CSA
Summary
Read the report at California State Auditor ↗
Child Support
Enforcement
Program:
Acquiring the State Disbursement Unit
to Collect, Disburse, and Record Child
Support Payments Will Complete the
Procurements for the California Child
Support Automation System
June 2004
99028.3
rotiduA
etatS
ainrofilaC
S
T
I
D
U
A
E
T
A
T
S
F
O
U
A
E
R
U
B
The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free.
Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order.
You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits
at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-0255 or TTY (916) 445-0033
OR
This report is also available
on the World Wide Web
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce
the availability of an on-line subscription service.
For information on how to subscribe, please contact
the Information Technology Unit at (916) 445-0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
� � �
��������� ���� ������
������������� �������������������
������������ �����������������������
June 2, 2004 99028.3
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As required by Chapter 479, Statutes of 1999 (Chapter 479), the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) presents its third audit
report concerning the procurement of a single, statewide automated child support system by the Department of Child Support
Services (department), with the Franchise Tax Board (board) acting as its agent. The statute requires the bureau to monitor
the evaluation and selection process for any signs of bias or favoritism.
There are two distinct components of a single statewide system: the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system and the State
Disbursement Unit (SDU). The California Child Support Automation System (project) procured the first component on
July 14, 2003, when the State signed a contract with the IBM Group, a business consortium led by IBM, to design, develop,
and implement the CSE system, for a total of $801 million. In September 2003, we reported that during our monitoring of the
negotiation sessions, nothing came to our attention that would lead us to believe that the negotiations resulted in significant
changes in the contract that might violate the requirements in Chapter 479 or the solicitation document. Our limited review
of the contract found that it included the major business needs areas that the CSE system must address and the compensation
method agreed to by the parties did not violate the law and was within the parameters of the solicitation document. With the
CSE system contract in place, the project team turned to procuring a vendor for the SDU.
This report discusses the project team’s procurement process for the SDU contract, describing how the team developed interest
in the SDU, selected a pool of qualified business partners, and developed the request for proposals. The report also describes
the compliance phase, which provides an opportunity for qualified business partners to receive feedback on preliminary
versions of their proposals before they are finalized and not subject to change. During our monitoring of the process used to
qualify vendors and develop the request for proposals, nothing came to our attention that would cause us to conclude that the
project team deviated from the predefined selection process or the process it established to develop the request for proposals.
Nor has anything come to our attention that would have resulted in unfair treatment of potential vendors.
The project team has several challenges ahead before it completes the SDU procurement and begins development of the
SDU. It must evaluate the qualified business partners’ final proposals and obtain Department of Finance (Finance) approval
before it can award the contract. It must also complete and submit to Finance the feasibility study, a document that provides
the business reasons to justify the investment of state resources in the project; the reasons for undertaking the project; the
means of ensuring the success of the project; and a comprehensive analysis of its costs and benefits.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
�������������������
�������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ������������������
CONTENTS
Summary 1
Introduction 5
Audit Results
The First of Two Procurements for the California
Child Support Automation System Is Complete,
and the Second Is in Progress 11
The Project Team Fostered Interest in the State
Disbursement Unit Among Potential Service Providers 11
To Select a Pool of Qualified Business Partners, the
Project Team Followed Established Procedures 13
Developing the Request for Proposals Included
Nonconfidential Discussions With the Qualified
Business Partners and a Review of Numerous Changes 18
During the Compliance Phase, the Project Team
Provided Input to the Qualified Business Partners
on Their Proposals 19
The Project Team Faces More Work to Finish
Procuring the State Disbursement Unit 21
Appendix
Timeline of Key Events Leading to the Contract
Award for the State Disbursement Unit 23
Responses to the Audit
Health and Human Services Agency,
State and Consumer Services Agency,
the California Department of Child Support
Services, and the Franchise Tax Board 25
SUMMARY
RESULTS IN BRIEF
In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act (act), a
legislative initiative directed at enforcing the payment of
Audit Highlights . . .
court-ordered child support. The act mandated that each
Our continued monitoring state have a single, statewide automated system for child support
of the Department of Child enforcement. Although Congress extended its initial operational
Support Services and the
deadline of October 1995 to October 1997, California has yet
Franchise Tax Board’s (project
team) procurement of a single, to fully develop a system for child support enforcement. The
statewide automated child State’s failure to meet the deadline has resulted in the federal
support enforcement system
government imposing penalties on the State that, according to
revealed the following:
the Legislative Analyst’s Office, will total almost $1 billion by the
þ Nothing came to our end of fiscal year 2004–05.
attention that would cause
us to conclude that the
In 1999, the Legislature attempted to address the situation
project team deviated from
the predefined qualification by restructuring the way the State conducts its child support
process or the process it enforcement activities. Chapters 478 and 479, Statutes of 1999,
established to develop the
established the California Department of Child Support
request for proposals. Nor
Services (department) and gave it the responsibility, through
has anything come to our
attention that would have the Franchise Tax Board (board) as its agent, of procuring,
resulted in unfair treatment developing, implementing, and maintaining the statewide
of bidding vendors.
automated system for child support enforcement. The legislation
þ An internal legal analysis required the Bureau of State Audits to monitor the evaluation
found that members and selection stages of the procurement process for signs of bias
of the IBM Group—the
or favoritism toward any bidder.
contractor for the Child
Support Enforcement (CSE)
system—were not restricted The single, statewide system for child support enforcement,
by legislation from bidding called the California Child Support Automation System, has
on the State Disbursement
two distinct components: the Child Support Enforcement
Unit (SDU) procurement.
