The information below is subject to change because it is updated periodically to incorporate the results from SAO reports with a significant focus on contracting activities as they are released. The reports included were released as of 1/15/2021.
Chapter 1 - The Office Generally Planned, Procured, and Formed the Web Portal Contract in Compliance with Requirements; However, It Should Strengthen Its Policies and Procedures for Those Processes
The Office of the Attorney General (Office) generally planned and procured the Web Portal contract with Adjacent Technologies Inc. in accordance with applicable statutes, rules, and State of Texas Contract Management Guide requirements.
However, the Office should strengthen its contract management policies and procedures and contract formation process. The Office also should strengthen its processes to ensure that it complies with contracting-related document posting requirements.
Chapter 2-B - The Office Adequately Monitored the YoungWilliams Contract; However, It Should Strengthen Its Policies and Procedures for Modifying Contracts
The Office’s Child Support Division adequately monitored the YoungWilliams contract to verify that the contractor performed its assigned work.
During testing, auditors identified a service for which the contractor billed the Office that was not included in the contract. While the contract allows new services to be added as long as those services are within the contract’s scope, the Office did not formally document the new service being performed and the pricing for that service using the change management procedures specified in the contract.
The Office waived all financial remedies and did not request any corrective action plans when the contractor did not achieve the stated 100 percent performance standard. In addition, it did not formally modify the contract’s performance standard.
Chapter 1 - The Comptroller’s Office Based TXMAS Contracts on Other Competitively Bid Contracts, But It Should Strengthen Efforts to Ensure That TXMAS Contracts Meet Customers’ Needs and Protect the State’s Interests
As required by Texas Government Code, Section 2155.502, the Comptroller’s Office based TXMAS contracts on contracts that the federal government or other governmental entities had previously bid using a competitive process.
However, the Comptroller’s Office should strengthen its efforts to ensure that TXMAS contracts meet customers’ needs. For example, the Comptroller’s Office has not conducted annual studies of state agency purchases required by Texas Government Code, Section 2155.072, to determine whether the State would benefit by adding certain services to statewide contracting programs such as TXMAS. In addition, ensuring that state agencies submit required vendor performance reports for TXMAS purchases could help the Comptroller’s Office evaluate future contract proposals and assess whether TXMAS contracts meet customers’ needs.
Chapter 2-B - The Commission Procured and Formed Both Contracts Audited in Accordance with Most Applicable Requirements
The Commission complied with most applicable statutes and the State of Texas Contract Management Guide when it procured and formed the 9-1-1 Test Lab Services and Poison Control Network contracts.
- The Commission had proper justification for selecting the contractors and ensured that purchasing staff had the required certifications and completed conflict of interest forms.
- The Commission generally formed both contracts audited in accordance with applicable statutes and rules.
Chapter 3-C - The Agency Complied With Most Contract Reporting Requirements
The Agency generally reported required contract information to the Legislative Budget Board; however, the Agency should strengthen its processes to ensure that it reports all information timely and reports vendor performance information to the Comptroller of Public Accounts as required.
Chapter 4 - The Agency Complied With Most Requirements for Contract Planning and Formation; However, It Should Strengthen Some Aspects of Those Processes
The Agency had processes to help ensure that it performed most required activities related to contract planning and formation. However, the Agency should strengthen its processes to ensure that (1) its policies and procedures address all applicable areas, (2) it has support for and consistently develops cost estimates, and (3) its contracts include all required vendor affirmations.
Chapter 2 - While the Commission Planned and Formed the Selected Contracts in Accordance With Most Applicable Requirements, It Should Strengthen Its Processes
For both contracts audited, the Commission complied with most contract planning and formation requirements. However, the Commission should (1) strengthen the development of its contracts to ensure that it includes all significant specifications in the executed contract and (2) require contractors to submit a Certificate of Interested Parties to the Texas Ethics Commission prior to signing a contract.
