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 2-A - The Office Generally Planned, Procured, and Formed the YoungWilliams Contract in Compliance with Requirements; However, It Did Not Have All Supporting Documentation or Updated Policies and Procedures
The Office generally planned and procured the YoungWilliams Contract in accordance with applicable statutes, rules, and State of Texas Contract Management Guide requirements. The Office did not have all supporting documentation for the YoungWilliams contract related to planning and procurement requirements.
The Office’s current contracting policies and procedures allowed for deviations from those policies and procedures and did not always align with current practices.
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-A - While the Commission Complied with Certain Contract Planning Requirements, It Should Strengthen Its Planning Process
In planning both contracts audited, the Commission prepared solicitation documents that included detailed specifications for quantity and quality of the products to be procured, as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide.
However, the Commission did not retain documentation showing that it performed an adequate risk assessment for either contract as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide. The Commission also did not have supporting documentation showing that it performed an adequate needs assessment or cost estimate for the 9-1-1 Test Lab Services contract as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide.
Additionally, the Commission did not include evaluation criteria or best value considerations in the solicitation documents for the 9-1-1 Test Lab Services contract as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide.
Chapter 2-A - The Agency Complied With Most Contract Procurement Requirements
The Agency had sufficient controls in place to help ensure compliance with most procurement requirements. Specifically, the Agency advertised the solicitations tested in accordance with Texas Government Code, Chapter 2155; it ensured that each proposal included all of the information as required by the solicitation before it accepted the proposal; and it implemented consistent evaluation procedures. The Agency also complied with the statutory requirements for vendor selection for three of four procurements tested. The Agency purchaser responsible for overseeing the procurements tested was a Certified Texas Procurement Manager as required by statute.
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 1-B - The Commission Did Not Adequately Review the Solicitations for Each Contract Audited to Ensure That the Advertised Cost Estimate Matched the Project’s Objectives and Scope
The Commission did not adequately review the solicitations, and as a result, it did not advertise the correct project cost estimate for either contract audited. For the Admiral Nimitz Museum contract, the Commission advertised a cost estimate of $4.0 million, instead of the $2.4 million that was supported by the project objectives and scope included in the solicitation. For the San Felipe Museum contract, the Commission advertised a cost estimate of $4.0 million, instead of the $5.4 million that was supported by the project objectives and scope included in the solicitation.
Chapter 1-A - The Commission Did Not Screen All Vendor Proposals Accurately or Adequately Perform Required Vendor Compliance Verifications, and Did Not Properly Plan to Re-Procure One of Its Contracts
The Commission did not consistently follow its processes and guidance for certain planning, procurement, and vendor selection functions. Specifically, the Commission did not screen all vendor proposals accurately or adequately perform required vendor compliance verifications. The Commission also made an emergency procurement that it could have avoided if it had properly planned to re-procure one of its contracts.
Chapter 1-B - The Commission Did Not Ensure That Its Single Response Awards Complied with All Applicable Procurement Requirements
The Commission did not comply with certain requirements for single response awards. For the three procurements tested that received only one response, the Commission did not consistently (1) document that the single response award met solicitation requirements or (2) ensure that it notified vendors on the Centralized Master Bidders List of the opportunity to submit proposals. In addition, in some cases, the Commission accepted vendor proposals after the established due date.
Chapter 3-A - The Commission Did Not Ensure That Its Legal Department Assisted with Resolving Vendor Protests as Required
The Commission did not ensure that its legal department reviewed protests and drafted recommendation responses as required by its policies and procedures. The Commission reported to auditors that it received and resolved 11 vendor protests from January 2015 through April 2018. The Commission’s policies and procedures require staff from its purchasing and legal departments to resolve vendor protests.
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 2 - The Commission and Department Generally Complied with Statutes and Requirements for Contract Planning
Both the Health and Human Services Commission (Commission) and the Department established contracting policies and procedures that provide a standard entity-wide contracting process. Additionally, the Commission ensured that purchasers involved with the Morris & Dickson Company contract complied with training and certification requirements.
However, the Department did not perform a preliminary risk assessment, as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide, to determine the level, type, and amount of management, oversight, and resources needed to plan and implement the contract.
Chapter 1-B - The Commission and Department Complied with Requirements for Developing a Solicitation, Including Having the Proper Segregation of Duties and Ensuring That Management and Staff Disclosed Conflicts of Interest as Required
The Commission and Department complied with requirements for developing a solicitation for the procurement of a major information resources project, including ensuring that the appropriate management and staff were involved in the procurement and that those individuals met requirements for protecting the objectivity of the procurement process.