(CSE) system and the State Disbursement Unit (SDU). The team
þ Despite members of the responsible for procuring the statewide automated system
IBM Group’s potential
(project team), which comprises members from the board and
advantage over other
the department, selected a vendor for the first component on
qualified business partners
in understanding how July 14, 2003. On that date, the State signed a contract with
the SDU must integrate the IBM Group, a business consortium led by IBM, to design,
with the CSE system, the
develop, and implement the CSE system for $801 million. With
board’s legal analysis
the CSE system contract in place, the project team turned to
concluded that the
State’s acceptance of the procuring a vendor for the SDU.
interface design document
provides no bidding
This audit report discusses the project team’s procurement
advantage to members of
the IBM Group. process for the SDU contract, describing how the staff developed
interest in the SDU among vendors, selected a pool of business
continued on next page . . .
California State Auditor Report 99028.3 11
þ The project team provided entities qualified to partner with the State to provide SDU
the qualified business services (qualified business partners), and developed the request
partners and interested
for proposals. The report also describes the compliance phase,
state and federal agencies
in which the qualified business partners can receive input on
with draft copies of the
request for proposals and preliminary versions of their proposals before finalizing them.
specifically requested During our monitoring of the process used to qualify vendors
comments from them
and develop the request for proposals, nothing came to our
to develop a request for
proposals that would be attention that would cause us to conclude that the project
realistic and fair. After team deviated from the predefined qualification process or the
obtaining Department
process it established to develop the request for proposals. Nor
of Finance (Finance)
has anything come to our attention that would have resulted in
approval, the project team
released the request for unfair treatment of bidding vendors.
proposals to the qualified
business partners on
In February 2001, the project team attempted to develop
December 4, 2003.
interest in the SDU procurement by advertising in the state
þ The project team still needs contracts register and sending requests for interest to business
to review and evaluate the
entities that had previously expressed interest in doing
bidders’ final proposals
business with the State. However, according to the project team,
and cost bids, complete
and submit to Finance the it halted the process in October 2001 to allow time for the
feasibility study report, SDU procurement to better coordinate with the CSE system
and must obtain Finance’s
development. In March 2002, according to the project team, it
approval before it can
sent new requests for interest to the business entities that had
award the contract.
responded to the first requests for interest. To all responding
business entities, the board sent invitations to partner, which
described the details and requirements for submitting proposals
for providing a solution to meet the SDU requirements. The
project team reported receiving 12 responses to the invitation
to partner in April 2002, and by July 2002, the project team had
determined that seven business entities were qualified to partner
with the State on the SDU procurement.
Following an internal legal analysis, the project team concluded
that the SDU procurement was for information technology
(IT) services rather than IT development. Therefore, the project
team decided it was more appropriate to adopt a procurement
approach that uses a request for proposals rather than one that
uses a solicitation for conceptual proposals. Consequently,
the project team halted the process once again, altered its
procurement approach, and then reopened the invitation-to-
partner process to vendors on February 13, 2003.
In addition to following established procedures to develop
interest in the SDU procurement, the project team developed
and followed procedures for evaluating the invitation-to-partner
responses and established a qualification team to select a pool of
qualified business partners. By May 2004, seven qualified business
22 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 33
partners remained in the pool selected by the qualification team.
Three of the seven qualified business partners are consortiums
of businesses. IBM and Accenture Ltd., which are members of
the IBM Group, the contractor for the CSE system, are among
those qualified business partners. The former project director
requested an analysis from the board’s legal counsel to determine
whether any members of the IBM Group should be permitted
to bid on the SDU procurement. The legal analysis found that,
based on several factors, the members of the IBM Group were not
restricted by legislation from bidding on the SDU procurement.
Under the CSE system contract, the IBM Group must provide
a series of deliverables to the State for acceptance before the
SDU contract is awarded. One of the deliverables is the CSE
System Interface Design Document (interface design document),
which must describe how the SDU will integrate with the CSE
system. Although the State expects to accept the interface design
document before the SDU contract is awarded, the document will
not be available to the SDU’s qualified business partners before
they must submit their final proposals.
Despite IBM’s and Accenture Ltd.’s potential advantage over
other qualified business partners in understanding how the SDU
must integrate with the CSE system, the legal analysis concluded
that the State’s acceptance of the interface design document
provides no bidding advantage to members of the IBM Group.
The IBM Group is not scheduled to deliver the interface design
document until after all qualified business partners submit their
final proposals for the SDU and the project team evaluates them.
Therefore, the SDU request for proposals does not require bidders
to describe an SDU solution that meets CSE system design
specifications. According to its current director, the project team
has focused on “leveling the playing field” for all potential SDU
vendors to encourage and maintain fair and open competition. In
addition, the project team took a number of measures to mitigate
the risks of further delay, including a failure to successfully
integrate the CSE system and SDU services.
To discuss the procurement approach and to hear concerns
about early drafts of its request for proposals, the project team
held nonconfidential discussions with the qualified business
partners. In addition, the project team provided the qualified
business partners and interested state and federal agencies
with draft copies of the request for proposals and specifically
requested comments from them to develop a request for
proposals that would be realistic and fair. Overall, the project
team reported that it approved 626 of the 923 proposed changes
22 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 33
to the request for proposals. After obtaining Department of Finance
(Finance) approval, the project team released the request for
proposals to the qualified business partners on December 4, 2003.
Releasing the request for proposals marked the beginning of the
compliance phase of the procurement bidding process, which
gave the qualified business partners the opportunity to receive
input through confidential discussions on whether preliminary
versions of their proposals were responsive to the administrative
and technical requirements of the request for proposals. Shortly
after releasing the request for proposals, the project team held
a conference with the qualified business partners, enabling
the qualified business partners to review with the project team
the information and requirements of the request for proposals
and to voice any concerns they had before submitting their
final proposals. Confidential discussions, internally generated
questions, and communications with other state entities allowed
the project team to further clarify and amend the request for
proposals. On April 1, April 23, and May 18, 2004, the project
team issued addenda to the request for proposals. Qualified
business partners’ final proposals, due on June 8, 2004, must
respond to the request for proposals and the addenda.
