An independent investigation presented to an Oakland County Board committee found that a contract for IT staffing services was issued to a company owned by a current county employee and therefore violated county policy and state law. County staff told the committee the contract was suspended and later terminated before any county invoices were paid.

The committee heard that on the evening of July 3 the county received an anonymous email alleging a county contract had been awarded to a company owned by a current employee. County staff said the contract was suspended the first business day after the holiday, July 7, and then terminated after a rapid review. "The county was never invoiced. Nobody was paid under the contract at this point," a county staff member said during the meeting.

The county retained outside counsel and asked Miller Canfield to conduct a complete, independent investigation, officers said. The report concluded the company (identified in the report as Zeta Logic) was owned by a current county employee, which made the contract contrary to county policy. Because county policy tracks Michigan law, the report concluded the contract also violated applicable state statutes.

The investigative report found no evidence that county employees or contractors conspired to defraud the county or rig pricing. Instead, investigators described the conduct as an "ends over means" approach: staff focused on advancing a project and failed to follow procurement and contracting rules. "It really appears ... the folks involved here were focused on advancing the project itself without knowing and with failing to follow appropriate county policies and contract," a county staff member summarized.

County officials described the contracting process to the committee. County procurement issues a five-year prequalification for IT professional services; when a need arises, the county triggers a purchase order and contract with one of the prequalified vendors. Presenters said the employee-owner submitted for prequalification within the five-year window and later provided pricing that was competitively low; that combination led staff to operationalize a contract that should not have been placed because the owner was a current county employee.

Aaron Wagner, chief procurement director, described process changes already implemented: a new business disclosure form for every solicitation that requires vendors to disclose whether they or a business owner is a current or former county employee; training for IT staff and evaluation committee members on disclosure and conflicts; and removal from the prequalified list of firms that failed to return the new disclosure form. Wagner said the county has sent the new form to all prequalified IT vendors and received full compliance from those who returned it; about 19 firms did not respond and were removed from the prequalified list pending further follow-up.

Committee members asked whether county leaders would refer the matter to law enforcement. A county official said county counsel and the independent report were reviewed and, "taking into account the totality of the circumstances," the county did not plan a formal law-enforcement referral. The official added the county intends to pursue internal disciplinary actions consistent with employees' due-process rights, including pre-deprivation (Loudermill) hearings before any discipline is imposed.

Officials named several corrective actions already under way: suspension and termination of the contract, mandatory annual re-attestation to the county standards of conduct during open enrollment, the new disclosure form in procurement solicitations, centralized procurement oversight, targeted training for managers and evaluators, and planned disciplinary proceedings for individuals identified in the report.

Committee members thanked staff and the whistleblower, and pressed for clarity about how many employees would face internal review. County staff said the investigation identified two primary employees of concern and two to four individuals overall who would be reviewed for their roles in the process.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the investigation itself; staff presented findings and next steps and then took questions from commissioners. The county said the full investigative report was provided to committee members in advance.