Chapter 2 - The Commission and Department Generally Complied with Statutes and Requirements for Contract Planning
Both the Health and Human Services Commission (Commission) and the Department established contracting policies and procedures that provide a standard entity-wide contracting process. Additionally, the Commission ensured that purchasers involved with the Morris & Dickson Company contract complied with training and certification requirements.
However, the Department did not perform a preliminary risk assessment, as required by the State of Texas Contract Management Guide, to determine the level, type, and amount of management, oversight, and resources needed to plan and implement the contract.
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 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 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 2 - The University Complied with Most Requirements for Contract Planning and Procurement for the Two Contracts Audited
The University planned and procured the two contracts audited in accordance with most applicable statutes and University policies and procedures. However, it should ensure that it includes all applicable required terms in its solicitations. In addition, it should implement a procedure to assess the risk of fraud, abuse, or waste in the contractor selection process, contract provisions, and payment and reimbursement rates and methods.
Chapter 1-A - The System Complied With Selected Contract Planning and Procurement Requirements
The System performed certain contract planning and procurement tasks in compliance with applicable requirements.
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 2 - The University Complied with Most Procurement Requirements for All Three Contracts; However, It Should Strengthen Some Procurement Processes
The University complied with most procurement requirements for all three contracts audited. However, the University should strengthen procurement processes related to emergency purchases, excluded parties verification, and conflict of interest statements and nepotism disclosures.
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-A - The Department Did Not Use the Appropriate Procurement Method for the Texas Conference of Urban Counties Contract Due to Weaknesses in the Planning Process.
As a result of not properly planning the procurement for JCMS services, the Department did not use the appropriate procurement method for its contract with Urban Counties. Specifically:
The Department inappropriately procured those services in January 2017 as a proprietary purchase with Urban Counties. A proprietary purchase is for products or services that have distinctive characteristics for which only one vendor can provide.
The Department did not properly plan a subsequent competitive request for offer (RFO), which it canceled after scoring the five responses received, asserting that the scoring did not accurately reflect the technical requirements.
It then extended the proprietary contract with Urban Counties, which had submitted a proposal to that competitive RFO and did not receive the highest score. As of May 2019, the proprietary contract was still in effect, and a new contract based on a competitive solicitation has not been executed.
Chapter 1-C - The Department’s Facilities Section Should Consider Opportunities for Improving Its Facilities Planning and Management Operations
To improve the consistency and effectiveness of its facilities planning and management operations, the Department’s Facilities Section should consider developing and implementing documented processes for: - Producing and maintaining important management documents and reports. - Documenting significant management decisions made throughout the lifecycle of its facilities-related contracts. - Establish and implement a process to determine when minimum bidder qualifications are necessary on a facilities-related contract.
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-A - The Department Procured the Contracts for the Design-build Projects Audited in Accordance with Most Applicable Requirements
The Department procured the contracts for the design-build projects audited in accordance with most applicable requirements (one of the projects audited was still in the procurement stage).
Chapter 1-B - The Department Lacks a Fully Established Framework for the Design-build Procurement Process to Ensure Consistency and Accuracy Across All Design-build Projects
The Department lacks policies and procedures to ensure that contracts for design-build projects are procured in a consistent manner.
Auditors identified inconsistencies and weaknesses in the Department’s procurement for the four projects audited.
• The Department did not document its determination to use the design-build method for the Energy Sector Road Repair project; the IH35-E (Managed Lanes) project; the US 181 Harbor Bridge Replacement project; or the SH 99 (Grand Parkway) Segments H, I-1, and I-2 project.
• The Department did not ensure that the addenda to the requests for qualifications and requests for proposals were approved by the Department’s authorized representatives identified for each project.
• The Department did not ensure that all personnel who evaluated the qualifications statements and proposals completed an individual scoring worksheet, as required.
• The Department did not have evidence that it considered a contractor’s past performance during the evaluation process.
• The Department did not consistently retain all required contract procurement records.
Chapter 1-C - The Department Lacks a Consistent, Documented Process for Altering the Nature and Scope of a Design-build Project While in Procurement
The Department does not have a consistent, documented process for how to proceed if all the price proposals for a proposed project are higher than the amount that the Department estimated for the project. Specifically, the Department lacks policies and procedures for the following:
• Determining the subsequent events that should occur after management has determined that all price proposals received for a design-build project are not “financially feasible” (when the price proposals received are all higher than the Department’s cost estimate), including changing the project to lower the project’s cost.
• Evaluating and determining the point at which a design-build project must be reprocured because a request for proposals has changed significantly. Specifically, potentially significant changes to a project’s design and maintenance plan could garner additional interest from other qualified contractors that initially refrained from participating based on the project’s original design scope and the terms of the accompanying maintenance plan.
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.