Before it awards the contract for the SDU procurement, the
project team must evaluate the qualified business partners’
final proposals and obtain approval from Finance. It must
also complete and submit to Finance a feasibility study report,
a document that provides the business reasons that justify
investing state resources in procuring the SDU, the reasons for
undertaking the SDU procurement, the means of ensuring the
success of the procurement, and a comprehensive analysis of its
costs and benefits.
AGENCY COMMENTS
The Health and Human Services Agency and the State and
Consumer Services Agency, representing the department and the
board, concur with the information included in the report and
believe that it accurately reflects the steps taken thus far by the
department and the board. n
44 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 55
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act (act), a
legislative initiative directed at enforcing the payment of court-
ordered child support. The act mandated that each state have a
single statewide automated system for child support enforcement.
The initial operational deadline for the system was October 1, 1995,
but Congress later extended the deadline to October 1, 1997. The
system still being developed in California, called the California
Child Support Automation System, will have two components:
the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system and the State
Disbursement Unit (SDU). The SDU will receive and process child
support payments—which will include performing preliminary
identifications of the involved custodial and noncustodial parties—
and will forward the payment and identification information to
the CSE system. The CSE system will use the information provided
by the SDU to positively identify the involved parties,
allocate and distribute payment information to the appropriate
cases and parties, manage the support obligations, and perform the
appropriate enforcement activity. The CSE system will maintain
the case files and provide the SDU with disbursement instructions.
Using these instructions, the SDU will disburse support payments
to the appropriate parties and provide the controls, logs, records,
and reports (state and federal) needed to accommodate fiscal and
SDU operational audits.
In its Analysis of the 2004–05 Budget Bill, the Legislative Analyst’s
Office (LAO) reported that as of February 2004, the estimated cost
of the California Child Support Automation System is $1.3 billion
($869 million in federal funds and $459 million in state funds)
over 10 years. Of this total, $801 million has been set aside
to develop and maintain the CSE system, and the remaining
$499 million goes toward the cost of the SDU and covers
associated state costs, such as salary and wages, rent, staff travel
and training, and consultant services for both the SDU and CSE.
None of the $801 million is earmarked for the SDU procurement.
44 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 55
LEGISLATIVE RESTRUCTURING OF THE STATE’S CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
California’s failure to develop an automated system for child
support enforcement by the federal deadline has resulted in
signifi cant fi nancial consequences for the State. Specifi cally,
in fi scal year 1998–99, the State began accruing federal penalties for
having missed the deadline. According to the LAO, the penalties
in fi scal year 1998–99 amounted to $11.9 million and through
fi scal year 2002–03 had grown to approximately $562 million.
By the end of fi scal year 2004–05, penalties will reach a total of
almost $1 billion.
In an attempt to address these mounting penalties, the Legislature
passed several laws in 1999 that restructured the way the State
conducts its child support enforcement activities. Chapter 478,
Statutes of 1999, created the Department of Child Support
Services (department) and transferred responsibility for enforcing
child support from the Department of Social Services to the
new department. Chapter 479, Statutes of 1999 (Chapter 479),
designated the department as responsible for procuring,
developing, implementing, and maintaining the statewide
automated system. The statute also named the Franchise Tax Board
(board) as the department’s agent in fulfi lling these responsibilities.
In other words, the department is responsible for
procuring a system that meets federal requirements,
Desired Outcomes of the Project and the board plays a major role on the department’s
to Develop a Statewide Automated
behalf. Staff from the department and the board
System for Child Support Enforcement
make up the team working on procuring the
• Certifi cation: Meet federal certifi cation statewide automated system (project team).
requirements, thereby relieving the State
from federal penalties.
For the procurement of the CSE system, which
• Worker effectiveness: Provide timely
required information technology (IT) design and
access to accurate and uniform data, thus
improving state and federal program development, the project team used a performance-
performance. based procurement method that included a
• Customer service: Enable case members solicitation for conceptual proposals. Using this
and related institutions greater access
approach, the project team asked vendors to propose
to timely, accurate, and consistent
information and uniform business services. a technical solution based on solving the business
problems identifi ed by the department, the counties,
• System maintainability: Allow for timely
and cost-effective system modifi cations and other stakeholders in the bid proposal and
to accommodate required changes in
achieving the outcomes shown in the text box.
business needs of the Child Support
Enforcement Program.
For the SDU procurement, the project team is
• System implementation: Implement the
system on schedule and in a manner that following a different path to achieve the desired
mitigates risk to program performance,
outcomes, using a request for proposals rather than a
business disruption, and user acceptance.
solicitation for conceptual proposals. Simply stated,
the function of the SDU is to receive payments that
66 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 77
come from noncustodial parents and to issue payments to
custodial parties. Thus, the SDU contract is fundamentally
for IT services, not IT design and development. As a services
contract, the SDU procurement is not subject to the federal
requirements for reviewing data processing systems. The project
team expects to award a contract in December 2004. The
Appendix shows the timeline of key events leading to the award
of the SDU procurement contract.
PREVIOUS AUDIT REPORTS ON THE VENDOR SELECTION
PROCESS FOR THE AUTOMATED CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM
Chapter 479 requires the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to
monitor the process of evaluating and selecting vendors for
the statewide automated system for child support enforcement
to determine whether the vendor or vendors were chosen
according to the methodology and the criteria contained in
the request for proposals and the solicitation for conceptual
proposals. In December 2002, we issued a report on the progress
of the procurement process through June 2002, before contract
negotiations for the CSE system were completed. In that report,
we concluded that nothing came to our attention during the
process used to score the proposal to indicate that the project
team had deviated from the evaluation criteria or that it had
materially deviated from the predefined evaluation process
in a way that would have resulted in unfair treatment of the
potential vendors. In our September 2003 report, we discussed
the procurement process through July 14, 2003, the date the
State signed a contract with the IBM Group to design, develop,
and implement the CSE system. Our evaluation of the process
the project team used to score the proposal revealed nothing
to lead us to conclude that the project team deviated from
the predefined evaluation criteria. Further, in monitoring the
contract negotiating sessions and comparing the business
requirements and compensation approach included in the
contract to the terms outlined in the solicitation for conceptual
proposals, we found no indication that the project team
deviated from its predefined negotiating process or deviated
from the business requirements and compensation approach in
the solicitation for conceptual proposals.