Chapter 1 - The Department Planned, Procured, and Formed the Atos Contract in Accordance with Applicable Requirements, But It Should Improve Certain Aspects of Contract Oversight
The Department of Information Resources (Department) planned, procured, and formed the data center services contract with Atos Governmental IT Outsourcing Services LLC (Atos) in accordance with applicable requirements. However, the Department should improve certain aspects of its contract oversight. The Department had not updated its contract management plan or its risk assessment for the Atos contract since the contract was assigned to Atos in May 2015.
In addition, the Department’s contract monitoring system, Salesforce, did not have adequate controls for the approval and authorization for the payment of invoices for the Atos contract.
The Department also did not adequately control access to a network location where it maintained key invoice review spreadsheets.
Chapter 2-A - The Department Planned and Formed the C&T Contract in Accordance with Applicable Requirements, But It Should Improve Certain Aspects of Contract Procurement
The Department planned the procurement through which it awarded the C&T contract in accordance with the requirements in the State of Texas Contract Management Guide.
The Department adequately performed certain contract formation activities for the C&T contract.
The Department adequately performed certain procurement activities for the C&T contract, such as conducting contract negotiations. However, the Department should improve certain aspects of its procurement process.
The Department should improve controls related to its receipt of proposals. The Department properly documented its receipt of C&T’s proposal in accordance with Department procedures and as the State of Texas Procurement Manual requires. However, it scored two other vendors’ proposals without maintaining evidence that it had received them by or on the due date.
The Department should score proposals using the methodology specified in its solicitation.
Of the 17 Department employees who were involved in planning the procurement, preparing the solicitation, performing preliminary reviews of proposals, and evaluating proposals, 7 (41 percent) did not sign required nondisclosure statements and 9 (53 percent) did not sign required disclosure statements as required.
Chapter 3-B - The Commission Consistently Reported Contract Information to the Legislative Budget Board; However, It Should Improve the Accuracy and Timeliness of Its Reporting
The Commission consistently reported its contracts and amendments to the Legislative Budget Board as required by the Texas Government Code and the General Appropriations Act. However, it did not accurately report some contract information and did not consistently complete the reporting within required time frames.
Chapter 1-A - The Commission Does Not Have Effective Processes to Ensure That New Contract Information Entered in SCOR Is Complete and Accurate
The Commission does not ensure that all new contract information entered into SCOR is complete and accurate. Specifically: - The Commission did not implement adequate controls in CAPPS to help ensure that contract information in SCOR is complete. In a one-time review that the Commission performed in September 2018, it identified more than 75 contracts in CAPPS that were missing from SCOR. - Contract information in SCOR was not always accurate. Only 5 (29 percent) of 17 active contracts tested were accurate and supported. - The Commission did not ensure that contract managers uploaded contract documents to SCOR as required. As of November 2018, 489 (14 percent) of 3,518 new contract records that were at least 30 days old in SCOR did not have any supporting documentation uploaded into the system, including an electronic version of the contract.
Chapter 1-B - The Commission Did Not Ensure That Information for Migrated Contracts Was Complete and Accurate
While the Commission made a significant effort to standardize and format the contract data that was migrated from its previous contract management systems, those processes were not sufficient to identify and correct all errors in that information. Specifically, only 7 (29 percent) of the 24 migrated contracts tested were accurate and supported. Additionally, 2,471 (14 percent) of the 18,264 migrated contracts in SCOR did not have any documents uploaded in SCOR, including the electronic version of the contract.
Chapter 1-C - The Commission Established a Quality Assurance Process to Correct Errors in SCOR; However, That Process Should Be Improved
The Commission implemented a quality assurance process to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of certain data in SCOR. The quality assurance process successfully identified and updated certain errors in SCOR information. The Commission uses that information to report its contracts to the Legislative Budget Board. However, the Commission did not always correct records with errors that the quality assurance process identified through other types of reports. Reliance on the quality assurance process, which identifies errors after they occur, is not sufficient to ensure the accuracy and completeness of SCOR data caused by the issues discussed in Chapters 1-A and 1-B.
