Scranton School Board suspends RFP policy, rejects construction‑management proposals to allow negotiated contract

At a special meeting, the Scranton School District board voted 8–1 to suspend the district request‑for‑proposal (RFP) policy and to reject the proposals received for construction management so administration may negotiate directly with a preferred vendor.

The action, taken by the board on a pair of motions, allows the district to end the formal RFP process and temporarily suspend the related administrative regulation so staff can attempt to negotiate better contract terms with a single firm rather than awarding a contract under the open RFP.

Board member Director Merkel moved to suspend the district RFP policy. Attorney Moran, the district solicitor, told the board that ending the RFP was intended to “put the administration in the best position to carry out the will of that board,” and said it could be “potentially unlawful to award a contract or to negotiate a contract while there is an RFP still pending.” The board then voted to reject the proposals received for construction management; the board secretary reported seven firms had submitted proposals.

The motion to suspend the policy and the subsequent motion to reject the proposals each passed on an 8–1 roll call. Miss Fox cast the lone negative vote; the eight affirmative votes were recorded for Borthwick, Casey, Chesick, McAndrew, Merkel, Zlecki, Triano and Holmes.

Several board members raised procedural and oversight concerns during discussion. One board member, Catherine, noted that the district’s current RFP policy was strengthened after a Pennsylvania Auditor General performance audit in 2017 and a 2018 financial recovery plan, and warned that “denying all bids and suspending that policy now bypass[es] the safeguards that were put in place after past audit findings and recovery plan recommendations.” She asked that the district’s financial recovery officer be asked to weigh in on suspending a policy that was adopted in response to the recovery plan.

Dr. Saylor, who said she had the amended recovery plan available, told the board she could not confirm on the spot whether the specific RFP requirement remained in the amended plan and that she had not had an opportunity to look up the original plan that prompted the policy changes.

Administration and legal staff clarified the board was voting to suspend the policy temporarily for this purpose, not permanently rescind it. Attorney Moran recommended suspending the policy and the parallel administrative regulation (AR 6.10) to avoid being forced to follow procedural requirements that would prevent direct negotiations during the pendency of the RFP.

Board members proposing the suspension said administration would seek to negotiate improved terms compared with the static bids received under the RFP and argued that direct negotiation could be more fiscally responsible. Members who opposed the action cautioned that the change reduces transparency and may reverse safeguards adopted after the Auditor General’s review.

With the two motions approved, the superintendent and administration were authorized to proceed with negotiations with the preferred construction management firm under the temporary suspension; the board indicated the suspension was for tonight’s action and that further discussion about procurement policy could follow at a later meeting.

Votes at a glance: Suspension of district RFP policy — approved 8–1 (No: Miss Fox). Motion to reject proposals received for construction management — approved 8–1 (No: Miss Fox).