66 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 77
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE’S OVERSIGHT
OF PROCURING A VENDOR FOR THE STATE
DISBURSEMENT UNIT
According to the board’s legal counsel, the Department of Finance
(Finance) required a business case analysis and an independent
review and assessment of the SDU request for proposals.
On August 8, 2003, the project team submitted to Finance
a business case analysis to obtain approval to undertake the
SDU procurement. In the analysis, the project team recommended
procuring a vendor for collection and disbursement services as
the solution that best satisfi ed the defi ned business objectives
and represented the alternative with the best value. The business
case analysis described the request for proposals as containing
approximately 225 enforceable requirements and more than
25 discrete deliverables subject to state acceptance and industry
standards. As such, the request for proposals would ensure that,
among other things, the SDU is implemented within a specifi ed
time frame and scope, meets federal certifi cation requirements,
and minimizes the State’s risk. Also, according
to the business case analysis, the recommended
Conditions of the Department of
solution could be implemented while adhering to
Finance’s Approval of the Business
the schedule the project team and the IBM Group
Case Analysis
have contractually agreed to for the CSE system.
• The procurement is expected to meet
the State’s business requirements without On September 23, 2003, Finance approved
providing a predetermined technical
spending resources for the SDU procurement effort
solution.
when it accepted the business case analysis, subject
• The project team must submit solicitation
and procurement documents to Finance to several conditions (see the text box). The SDU
for review and approval before releasing procurement is intended to obtain services related
them to vendors. Finance must also review
to processing payments and making disbursements
any addenda to the documents.
as well as the use of any automated systems
• The project is subject to Finance’s
requirements for project reporting and needed to support those activities. The estimated
oversight. total cost of the SDU procurement for fi scal years
• Before awarding the contract, the project 2004–05 through 2009–10 is $122.7 million
team must submit a feasibility study report
and includes costs to be paid to the SDU service
to Finance for review and approval.
provider. The procurement will be funded through
a combination of federal and state funds.
In addition, Finance cautioned that its approval alone does
not guarantee that funds or expenditure authority for the SDU
contract will be available; rather, it means that funding and
expenditure authority will be granted in accordance with the
State’s normal budget process.
88 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 99
Also on September 23, 2003, the board reported to Finance
the results of an independent review and assessment
(assessment) of the SDU request for proposals. Consistent
with its understanding of Finance’s expectations, the board
contracted with an IT consultant to assess how well the request
for proposals meets the State’s business needs, identifies risks,
encourages competitive bidding, adheres to requirements, and
evaluates risk. The assessment concluded that the request for
proposals incorporates sound procurement practices, follows
state policies, and addresses all state and federal requirements
for the functionality expected of a state disbursement unit.
In addition, the IT consultant found that the board and
department are identifying and actively managing major risks to
the procurement effort according to well-established risk
management processes. Finally, the assessment concluded
that the provisions of the request for proposals to provide
SDU services support open competition from business entities
qualified to partner with the State (qualified business partners)
and support any necessary rebidding.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Chapter 479 requires the bureau to monitor the process of
evaluating and selecting vendors for the statewide automated
system for child support enforcement to determine whether the
evaluation is based on the criteria contained in the request for
proposals or the solicitation for conceptual proposals. Further,
it requires the bureau to monitor the process to determine
whether the project team chooses the vendor or vendors
according to the methodology in the request for proposals or the
solicitation for conceptual proposals and to determine whether
it does so without bias or favoritism toward any bidder. Our
previous report on the Child Support Enforcement Program,
issued in September 2003, focused on the procurement process
through July 14, 2003, the date the State signed a contract with
the IBM Group to design, develop, and implement the CSE system.
This report focuses on the SDU, the second part of procuring
the State’s automated child support enforcement system,
and contains our observations of the vendor qualification
process, development of the request for proposals, the various
discussions between the qualified business partners and the
project team, and the compliance phase.
88 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 99
To monitor the qualification of vendors, we reviewed the
qualification process and outcomes. To monitor the development
of the request for proposals, we observed the process by attending
a variety of meetings and reviewing documents, including
the independent review and assessment of the SDU request
for proposals.
At the time of this report, the project team had finished
evaluating the preliminary versions of the qualified business
partners’ proposals and had held confidential discussions with
the qualified business partners to help them better understand the
requirements of the request for proposals.
The procurement process for the SDU is not yet complete. As
required by statute, we will continue to monitor the evaluation
and selection stages of the process. n
1100 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1111
AUDIT RESULTS
THE FIRST OF TWO PROCUREMENTS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA CHILD SUPPORT AUTOMATION SYSTEM IS
COMPLETE, AND THE SECOND IS IN PROGRESS
For the first of two procurements for the California
Child Support Automation System—selecting a vendor
for the design, development, and implementation of
the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system—a solicitation
for conceptual proposals was used. Selection of the CSE system
vendor was completed on July 14, 2003, with the signing of a
contract. The second part of the system, the State Disbursement
Unit (SDU), is being procured as a services contract using a
request for proposals. The team working on the procurements
(project team)—comprising staff from both the Department
of Child Support Services (department) and the Franchise Tax
Board (board)—has made progress in the SDU procurement, but
still has some important tasks remaining.
The project team followed established procedures to attract
potential service providers, select business entities qualified to
partner with the State to provide SDU services (qualified
business partners), develop the request for proposals, and provide
input on preliminary versions of the qualified business partners’
proposals. After developing interest in the SDU procurement
among vendors, establishing a pool of qualified business partners,
and holding discussions with the qualified business partners,
the project team publicly released the request for proposals to the
qualified business partners on December 4, 2003. In monitoring
the project team’s activities in these areas, nothing came to
our attention to indicate that the project team had deviated
from established procedures. Additionally, nothing came to our
attention to indicate that the project team carried out the SDU
procurement with bias or favoritism toward any bidder.
