Could Connecticut’s IT chief verbally delegate purchasing power for an agency technology contract?

Plain-English summary

In July 2001, Connecticut’s AG said the state’s chief information officer could delegate technology purchasing authority to another agency, but the delegation had to be in writing. State auditors had questioned a verbal delegation to the Department of Social Services during selection of a contractor for a child-care program information system. The AG agreed with the auditors and told the IT department that future delegations must be written.

The IT chief held purchasing responsibility for state information systems. The governing statute made the procurement procedures used by the Department of Administrative Services applicable to those purchases. One of those procedures required a written determination that delegation would reduce costs or make purchasing more efficient and that the receiving agency had appropriate purchasing expertise.

State IT officials at the time

The chief information officer could transfer purchasing authority within the statutory process. A verbal approval did not satisfy the writing requirement identified by the AG.

Agencies receiving authority at the time

The opinion concerned the form and conditions of delegation. It did not decide the merits of the child-care-system contractor selection itself.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was a spoken approval enough to transfer IT purchasing power to social services?
A: No. The AG said the delegation had to be documented in writing.

Q: Could the IT department delegate procurement at all?
A: Yes. The AG recognized that power, subject to the same written-delegation conditions that applied to administrative-services purchasing.

Q: Did the opinion cancel the child-care technology contract?
A: It answered the auditors’ delegation question and directed future written delegations; it did not rule on the contract’s validity.

Background and statutory framework

Auditors asked whether purchasing power over a social services information system could be transferred verbally. The AG traced the IT chief’s authority to buy technology services and the cross-reference to general state procurement law. That law required written findings for delegation to an agency with appropriate experience.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4d-2(c)(6); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-52a(e).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2001-formal-opinions/rock-regan-department-of-information-technology-2001016-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connectic

Original opinion text

Rock Regan, Department of Information Technology, 2001-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

July 3, 2001

Rock Regan

Chief Information Officer

Department of Information Technology

340 Capitol Avenu

Hartford, CT 60106

Dear Mr. Regan:

The Auditors of Public Accounts have notified this Office of what they consider to be an irregularity in the delegation of purchasing authority from the Department of Information Technology ("DOIT") to the Department of Social Services ("DSS") in connection with the selection of a contractor to administer and develop a management information system for DSS’s consolidated Child Care Assistance Program. Specifically, the Auditors express the opinion that the delegation of authority in question, if permitted under the Connecticut General Statutes, should have been made in writing, rather than given verbally, as appears to have been the case. The Auditors have asked whether this Office agrees with their position and, if so, they have suggested that we inform you. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Auditors' position and, therefore, advise you that all future delegations of purchasing authority must be in writing.

As you know, DOIT was established in 1997 by Conn. Public Act No. 97-9 of the June 18th Special Session of the General Assembly in order to improve the management of state agency information and telecommunication systems. This public act is now codified in Title 4d of the Connecticut General Statutes. The administrative head of DOIT is the Chief Information Officer; see, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4d-2(a); and, in furtherance of the purposes for which DOIT was created, the Chief Information Officer was made "responsible for purchasing, leasing and contracting for all information system and telecommunication system facilities, equipment and services for state agencies, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of section 4d-8" of the Connecticut General Statutes. See, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4d-2(c)(6). Subsection (a) of Section 4d-8 provides, in turn, that the Chief Information Officer shall follow the same purchasing procedures used by the Commissioner of Administrative Services in Title 4a of the Connecticut General Statutes: "The provisions of title 4a shall apply to the purchasing, leasing and contracting for information system and telecommunication system facilities, equipment and services by the Chief Information Officer, except that (1) the Chief Information Officer shall have the powers and duties that are assigned by said title 4a to the Commissioner of Administrative Services . . .".

Pursuant to the purchasing procedures in Title 4a, the Commissioner of Administrative Services may delegate authority to individual state agencies to make direct purchases when deemed in the best interest of the State, but this delegation must be in writing. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 4a-52(1), 4a-52(2) and 4a-52a(e). Ergo, the Chief Information Officer, exercising the same powers granted to the Commissioner of Administrative Services in Title 4a, also "may delegate authority to any state agency to purchase supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services, consistent with section 4a-67c, if the commissioner determines, in writing, that (1) such delegation would reduce state purchasing costs or result in more efficient purchasing and (2) the agency has employees with the experience and expertise in state purchasing statutes, regulations and procedures." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-52a(e) (emphasis added).

In sum, the Chief Information Officer is empowered to delegate his purchasing authority to a state agency to make purchases falling within the purview of Title 4d, but any such delegation of authority must be in writing and exercised in accordance with the provisions applicable to the Commissioner of Administrative Services in Title 4a as set forth above.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

cc: Hon. Kevin P. Johnston

Hon. Robert G. Jaekle