our report. Second, the contract manual states that a leveraged procurement agreement generally refers to the establishment of such an agreement by a court that allows THE COURT [emphasis added] and other entities to procure goods or services from the contracted vendor. Finally, as we mention on page 9 of our report, "Although the judicial contracting manual does not identify the specific procedures a court should follow when making purchases under a leveraged agreement the court created, an underlying premise of the manual is that courts should obtain best value when acquiring goods and services. We therefore expected the Los Angeles court to have included in its procurement files evidence of which of the agreement's two vendors offered the best value for the goods acquired; however, it did not."

60-Day Agency Response

As mentioned in our original response, the Los Angeles court does follow the practice of documenting best value when required by the Judicial Branch Contracting manual.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

The Los Angeles court continues to miss a key point we made in our report. Namely, as we noted on page 9, "Although the judicial contracting manual does not identify the specific procedures a court should follow when making purchases under a leveraged agreement the court created, an underlying premise of the manual is that courts should obtain best value when acquiring goods and services. We therefore expected the Los Angeles court to have included in its procurement files evidence of which of the agreement's two vendors offered the best value for the goods acquired; however, it did not."

All Recommendations in 2018-301

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.