Dept of Parks & Recreation

Ahead of the filing

Analyses, audits and policy that come before a budget request: the Legislative Analyst's reviews that name this department, the State Auditor's and Finance's audit reports on it, the Inspector General's where one exists, and the Department of Technology's letters that bind every department. Each row is the source's own published title, linked, fetched weekly. These are not filings. No figure in this runbook rests on them, and nothing is inferred from them beyond that they exist and when. An audit finding is the department's own reason for its next budget request, which is why it is here.

On a budget subcommittee agenda

The day a request is heard, from the committee's own agenda. A date after the as-of date is a hearing still to come.

Named in a Legislative Analyst review

On CDT's own reports to the Legislature

What the Department of Technology told the Legislature about this department, in its words, from the newest edition of each report. A statement to the Legislature, not a purchase order; nothing here is a figure in this runbook.

Binding on every department

Forward demand

Budget asked for, not yet spent. Scoped by department and never by category — a budget request predates the purchase that would classify it.

What the timing means

Stages are gates of SIMM 19 — Project Approval Lifecycle (PAL) and GenAI Project Delivery Lifecycle, from CDT's published tracker.

Plays

Ranked. A tier is a claim about evidence, not about enthusiasm — Unverified means the filings raise the question and do not answer it.

Also worth asking

Questions with no play behind them yet: a request no order names, a hearing inside the window.

Where you stand

Dept of Parks & Recreation has filed $263,408,242 across 5,514 purchase orders. The filings name Palo Alto Networks on 1 orders worth $74, last May 18, 2020. 9 competing product(s) named on $2,415,581 of paper.

The quiet paper

Your newest order here is May 18, 2020 — 2,346 days. Two readings survive that fact, and the filings cannot pick between them. Both are below; the call decides.

Your filed terms here

No purchase order of yours here carries a filed term. Whatever protects the renewal date, it is not this record — which is exactly why the quiet-paper section above cannot resolve itself.

Your product on the record

Purchase orders whose line text names a Palo Alto Networks product, whatever reseller carried them. A purchase record, not an install base — and a floor, because an order that never names the product cannot be counted.

Competing products on the record

Detected the same way, at the layers Palo Alto Networks sells at. Who, when, how much, through whom, on what paper — what to do about any of them is your own material, and this document does not guess at it.

The channel

Statewide by design: contracts are statewide, so the channel is. This is the movement of your own product, not a ranking of departments.

Who has carried you, statewide

Lapsed reads as lapsed — the date does the talking.

Partner shortlist for this department

Ranked on one piece of field judgment: a new vendor through a working reseller is the warm path, and a new vendor plus a new reseller at once is the low-percentage one. A partner already carrying a competitor here stays on the list, flagged — the flag is the finding.

People

Technology leadership first: the CIO, CISO and CTO on file, then IT leadership and management, then other executives. Technical and executive staff, not procurement — buyers of record process the paper, they do not choose the product and they do not answer cold mail. Published state addresses for this department only. The record holds no CIO, CISO or CTO title for this department; that is a gap in the directory, not proof the role is vacant.

Buyers of record

These are procurement. They process the paper; they do not choose the product and they do not answer cold mail. Email addresses are not published in this runbook — they are released on request and the release is logged.