Chapter 3-B - The Commission Did Not Consistently Comply with All Reporting Requirements for Contracts
The Commission did not consistently comply with certain reporting requirements for the applicable contracts tested. Specifically, the Commission:
-Did not consistently report its contracts and amendments to the Legislative Budget Board as required.
-Did not consistently obtain required disclosures of interested parties from awarded vendors prior to executing contracts.
Chapter 1 - The Program Had Processes in Place to Ensure That It Executed and Monitored Program Contracts in Accordance with Applicable Requirements; However, It Should Fully Document Those Processes
Contract execution. The Program executed and approved all 14 contracts tested in accordance with Texas Human Resources Code, Chapter 51, and Commission policies and procedures.
Contract expenditures. The Program made payments to contractors and appropriately identified overpayments in accordance with the terms of the contracts and applicable requirements. However, the Program should document its process for identifying and calculating overpayments.
Contract monitoring. The Program had processes to ensure that it sufficiently monitored Program contracts in fiscal year 2017; however, the Program should fully document those processes.
State plan. The Program coordinated with its administrative contractor to compile and publish the state plan required by Texas Human Resources Code, Section 51.0021.
Chapter 2-B - The Commission Did Not Report Accurate and Complete Information About the Awarded Contract and Amendment No. 1 to Certain State Governmental Entities as Required
While the Department notified the Quality Assurance Team about the executed contract and Amendment No. 1 as required, the Commission did not comply with other, similar reporting requirements for reporting the contract and amendment. Specifically, the Commission did not provide the Legislative Budget Board the required certification for the executed contract, reported inaccurate costs for the executed contract to the Legislative Budget Board, and did not notify certain state governmental entities about Amendment No. 1 before executing the amendment as required.
Chapter 2-A - The Commission Lacked a Comprehensive Monitoring Plan and Risk Assessment to Direct Its Monitoring of the Contract
The Commission did not have a comprehensive monitoring plan and a supporting risk assessment in place to help focus its monitoring of the contractor to determine whether the contractor provided the required services. A monitoring plan and risk assessment should identify the contract requirements to be monitored, how the requirements will be monitored, and who will perform the monitoring.
Chapter 3 - The Commission Generally Complied with State Requirements for Contract Planning, Procurement, and Formation
The Commission generally complied with applicable statutes and State of Texas Contract Management Guide requirements for contract planning, procurement, and formation for the contract.
However, the Commission did not specify in the request for proposals the weight that would be applied to each evaluation criteria as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide.
Chapter 1 - DSHS’s Use of DIR’s Information Technology Staffing Services Contracts Generally Complied with State Laws, Rules, Policies, and Procedures; However, DSHS Should Improve Certain Aspects of Its Contract Management Processes Related to Those Contracts
The Department of State Health Services’ (DSHS) Use of Department of Information Resources’ (DIR) information technology staffing services contracts generally complied with state laws, rules, policies, and procedures. Auditors tested five DSHS purchase orders for information technology staffing services that totaled $2,695,670. The results of that testing identified opportunities to improve certain aspects of its contract management processes related to these contracts.
Chapter 3-A - The Coordinating Board’s Contract for a New Loan Management System Complied with Most Requirements
The Coordinating Board administered the audited contract in accordance with applicable statutes and the State of Texas Contract Management Guide. Specifically, the Coordinating Board (1) performed contract planning activities necessary for determining the contract objectives; (2) identified the appropriate procurement method; (3) formed the contract with all key contract provisions required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide; and (4) monitored key contract deliverables.
Chapter 1-B - While the Agency Followed Its Contract Formation Processes, It Should Strengthen Those Processes to Ensure That It Complies With All Requirements
The Agency generally followed its contract formation process for the contract that it awarded to Tembo. It also ensured that its contract effective date coincided with the execution of the contract. However, the Agency should ensure that it complies with applicable statutes and other requirements.