THE PROJECT TEAM FOSTERED INTEREST IN THE
STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT AMONG POTENTIAL
SERVICE PROVIDERS
To develop interest in the SDU procurement, the project team
used the request for interest to identify businesses that might
want to submit bids. The team also used the invitation to partner
1100 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1111
to provide qualification guidelines to entities expressing an
interest and thus signifying their wish to partner with the State.
In late February 2001, the project team advertised the request
for interest in the state contracts register and sent a request for
interest to business entities that had previously expressed a desire
to do business with the State. The request for interest stated
that respondents would receive an invitation to partner with
the intention of soliciting potential business partners that have
extensive experience in payment collection, disbursement, and
e-commerce technologies.
Subsequently, in October 2001, the request for interest was
canceled because, according to the project team, a delay in the
process would allow time for the SDU procurement to better
coordinate with the CSE system development. Without the
delay, the project team reported, the selected SDU contractor
would be sitting idle for several months.
On March 4, 2002, the project team sent a new request for
interest to the approximately 300 business entities that
indicated an interest in the procurement. In addition, the new
request for interest was again advertised in the state contracts
register. These efforts resulted in responses from approximately
210 business entities. Only business entities that responded to
the request for interest received an invitation to partner, which
described the details and requirements for submitting a response
and stated that the project team would use a performance-
based procurement approach similar to that used for the CSE
system. In a performance-based approach, selected businesses
are asked to submit proposals to design, develop, implement,
and maintain a solution to the business problems identified
by various stakeholders. The project team reported receiving
12 responses to the invitation to partner on April 25, 2002. After
completing the invitation-to-partner process on July 9, 2002,
the project team qualified seven business entities to partner
with the State on the SDU procurement.
In February 2003, the project team notified the qualified business
partners for the SDU procurement that it had determined it was
The project team decided more appropriate to use the request-for-proposals approach rather
to use the request-for- than the solicitation for conceptual proposals to procure the SDU.
proposals approach to The board had used the solicitation for conceptual proposals
obtain State Disbursement to make several procurements for information technology (IT)
Unit services. development projects, including the CSE system. However, based
on an internal legal analysis that concluded the SDU procurement
was seeking IT services rather than IT development, the project
1122 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1133
team determined that it was more appropriate to use the request
for proposals. As a result of changing the procurement approach,
on February 13, 2003, the project team reopened the invitation-
to-partner process to potential service providers and advertised
the request for interest in the state contracts register. According
to the project team, the amended request for interest was sent to
324 business entities expressing interest in the amended
invitation to partner. During our review of the project team’s
process for developing interest in the SDU procurement among
potential service providers, nothing came to our attention that
would indicate bias or favoritism toward any bidder.
TO SELECT A POOL OF QUALIFIED BUSINESS
PARTNERS, THE PROJECT TEAM FOLLOWED
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES
In addition to following established procedures to develop
interest in the SDU procurement, the project team developed
and followed procedures for evaluating responses to the
invitation to partner and established a qualification team to
select a pool of qualified business partners. According to the
project team, it solicited participation on the qualification
team from board and department staff working on the project
and determined whether or not the group possessed the
necessary skills and knowledge. The project team provided
an orientation to the initial members of the qualification
team on April 18, 2002, and another on April 2, 2003, to
many of the initial members along with additional members
of the team. Both orientations focused on ethical concerns
relating to procurement, the qualification approach and the
use of qualification worksheets, the evaluation schedule, and
procedures to maintain the overall integrity of the evaluation.
The project team also ensured that members of the qualification
The qualification team team completed a statement of economic interest and filed
comprised four subteams– conflict-of-interest and confidentiality certifications. We found
administrative, two that the training was in accordance with the SDU Business
business and technical, Partner Qualification Plan and the SDU Procurement Handbook.
and a financial–each
evaluating separate areas The qualification team comprised four subteams, each evaluating
of the responses to the separate areas of the responses to the invitation to partner. The
invitation to partner. administrative subteam consisted of procurement analysts who
reviewed the invitation-to-partner responses for completeness
and verified that each respondent met the requirement to obtain
a performance bond. Two business and technical subteams
examined the responses to determine whether the respondents
1122 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1133
provided the required business information and had the requisite
experience. These two subteams also verifi ed the accuracy of the
business information by contacting the respondents’ references.
The fi nancial subteam ensured that responses included audited
fi nancial statements, annual reports, and annual securities and
exchange fi lings.
Between May 2002 and June 2003, the qualifi cation team had
invited 10 business entities to sign partnering agreements.
Following the signing, those business entities
were referred to as qualifi ed business partners. By
SDU’s Qualifi ed Business Partners May 4, 2004, there were seven qualifi ed business
as of May 4, 2004 partners in the pool, as shown in the text box.
• ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc.; Union
Three of the seven qualifi ed business partners
Bank*
were qualifi ed as consortiums of business entities.
• Bank of America; Deloitte Consulting; First
Data/GovConnect; Informatix, Inc.* Two of the seven qualifi ed business partners are
members of the IBM Group, the contractor for the
• Maximus, Inc.; Bank One; IBM; US Bank;
Wells Fargo Bank* CSE system: IBM, a member of the consortium led
• Accenture Ltd. by Maximus, Inc., and Accenture Ltd.
• Data Management Products
In our monitoring of the process the project
• EDS/US Government Solutions
team used to qualify vendors, nothing came to
• Unisys
our attention to indicate that the project team
* The fi rst three business partners are consortiums deviated from criteria established to eliminate
led by the fi rst-named business.
confl icts of interest that could result in bias or
favoritism toward any vendor. Nor has anything
come to our attention that would have resulted in
unfair treatment of vendors. In addition, the process ensured
that qualifi cation team members had suffi cient expertise and
experience in evaluating responses.
