Follow-Up for Bid Specification Requirements for Solicitations, November 2018

9 |  F o l l o w ‐ u p o f B i d S p e c i f i c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r S o l i c i t a t i o n s  N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 8  3. Verification of required qualifications Current Status, Follow‐Up Audit dated November 2018:  Per review of the SOP’s, the Procurement Division has modified the SOP’s for five of the six  procurement methods under review:   SOP #20 ‐ Formal Invitation for Quotes (IFQ)    SOP #19 ‐ Formal Invitation for Bids (IFB)      SOP #21 ‐ Formal Request for Proposals (RFP)    SOP #39 ‐ Request for Professional Services (RPS)    SOP #59 ‐ Formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ)   The modifications were to require the procurement analysts to include a copy of required  licenses, certifications and Certificate of Liability Insurance with the NORA for approval by the  Procurement Official or designee.   In order to ensure the modified SOP’s were being complied with, the auditor reviewed the  solicitation documents for the effected SOP’s. The following methods [IFQ, IFB & RFQ] were in  compliance with the insurance requirement; however, the following issues were identified:   The RPS method identified five instances out of the six solicitations that were tested, in  where the Certificate of Liability Insurance was provided after the NORA was authorized  by the Procurement Official or designee.   The RFP method identified one instance out of the six solicitations that were tested, in  where the Certificate of Liability Insurance was provided after the NORA was authorized  by the Procurement Official or designee.   Original Audit Observation, Report dated January 2018:  During the review of the 51 sampled solicitations, the auditor determined that proof of  required certification was not obtained or documented for four (4) awarded bidders. The items  identified are listed below:   Three (3) solicitations required that the bidders must have specific licenses and/or  certifications. Proof of the specific licenses and/or certifications were not obtained from  the three (3) awarded vendors.   One (1) pre‐qualification solicitation required that copies of certifications be provided in  order to be deemed responsive. One (1) of the twelve (12) bidders was deemed  responsive without the required proof of certifications.