Chapter 2 - The Agency Did Not Have an Adequate Control Environment to Protect the Integrity of the SPEDx Procurement
Significant weaknesses in the Agency’s control environment resulted in the Agency awarding the contract to SPEDx without following steps designed to safeguard the procurement process. When taken together, the following factors adversely affected the integrity of the procurement: (1) the Agency’s failure to complete critical planning and procurement steps, including the selection of SPEDx prior to fully identifying the Agency’s needs; (2) the use of a non-competitive sole source procurement to award the contract to SPEDx without completing sole source processes; and (3) the Agency’s primary decision maker’s preexisting professional relationship with a SPEDx subcontractor.
Chapter 3-A - The Agency Paid SPEDx for Deliverables It Did Not Receive Because It Did Not Properly Form the Contract
The Agency’s contract did not tie payments with demonstrated progress on deliverables. Instead, the contract established a predetermined schedule of equal monthly payments. As a result, when it cancelled the contract in December 2017, the Agency had paid SPEDx $2.5 million but it received only one deliverable valued in the contract at $150,000.
Chapter 1-A - The Agency Allowed the Region 13 ESC and the Region 20 ESC to Perform Work Without Having Executed Contracts and a Grant Agreement
The Agency did not execute the contracts for the Early College High School and Support Center programs prior to allowing the Region 13 ESC to begin work on those programs. In addition, the Agency did not have an executed grant agreement for CTEP prior to allowing the Region 20 ESC to begin the work specified in that agreement. The initial contracts and grant agreement were signed from 12 days to 97 days after their effective dates. The amendments and renewals for the contracts were signed from 20 to 128 days after their effective dates. Allowing work to proceed without an executed contract or grant agreement increases the risk that disagreements will arise regarding the scope of the work under the contract or grant agreement and could complicate the resolution of those disagreements. Additionally, allowing work to begin before there is an executed contract or grant agreement could limit the Agency’s ability to effectively monitor the programs and leaves contractors and subcontractors without adequate direction on performance and budget expectations.
Chapter 1-A - The Agency Allowed the Region 10 ESC and Its Subcontractor to Perform Work on the TxVSN Without an Executed Contract
The Agency executed two contracts and a contract renewal with the Region 10 ESC more than four to six months after the contracts were effective and the Region 10 ESC and its subcontractor had begun performing work covered by those contracts. As a result, the Agency did not have a contract in place for the operation of the TxVSN for more than 15 months during fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
Although the Agency did not make any payments to the Region 10 ESC for services performed until after the contracts had been executed, the Agency’s Contract Development and Administration Manual states that contracts should be signed before any services are rendered. Allowing services to be performed prior to having agreed-upon contract terms, conditions, and a budget in place limits the Agency’s ability to effectively monitor the program and leaves the Agency, the contractor, and the subcontractor without adequate direction on performance and budget expectations.
Chapter 2 - The Agency Generally Complied with Statutes and Requirements for Contract Planning and Procurement; However, It Should Strengthen Controls Over Certain Planning, Procurement, and Formation Processes
The Agency established and generally followed entitywide contracting policies and procedures that were consistent with the State of Texas Contract Management Guide to award the fiscal year 2016 TxVSN contract. However, the Agency did not post certain contracting procedures to its Web site or provide a link to those procedures for inclusion on the Comptroller’s Web site, as required. While Agency contract managers met training and certification requirements and applicable personnel completed nondisclosure and conflict of interest statements, the Agency did not ensure that all purchasing personnel completed required disclosure statements prior to awarding the fiscal year 2016 TxVSN contract. The Agency also did not fully define the contract deliverables in its solicitation, which would have helped facilitate the Agency’s monitoring of those deliverables.