Members of the Consortium Contracted for the CSE System
Were Not Restricted From Bidding on the SDU Contract
Despite being members of the consortium awarded the contract
for the CSE system, IBM and Accenture Ltd. were allowed
to bid on the SDU contract because of the timing of certain
requirements in the CSE system development and the conclusions
reached in a legal analysis. As stated earlier, the automated child
support enforcement system consists of two procurements. The
fi rst procurement was a contract for information technology
development, the CSE system. The State and the IBM Group—a
business consortium comprising IBM, Accenture Ltd., and
American Management Systems/Synergy—signed the CSE
system contract in July 2003. Under the CSE system contract,
1144 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1155
the IBM Group will provide a series of deliverables to the State
for acceptance before the contract is awarded for the second
procurement, the SDU. One of the deliverables is the CSE System
Interface Design Document (interface design document), which
must describe how the SDU will integrate with the CSE system.
Although the State expects to accept the interface design document
before awarding the SDU contract, the document will not be
available to the SDU’s qualified business partners before they must
submit their final proposals. Because the IBM Group is developing
the interface design document, it might understand more than
other qualified business partners at the time final proposals
are submitted about how the SDU must integrate with the CSE
system. Nonetheless, the project team decided to allow members of
the IBM Group—specifically, IBM, as part of a new consortium
of businesses headed by Maximus, Inc. and Accenture Ltd.—to
bid on the SDU contract.
The project team based its decision on several factors. First, the
IBM Group is not scheduled to deliver the interface design
The former director of document until after all qualified business partners submit
the project team and their final proposals for the SDU and the project team evaluates
the board’s legal counsel them. Therefore, the SDU request for proposals does not require
determined that the 2003 qualified business partners to describe an SDU solution that
legislation restricting meets CSE system design specifications. Second, to prevent
consultants from writing the Maximus consortium and Accenture Ltd. from having an
procurement documents advantage over other qualified business partners bidding for the
and then bidding to do SDU contract, the project team set up security procedures to
the work did not apply restrict inappropriate access and established other procedures
and would not prevent to ensure that all bidders had the same information about the
members of the IBM SDU procurement. Third, the former director of the project team
Group from bidding for determined that the 2003 legislation restricting consultants from
the State Disbursement writing procurement documents and then bidding to do the
Unit contract. work did not apply and would not prevent members of the IBM
Group from bidding for the SDU contract.
Because of the need to work closely with the State in developing
the CSE system, staff from the IBM Group set up offices near
those of the project team. The former director of the project
team recognized that by being on site during CSE system
implementation, the IBM Group could potentially influence the
development of SDU requirements or obtain SDU procurement
information before other bidders. To eliminate this potential, the
project team instituted procedures to isolate SDU procurement
activities. For example, the IBM Group does not have access
to the project team’s archive library, shared electronic folders,
or schedule. The IBM Group can request information relevant
1144 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1155
to the SDU procurement; however, if the project team releases
that information to the IBM Group, it will also release the same
information to all the other SDU bidders. All SDU procurement
documents are maintained in a confidential environment until
ready for public release to all interested parties. Additionally,
security measures were put in place to restrict access to the
physical space occupied by the project team assigned to the
SDU procurement.
The former director of the project team also requested an
analysis from the board’s legal counsel to determine whether any
members of the IBM Group should be permitted to bid on the
SDU procurement. This concern stemmed from Senate Bill 1467,
effective January 1, 2003, which amended the Public Contract
Code. According to the internal legal analysis prepared for the
former director of the project team, the legislation prohibited
so-called follow-on contracts, in which a consulting firm
essentially writes the procurement document and then enters
the competition for the goods and services sought by the
procurement. However, the legal analysis found that, based
on several factors, the legislation does not restrict members
of the IBM Group from bidding on the SDU procurement.
Specifically, the legal analysis concluded that the CSE system
contract is not a consulting contract; rather, it is a system design,
development, implementation, maintenance, and operations
contract. Moreover, the legal analysis stated that (1) the CSE
system contract does not require the IBM Group to make any
recommendations regarding SDU services; (2) the timing of the
two procurements for the California Child Support Automation
System together with SDU security procedures protects the SDU
procurement from IBM Group influence; and (3) the State’s
acceptance of design deliverables for the CSE system does not
constitute the State’s acceptance of an “end product” that requires
or suggests SDU services, an element that would need to be
present to be prohibited by the Public Contract Code.
The legal analysis also concluded that the State’s acceptance of
the interface design document provides no bidding advantage
The legal analysis to members of the IBM Group. According to the legal analysis,
concluded that the there is a relationship between the CSE system contract and the
State’s acceptance of the SDU contract in that the SDU services must be conducted by
interface design document interfacing with the CSE system. The analysis acknowledged that
provides no bidding performing analysis and design tasks for the CSE system would
advantage to members of give the IBM Group more precise information about the SDU
the IBM Group. interface requirements than that available to other SDU bidders.
In fact, the IBM Group is not scheduled to deliver the interface
design document before the project team evaluates the final
1166 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1177
proposals of the qualified business partners bidding on the SDU
procurement. However, the SDU request for proposals does
not require the qualified business partners to describe an SDU
solution that meets the design specifications of the CSE system.
