Jeffrey Smith’s response to my e-mail requesting an interview was succinct and to the point; “This week is tough, is next week ok.”
I had reached out to County Executive Smith regarding my March 12th post; Santa Clara KPMG Expenditure Raises Red Flags. When he responded last night indicating his willingness to talk, I was encouraged, but wary.
According to a newspaper article by The Mercury News metro columnist Scott Herhold, Smith is “A smart and charming man who knows how to tend to the needs of his bosses, the supervisors,” and that he “uses that combination to hide county miscues from the public.” He then went on to write that “His attitude toward the notion of transparency borders on contempt.”
In the same article, Herhold suggested that while Smith is “always accessible” to the media, he also knows how to “summon the range of his experience to conceal county government’s mistakes.” In short, and according to Herhold Smith “At moments of crisis,” is the “chief circler of the wagons.”
All this being said, having never personally interviewed or spoken with County Executive Smith in the past, we will be starting with a clean slate.
In fact, and in advance of our interview, I am more than happy to provide him with the three key areas upon which our interview will focus:
- Considering his long and diverse history with the county, what are his thoughts regarding Herhold’s comments? What about detractors from within the county itself – does he have any, and what is their issue with him?
- Regarding the $1.3 million spent on the KPMG engagement so far, why does he believe that the county has received good value for the expenditure? Why does he believe that a further $2 million is warranted?
- Finally, is he looking to ultimately outsource the county’s procurement function to KPMG or any other entity? What are his thoughts regarding the January 2017 job posting by KPMG on LinkedIn for the position of Manager, Procurement and Operations Advisory in Santa Clara; https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/249712019/
Needless to say, I am looking forward to our discussion next week.
Follow this story on Twitter using the hashtag #sccspend?
30
Procurement Insights 
Ryan
March 14, 2017
Oh the plot thickens. KPMG was originally hired to review a report that was created by…. KPMG. LOL. You can’t make this stuff up.
https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-web/vendor/links/BidDetail.xhtml?bidid=1989126
piblogger
March 15, 2017
Why would they have to review their own report? Am I missing something? It’s like paying KPMG twice to do the same job.
Ryan
March 15, 2017
The original RFP:
“The objective of the Request for Proposal (RFP)is to evaluate the organizational structure, review and validate previous studies and recommendations made by County staff and external consultants”
The attached KPMG report from 2001 is titled: “Accounting System and Procurement Project -To Be Detailed Process Model Deliverable”
I only skimmed through this stuff but it appears KPMG was initially hired to review and validate their previous study. At least 1 other vendor raised the issue which they responded:
“The County received an inquiry as to whether a vendor who has had prior engagements with the County (such as Deloitte or KPMG Consulting) will be precluded from responding to this RFP. The County has not engaged an independent contractor or consulting firm to address Countywide Contracting related to decentralized contracting, which is the objective of this RFP. The County has provided the KPMG Consulting report which focuses mainly on the role of Centralized Procurement for goods and services to provide a global view of the County procurement process.”
Also if you read carefully this last amendment:
“The work summarized under the four categories above comprise half of KPMG’s initial recommendations. ”
That to me says KPMG is going to be getting even more money before this is over.
piblogger
March 15, 2017
So just to be clear, we have a report that was prepared by KPMG in 2001 titled “Accounting System and Procurement Project -To Be Detailed Process Model Deliverable.”
15 years later KPMG was once again engaged to assess their 2001 report.
Do I have it right so far?
Now, and with only a cursory involvement of the SCC procurement department, this recent engagement is being extended for an additional $2 million.
Do I have it right?
Ryan
March 15, 2017
That’s how I’m reading it.
piblogger
March 15, 2017
Then you will find today’s post interesting.
Alun@MarketDojo
March 15, 2017
Looking forward to the interview
piblogger
March 15, 2017
Thanks Alun. Are you surprised by any of this?
Over and above everything else, I am having difficulty comprehending why they are tampering with a process that has been working so well. SCC’s procurement team has done a stellar job.