Chapter 1-A - The University Should Strengthen Certain Contract Formation Processes for the Two Contracts Audited
Although the University performed contract formation processes for the two contracts audited, it should strengthen some of those processes to ensure that it complies with applicable statutes and contract requirements.
The only date documented in the construction services contract was the effective date of February 22, 2016. However, the University asserted that the contract had an execution date of May 23, 2016, which was three months after that contract’s effective date. In addition, the University asserted that the contract amendment that finalized the guaranteed maximum price and date of substantial completion for the STEM Building was effective and executed on December 16, 2016. That was approximately one month after construction began on November 8, 2016 (according to the University’s assertion).
The construction services contract included all 21 terms that the University’s policies and procedures required. The architectural services contract included 22 (96 percent) of the 23 terms that the University’s policies and procedures required.
Chapter 1-B - The Audited Universities Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
The audited universities reported all of the selected contracts to the LBB; however, they did not report those contracts consistently.
Chapter 1-B - The Audited Universities Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
The audited universities reported all of the selected contracts to the LBB; however, they did not report those contracts consistently.
Chapter 1-B - The Audited Universities Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
The audited universities reported all of the selected contracts to the LBB; however, they did not report those contracts consistently.
Chapter 1-B - The Audited Universities Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
The audited universities reported all of the selected contracts to the LBB; however, they did not report those contracts consistently.
Chapter 1-C - The System Should Strengthen Its Contract Formation Process to Ensure That All Required Clauses Are Included and Contracts Are Approved by the Appropriate Personnel
While the System ensured that the contracted scope of work was substantially the same as the solicited scope of work for all 11 applicable contracts tested , the System should ensure that its contracts contain all of the clauses required by the System’s Contract Management Handbook. In addition, the System reviewed and approved a majority of the applicable contracts prior to execution in accordance with its policies and procedures.
Chapter 2 - The System Had Adequate Processes to Approve Change Orders and to Close Out Contracts; However, It Should Strengthen Its Review of Contract Payments
The System had processes to ensure that contract change orders were approved and that the contracts were closed out in accordance with its policies. However, the System should strengthen its review of contract payments.
Chapter 3-B - The System Should Enhance Compliance With Statutory Reporting Requirements
The System posted all 28 of its contracts greater than $15,000 that were active at any time from September 1, 2018, through November 30, 2019, to its website as required by Texas Government Code, Section 2261.253. However, the System did not consistently report contracts to the Legislative Budget Board in accordance with the General Appropriations Act.
Chapter 1 - While the System Planned, Procured, and Formed the HSC Contract in Accordance with Most Applicable Requirements, It Should Strengthen Its Evaluation Scoring Process
The System complied with most applicable requirements to plan, procure, and form the HSC contract. However, the System should strengthen its process for evaluation scoring.
Chapter 1 - The University Planned and Formed the Basketball Arena and Chemical Waste Contracts in Accordance with Applicable Requirements
The University of Houston (University) planned and formed its two contracts related to basketball arena enhancements and chemical waste disposal services in accordance with applicable statutes and its Contract Management Handbook.
Chapter 4-B - The University Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
The University did not consistently report contracts to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in accordance with the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and Texas Government Code.
Chapter 1 - The System Planned, Procured, and Formed the Audited Contract in Accordance with Applicable Requirements
The University of North Texas System (System) complied with applicable statutes and its Contracting Handbook (May 2012) to plan, procure, and form the contract for the construction of its Interdisciplinary Research Building at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth.
Chapter 4 - The System Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
Although the University of North Texas System (System) reported contract notifications to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) and posted certain contract documentation on its Web site, it should enhance its reporting process to ensure that it complies with applicable statutes.
Chapter 1-B - The System Administration Should Enhance Compliance with Statutory Reporting Requirements
The System Administration did not consistently report contracts to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in accordance with the General Appropriations Act. In addition, the System Administration did not always accurately report contract information to the LBB.