As early as March 2003, the project team was aware that if the
qualified business partners have to prepare their proposals for
the SDU procurement without sufficient information about the
technical interface with the CSE system, scope changes might
be required after the SDU contract award that would increase
costs and delay the project schedule. In fact, in identifying the
risk, the project team stated that not having the interface design
document available to the SDU’s qualified business partners
during proposal development could result in the bidders
underestimating the scope of the interface requirements. When
The project team asked how the project team mitigated this risk, the current
established requirements director of the project team stated that the project team has
to mitigate the risks of a been very careful to avoid or decrease any risks associated with
schedule delay associated integrating the CSE system and the SDU. Moreover, he stated
with integrating the Child that the project team has focused on providing a “level playing
Support Enforcement field” for all potential SDU vendors to encourage and maintain
system and the State fair and open competition. Specifically, according to the current
Disbursement Unit. director of the project team, to mitigate the risk of further delay,
such as failing to integrate the CSE system and the SDU, the
project team established the following requirements:
• The CSE system must have an “open,” nonproprietary
architecture capable of integration with SDU interfaces.
• Nonconfidential and confidential discussions, as well as the
SDU request for proposals, must emphasize that a delay in
integrating the SDU and the CSE system is a project risk.
• The selected SDU service provider must, at the start of the
project, analyze CSE system deliverables for their impact on the
SDU and provide such analysis to the State and the IBM Group.
• The selected SDU service provider must coordinate
implementation consistent with an integration plan.1
The project team made the integration plan available to
the qualified business partners.
1The integration plan is not the same as the previously discussed interface design document,
which will not be available until after the qualified business partners submit their final
proposals. The integration plan, developed by the IBM Group, includes a description of
the technical solution, integration, IBM Group responsibilities and deliverables, audits and
controls, and performance requirements that span the SDU and the CSE system. It also
outlines how these requirements are allocated between the two systems.
1166 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1177
• The selected SDU service provider must time its implementation
to be consistent with the CSE system design and project
schedule. All final and state-approved deliverables for the
CSE system, including the current project schedule, have
been given to all qualified business partners to review before
submitting their final proposals.
• The selected SDU service provider must demonstrate compliance
with CSE system design and requirements through testing.
• The SDU request for proposals must require the qualified
business partners to describe in their final proposals, in
significant detail, their approach to integration with the
CSE system, including their approach to testing and risk
identification and mitigation.
• Compensation for both the IBM Group and the SDU service
provider must depend on successfully identifying and
mitigating integration risks, resolving integration issues with
the State, and achieving a successful interface between the
CSE system and the SDU.
During our review of the project team’s analysis to permit members
of the IBM Group to bid on the SDU procurement and the project
team’s measures to mitigate the risks of a delay in integrating the
CSE system and the SDU, nothing came to our attention that
would result in unfair treatment of potential vendors.
DEVELOPING THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
INCLUDED NONCONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE QUALIFIED BUSINESS PARTNERS AND A REVIEW
OF NUMEROUS CHANGES
The project team sought to develop an SDU request for proposals
that met the State’s business needs and at the same time
encouraged competition. For example, to develop a request for
proposals that would provide a realistic business opportunity
and a fair process, the project team gave the qualified business
partners draft copies of sections of the request for proposals and
specifically requested comments from them. From August 2002
through July 2003, the project team held three nonconfidential
discussions with the qualified business partners as a group
to discuss the procurement approach. As the project team
researched and answered questions generated from the
1188 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1199
nonconfidential discussions, it documented the questions and
answers and released them to all qualified business partners on at
least 10 occasions.
In September 2003, the project team provided a complete draft
request for proposals to the qualified business partners and asked
for their input. The project team also asked Finance, as the state
agency responsible for reviewing and approving the request for
proposals before its release to the qualified business partners,
to comment on the draft. Moreover, the project team sought
comments from the Department of General Services and other
state and federal agencies to develop a fair and comprehensive
request for proposals. Overall, the project team reported that it
The request for proposals approved and incorporated 626 of the 923 proposed changes
for the State Disbursement to the request for proposals generated by the qualified business
Unit incorporates 626 of partners, the department, the board, and other state and federal
the 923 changes proposed agencies. Based on our monitoring of the project team’s process
by the qualified business for considering the proposed changes, nothing came to our
partners, the department, attention that changed the request for proposals’ objectives or
the board, and other state requirements in such a manner as to cause a bias or unfairness
and federal agencies. toward any vendor. After Finance’s approval, the request for
proposals was released to the qualified business partners on
December 4, 2003.
DURING THE COMPLIANCE PHASE, THE PROJECT
TEAM PROVIDED INPUT TO THE QUALIFIED BUSINESS
PARTNERS ON THEIR PROPOSALS
The release of the request for proposals on December 4, 2003,
triggered the compliance phase of the SDU procurement. During
the compliance phase, the qualified business partners could
receive the project team’s input on preliminary versions of their
proposals before submitting their draft and final proposals.
Throughout the compliance phase and the release of addenda
to the request for proposals, project team management, the
procurement officer, and members of the qualification team
followed established procedures to ensure the integrity of the
procurement process.
On December 12, 2003, the project team hosted a conference
for the qualified business partners, giving all participants
the opportunity to review the information and requirements
of the request for proposals and discuss any questions
or concerns the qualified business partners might have
before submitting their proposals. At the nonconfidential
1188 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 1199
conference, the project team emphasized the need for
thorough and complete responses from all the qualified
business partners. Additionally, the project team updated
the qualified business partners on the status of the SDU
procurement process and activities. Although the qualified
business partners were not required to attend the conference,
the project team encouraged their attendance.
The primary focus of the compliance phase was to offer
confidential discussions in which the qualified business partners
could receive input on whether preliminary versions of their
proposals were responsive to the technical and administrative
requirements of the request for proposals. The compliance phase
was an opportunity the qualified business partners had to revise
The qualified business their proposals before they become final and not subject to
partners had an change. During this phase, the project team did not qualitatively
opportunity to have evaluate the proposals or score them competitively; that will
their preliminary occur later during the final phase. Some of the qualified business
proposals reviewed partners took advantage of the compliance phase by submitting
for administrative and preliminary proposals.
technical compliance
before submitting their To discuss any defects the project team identified, some of the
final proposals. qualified business partners requested and participated in two
confidential discussions. These confidential discussions provided
a structured method for discussing alternative solutions to the
requirements and helped guide the qualified business partners
in submitting proposals that are technically responsive to the
requirements of the request for proposals, contain approved
contract language, and are free of administrative and clerical errors.
