SYNOPSIS
*CMS paid efficiency initiative billings from improper line item appropriations. During FY04, CMS paid eight billings totaling $24.8 million for efficiency initiatives.
*CMS’ contract files lacked individual scoring sheets for 6 of 9 efficiency initiative contracts we tested. Eight of 9 contract files we tested lacked evidence of a written determination for contract award. The 9 contracts totaled $69 million.
*In 6 of 9 efficiency initiative procurements we reviewed, the winning vendor participated in the development of information for the RFP and/or was granted a waiver by CMS to propose on the procurement. CMS did not post notices in the Procurement Bulletin stating that it was in the State’s best interest to accept proposals from these vendors.
*CMS evaluated vendor proposals using evaluation criteria that were not stated in the RFP.
*CMS allowed the Asset Management vendor (IPAM, LLC) to extensively revise its proposal during the best and final process after initial scoring evaluations were completed. The Asset Management contract is valued at $24.9 million.
*CMS failed to post notices in the Procurement Bulletin when awarding contracts to other than the lowest priced vendor, as required by law and administrative rules.
*CMS failed to include information about subcontractors utilized by the vendor in 4 of 9 contracts we reviewed.
*In 9 of 9 efficiency initiative contracts we reviewed, CMS allowed vendors to initiate work on the project without a formal written agreement in place.
We questioned 77% ($546,650 of $708,715) of vendor expenses reimbursed by CMS in FY04:
— For 4 of the 7 contracts, there was no documentation attached to the billing invoices to substantiate that the expenses actually occurred.
— For 2 of the 7 contracts, reimbursement rates exceeded the amounts set forth in the contract.
— We questioned $43,615 of $177,501 in expenses paid to the Asset Management vendor (IPAM, LLC). A list of questioned costs is included in this Report Digest.
*CMS billed $137 million for efficiency initiatives to State agencies during FY04 without adequate determination of anticipated savings.
*CMS did not maintain adequate documentation to support the amount of savings it attributes to efficiency initiatives. Also, savings goals stated in RFP’s, vendor proposals and/or contracts were not always realized or documented.
*CMS’ Illinois Office of Internal Audit did not complete audits of major systems as required by the Fiscal Control and Internal Auditing Act.
*CMS’ Surplus Warehouse did not maintain an adequate inventory control system.
*CMS did not file reports on reorganizations with the General Assembly as required by law.
*CMS did not maintain time sheets for its employees as required by the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act.
More later….
ArchPundit