Chapter 1 - The Department Complied with State Requirements for Contract Planning, Procurement, and Formation for the Contracts Audited
The Department of Criminal Justice (Department) complied with applicable statutes and the State of Texas Contract Management Guide for contract planning, procurement, and formation for (1) its four contracts with Corrections Corporation of America for the operation and management of the four state jail facilities (state jail contracts), awarded in January 2011, and (2) its contract with Sunrise IT Solutions Group for the installation of fiber optic network cabling at multiple Department units and facilities (UNIR contract), awarded in October 2016.
Chapter 1-B - The Department Reissued the TrueCore Contract Without Competitively Rebidding
The Department made the decision to create and issue a new contract to the same vendor (TrueCore) without following the procurement process steps such as planning, method determination, evaluation, and award. Although changes were made to improve the contract, they could have been made with amendments, as the changes were to procedures and how services were delivered, not to the services provided.
Chapter 3 - While Both Contracts Had Most Required Clauses, the Department Should Ensure That All Requirements Are Included
Although the Department’s contracts with the Texas Conference of Urban Counties and TrueCore lacked some clauses required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide, the Department processed contract amendments as required by its contract policies and procedures.
Chapter 2 - While the Commission Appropriately Planned and Formed Both Contracts Audited, It Should Improve Its Processes Related to Conflicts of Interest and Non-Disclosure Forms
The Commission generally planned and formed the waste removal contract and the Superfund-related contracts in accordance with applicable statutes, rules, and its policies and procedures. However, the Commission should improve its process related to conflicts of interest and non-disclosure and develop procedures for assessing fraud, waste, or abuse and for reporting liquidated damages assessed or collected, when applicable.
Chapter 3 - The Office Substantially Complied with Applicable Requirements for the Procurement and Monitoring of Hurricane Harvey Disaster-related Contracts; However, It Should Enhance Compliance With Reporting Requirements and Strengthen Its Monitoring
The Office followed applicable requirements in its planning, procurement, and formation of Hurricane Harvey-related contracts for the PREPS and CDBG-DR programs. However, it did not always report contracts to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in accordance with General Appropriations Act (85th Legislature) requirements. Additionally, while the Office had monitoring processes in place, it should strengthen those processes to ensure that monitoring is sufficient and adequately documented. Specifically, the Office should implement an oversight process to ensure that all monitoring activities it determines to be necessary are performed and documented.
Chapter 2 - The Division Procured and Formed the Contracts Tested in Accordance with Most of Its Processes, But It Should Consistently Document Its Evaluations, Require Staff to Complete Nondisclosure Agreements and Conflict of Interest Forms, and Include All Essential Clauses in Contracts
The Division had processes and related controls to help ensure that it procured 24 design contracts and 12 construction contracts associated with 23 capital construction projects tested in accordance with applicable requirements. However, the Division should ensure that it consistently (1) maintains its vendor evaluations, (2) requires staff to complete nondisclosure agreements and conflict of interest forms, (3) documents its contractor selection, and (4) includes all essential clauses in contracts.
Chapter 3 - The Division Administered and Monitored the Design and Construction Contracts Tested in Accordance with Its Processes
The Division had processes and related controls to help ensure that it administered and monitored the design and construction contracts tested in accordance with applicable requirements.
Chapter 1 - The Commission Generally Planned, Procured, and Formed the Pollard and IGT Contracts According to Applicable Statutes, Rules, Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts Requirements, and Commission Policies and Procedures
While Texas Government Code, Section 466.105, exempts the Texas Lottery Commission (Commission) from many statutory contracting requirements, the Commission has voluntarily adopted rules and policies to follow certain statewide requirements for contract planning and procurement.
For the Pollard Banknote Limited (Pollard) contract audited and IGT Solutions Corporation (IGT) contract audited, the Commission generally complied with applicable statutes, rules, Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts requirements, State of Texas Contract Management Guide requirements, and Commission policies and procedures to ensure that it performed the activities discussed below. However, the Commission (1) did not require contracting personnel and evaluation team members to sign conflict of interest forms and (2) did not require contracting personnel to sign non-disclosure forms for the contracts audited, as required by Texas Government Code, Sections 2261.252 and 2262.004 (the Commission is not exempt from those requirements). The Commission has developed procedures that require contracting personnel to complete those forms for future contracts.
