Finance committee refers selection of Shipton & Goodwin for district legal services to full board

At a virtual meeting of the Bridgeport Board of Education finance committee, members voted to refer the committee’s recommended legal-services selection, Shipton & Goodwin, to the full board for contract negotiations. The recommendation follows a July request for proposals that drew three responses and an internal scoring and interview process.

The recommendation matters because the district must follow a two-step procurement path: the finance committee’s referral to the full board and a separate application to the Bridgeport Purchasing Board for approval as required by local ordinance. Staff said the purchasing-board review is a mandated step before the district may enter into contract negotiations with the selected firm.

Staff member Mr. Pierce, who presented the item, described the procurement steps and the committee’s evaluation. He said three firms responded to the RFP, that the evaluation committee scored and interviewed respondents, and that Shipton & Goodwin was the committee’s selected firm. Pierce told the committee the selected firm scored higher on nonprice criteria but had the highest price proposal; the firm’s proposal includes a section on alternative-fee arrangements that the district may negotiate (Pierce referenced “page 23” of the firm’s proposal).

Pierce said the next procedural steps are to file the purchasing-board application and then bring the matter to the full board to authorize contract negotiations. The committee then moved to refer the legal-services selection to the full board; members voted in favor with no objections or abstentions recorded.

This referral does not itself authorize a contract. The committee’s vote forwarded the recommended selection for the full board’s consideration and sign-off, and staff said the city purchasing-board approval is required before the district may finalize contract terms with the selected firm.

Committee members and staff signaled they expect to use the city attorney’s office where appropriate and to limit outside counsel to matters that justify outside expertise or capacity. Pierce and staff noted the vendor’s cost proposal can be negotiated under the firm’s alternative-fee proposal, and they advised the board to consider which matter types would be assigned to outside counsel.

No formal contract was approved at the meeting; the committee action was a referral for the full board and a note that staff will pursue the purchasing-board approval required by local ordinance. The full board will receive the committee recommendation and the purchasing-board response before any contract is executed.