Audit of the Supplier Diversity Office (December 23, 2024)
December 23, 2024 · Supplier Diversity Office · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗
source
“The Supplier Diversity Office was unable to provide complete evidence that it monitored Supplier Diversity Program–participating state agencies to ensure that they met Supplier Diversity Program spending benchmarks.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, covering January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022.
“In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of the Supplier Diversity Office (SDO) for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022.”
Auditors reviewed whether the office was expanding fair access to state contracts, monitoring agency spending goals, checking contractor compliance, and providing training and services.
“In this performance audit, we determined the following:”
The office is supposed to help make sure state contracting includes diverse and small Massachusetts businesses, so weak monitoring can mean those opportunities are missed.
“Although SDO has made progress reaching out to SDP-participating state agencies to help them meet spending benchmarks since it was first established as an independent state agency in January 2021, if SDO does not monitor SDP-participating state agencies to ensure that they meet SDP spending benchmarks, then it cannot ensure that state procurement and contracting incorporates diversity and equity practices or the inclusion of diverse and small Massachusetts businesses.”
For residents, this matters because state purchasing is public business, and better oversight can help more local diverse and small businesses compete for taxpayer-funded contracts.
“One of SDO’s goals is to increase opportunities for certified diverse and small businesses in state contracting.”
Auditors found two main problems: incomplete evidence that SDO monitored agency spending benchmarks, and unresolved cases where contractors overstated indirect supplier diversity spending.
“The Supplier Diversity Office did not settle overstated Supplier Diversity Program indirect spending discrepancies reported by statewide contractors.”
The auditor plans to check back in about six months on the contractor spending issue and related access and monitoring concerns.
“SDO agrees with our recommendation, and we will follow up on this issue in approximately six months as part of our post-audit review.”
The audit says SDO met some goals, including broader access and training, but fell short on monitoring agencies and statewide contractors closely enough.
“To an insufficient extent; see Finding 2 and Other Matter 2”
The Supplier Diversity Program is the state effort to track and increase spending with certified diverse and small businesses; spending benchmarks are target percentages agencies are expected to meet.
“The annual SDP spending benchmarks are expressed as a percentage of the discretionary budget for each SDP-participating state agency.”
What the Auditor checked
- Complied To what extent, if at all, did SDO meet the goal of maintaining consistent and measurable progress in expanding access and equity of opportunity in state contracting, in accordance with Section 61(a) of Chapter 7 of the General Laws?
- Did not comply How, if at all, did SDO’s Compliance Unit monitor the purchasing performance of each state agency participating in the Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) to ensure that these agencies met benchmarks established in Section 61(m) of Chapter 7 of the General Laws?
- Did not comply How, if at all, did SDO monitor contracts between statewide contractors and SDP partners to ensure that statewide contractors were in program compliance, as required by Section 61(m) of Chapter 7 of the General Laws?
- Complied To what extent, if at all, did SDO devise equitable policies and procedures to provide training and other services for all SDO programs, as required by SDO’s final budgetary language for line items 1775–0200 for fiscal year 2021 and 1780–0100 for fiscal year 2022?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: SDO could not ensure that state procurement and contracting incorporated diversity and equity practices or included diverse and small Massachusetts businesses.
Standard: Section 61(m) of Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws ( Section 61(m) of Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
2 recommendations
- SDO should conduct mid-year reviews on all SDP-participating state agencies and make recommendations and provide feedback to help these state agencies meet SDP spending benchmarks.agency: already implemented
- SDO should meet with all SDP-participating state agencies not meeting their spending benchmarks in order to help them improve in the following fiscal year.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The SDO agrees with the recommendation of holding ongoing strategic meetings with Executive Agencies who are not meeting Supplier Diversity goals."
Auditor: "SDO agrees with our recommendations, and we commend it for working on steps to better help agencies meet its benchmarks."
Why it matters: SDO could not confirm indirect spending by Supplier Diversity Program partners against the amounts reported by statewide contractors.
Standard: Section VI of SDO’s “Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) Indirect Spend Validation” policy and Section 61(m) of Chapter 7 of the General Laws ( Section VI (Discrepancies) of SDO’s “Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) Indirect Spend Validation” policy; Section 61(m) of Chapter 7 of the General Laws )
1 recommendation
- SDO should implement penalties to statewide contractors that are not accurately reporting their SDP spending and always resolve overstated indirect SDP spending.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The SDO agrees that regulations that impose penalties on statewide contractors who falsify Supplier Diversity spending should be explored."
Auditor: "SDO agrees with our recommendation, and we will follow up on this issue in approximately six months as part of our post-audit review."