Chapter 2-A - The Department Adequately Performed Contract Planning, Procurement, Formation, and Oversight Activities for the Insight Contract
The Department complied with most applicable requirements to plan, procure, form, and monitor the Insight Public Sector (Insight) contract. However, it should ensure that all provisions in the contract are consistent with the solicitation documents and the vendor submits all Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) subcontracting plans and reports as required.
Chapter 2-B - The Department Should Ensure That It Consistently Reports Contracts as Required
The Department did not consistently report contracts to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) and on its Web site as required. The Department reported the Insight contract to the LBB and on its Web site; however, auditors identified other contracts that the Department did not report to the LBB and on its Web site.
Chapter 2-A - The Department Executed Construction Contract Change Orders as Required; However, It Should Ensure Consistency in Documenting Certain Approvals
The Department executed construction change orders as required and had documentation to support that cost adjustments and price justifications occurred for most of the change orders tested. However, the Department should ensure that it (1) determines whether documentation of verbal approvals is required for change orders, as it is for certain Department processes, and (2) documents all required reviews, including environmental assessments.
Chapter 2-B - The Department Approved Maintenance Contract Change Orders as Required; However, Improvements Are Necessary to Help Ensure That Change Orders Are Processed Consistently
The Department executed maintenance change orders as required. However, improvements are necessary to help ensure consistency for (1) work that begins prior to change order execution, (2) the affixing of professional engineering seals, and (3) the documentation and maintenance of cost adjustment support.
Chapter 3-A - The Department’s Facilities Section Planned, Procured, and Formed the Audited Contract in Accordance with Applicable Requirements
The Department’s Facilities Section planned, procured, and formed the audited contract in accordance with applicable requirements.
Chapter 1-D - The Department Should Consider Certain Opportunities for Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Its Use of the Design-build Method
Auditors identified areas in which the Department could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its procurement process for design-build projects. The Department should consider the following opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its use of the design-build method.
• The Department should consider establishing an approved template that specifies the form, substance, and standard provisions for design-build contracts.
• The Department should consider documenting a policy or procedure to ensure that descriptive information related to the alternative technical concepts is redacted before the price proposals are evaluated.
• The Department should consider reviewing the membership of its evaluation committees and subcommittees to ensure adequate segregation in the membership.
• The Department should consider documenting policies and procedures to establish a process for performing a postmortem review during the close-out of a design-build project.
Chapter 2-B - The Department Approved and Executed Change Orders, as Required; However, It Should Approve All Change Orders in a Timely Manner and Consistently Document Certain Information
The Department approved and executed change orders to the audited design-build projects. Specifically, all change orders tested appeared reasonable in purpose and price and did not affect the final completion date of the projects.
Chapter 2 - TWC’s Use of DIR’s Information Technology Staffing Services Contracts Generally Complied with State Laws, Rules, Policies, and Procedures; However, TWC Should Improve Certain Aspects of Its Contract Management Processes Related to Those Contracts
The Texas Workforce Commission’s (TWC) use of DIR information technology staffing services contracts generally complied with state laws, rules, policies, and procedures. Auditors tested five TWC purchase orders for information technology staffing services that totaled $768,310. The results of that testing identified opportunities to improve certain aspects of its contract management processes related to those contracts.
Chapter 2 - The Board Formed the Contract with the Foundation in Accordance with Most Applicable Requirements; However, It Should Strengthen Formation Processes
The Board formed the contract with the Foundation in accordance with most applicable requirements. However, it should strengthen its contract formation processes to ensure that it (1) includes specific, defined measures for program success in its contracts and (2) requires contractors to determine employment eligibility.