Throughout the compliance phase, the project team provided
all the qualified business partners with clarifications to the SDU
request for proposals. The clarifications were either responses
to questions posed by the qualified business partners or
information that the project team felt would further explain
the instructions or requirements of the request for proposals.
In addition, a wide range of issues generated by sources such
as the qualified business partners and state entities, including
the board, the department, and the project team, caused the
project team to amend the request for proposals. The project
team recorded, analyzed, and approved issues it included in
addenda using the same tracking and approval process it used
for the development of the request for proposals. The project
team issued its first addendum to the request for proposals on
2200 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2211
April 1, 2004, its second addendum on April 23, 2004, and
its third on May 18, 2004. As previously discussed, Finance
reviewed and approved each addendum.
THE PROJECT TEAM FACES MORE WORK TO FINISH
PROCURING THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
The project team has several challenges ahead before it
completes the SDU procurement and awards the contract (see
the Appendix for a timeline of key events leading to the award
The project team has of the SDU contract). Specifically, after the qualified business
several challenges ahead partners submit their final proposals on June 8, 2004, the project
before it completes the team will conduct an administrative review of the proposals,
State Disbursement Unit evaluate the bidders’ responses to the requirements in the
procurement and awards request for proposals, and subsequently, evaluate the bidders’
the contract. cost bids. Before it can award the contract, the project team must
obtain Finance’s approval of the procurement and complete and
submit to Finance a feasibility study report. In the feasibility
study report, the project team must include the business reasons
that justify investing state resources in the project, the reasons for
undertaking the project, the means of ensuring the success of the
project, and a comprehensive analysis of its costs and benefits.
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by
Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit
scope section of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date: June 2, 2004
Staff: Doug Cordiner, Audit Principal
Arn Gittleman
2200 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2211
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
2222 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2233
APPENDIX
Timeline of Key Events Leading to
the Contract Award for the State
Disbursement Unit
Figure A.1 on the following page is a timeline of key events
and tasks associated with the process of procuring the State
Disbursement Unit (SDU)—the second and final part of the
single, statewide automated child support enforcement system.
The first key events occurred in February 2001, when the project
team began the process to develop interest in the SDU, and
the final event is expected to occur in December 2004 with the
award of the SDU contract.
2222 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2233
FIGURE A.1
Timeline of Key Events Leading to the Contract Award for the State Disbursement Unit
�����������������������������������������
������������������������������ ��������������������������������
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ����� ����
�����������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������
�������������������������������������������
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ����� ����
����������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������� ������������������������������������
������������������������
���������������������������������
���������������������������������������� ����������������������������������
�������������������
������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����
����������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������
�����������������������
��������������������
���������������������� �������������������������������������
���������������������������� ������������������� �����������������������������������������������������
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����
���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������� ���������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������
����������������������������������������������� �������
�������������������������
����������������
����������������������������
Source: California Child Support Automation Project.
2244
California
State
Auditor
Report
99028.3
California
State
Auditor
Report
99028.3
2255
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Health and Human Services Agency
S. Kimberly Belshé, Secretary
1600 Ninth Street, Room 460
Sacramento, CA 95814
May 19, 2004
Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
SUBJECT: DRAFT REPORT ON CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM: ACQUIRING
THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT TO COLLECT, DISBURSE, AND RECORD CHILD SUPPORT
PAYMENTS WILL COMPLETE THE PROCUREMENTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA CHILD SUPPORT
AUTOMATED SYSTEM
Enclosed is the combined response from the Franchise Tax Board and the Department of Child
Support Services to your draft report titled “Child Support Enforcement Program: Acquiring the
State Disbursement Unit to Collect, Disburse, and Record Child Support Payments Will Complete
the Procurements for the California Child Support Automated System”.
On behalf of the California Health and Human Services Agency and the State and Consumer
Services Agency, I want to thank you for your efforts in monitoring the procurement for the
State Disbursement Unit (SDU) component of the statewide automated system for child support
enforcement. Your role in monitoring the procurement has served to ensure that the procurement
was made without signs of bias or favoritism toward any bidder.
We concur with your report and believe that it accurately reflects the steps taken by the Franchise
Tax Board and the Department of Child Support Services to ensure full integration of this SDU
contract with the child support enforcement component.
We appreciate the continued extensive work undertaken by you and your staff to monitor the entire
procurement process of the statewide automated system for child support enforcement.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Lorna M. Fong)
Lorna M. Fong
Assistant Secretary
Enclosure
2244 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2255
California Department of Child Support Services
P.O. Box 419064
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-9064
May 18, 2004
Ms. Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
SUBJECT: CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM: ACQUIRING THE STATE
DISBURSEMENT UNIT TO COLLECT, DISBURSE, AND RECORD CHILD
SUPPORT PAYMENTS WILL COMPLETE THE PROCUREMENTS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA CHILD SUPPORT AUTOMATED SYSTEM
The Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and the Franchise Tax Board would like to thank
you for the independent validation of the fairness of our State Disbursement Unit procurement. We
concur with your report and believe that it accurately reflects the complexity of the procurement
and the extensive reviews and analysis necessary to ensure full integration of this contract and the
Child Support Enforcement component.
We appreciate the extensive efforts that you and your staff have made in monitoring this
procurement through observation and review of all of the important activities undertaken. Your
careful monitoring of the process the Franchise Tax Board and DCSS took in conducting this
procurement are sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
(Signed by: Curtis L. Child) (Signed by: Gerald H. Goldberg)
CURTIS L. CHILD GERALD H. GOLDBERG
Director Executive Officer
Department of Child Support Services Franchise Tax Board
2266 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2277
cc: Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press
2266 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 California State Auditor Report 99028.3 2277