Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deltona to release RFP for forensic audit after debate over cost and alternative presentations
Summary
City staff said it will publish a forensic and compliance audit request for proposals covering four fiscal years and 100% of transactions; staff estimated the review could cost far more than the $500,000 budgeted, and commissioners asked for presentations from an outside entity referenced as "Doge" before deciding whether to proceed.
City staff told the commission Aug. 25 they will release a request for proposals for a forensic and compliance audit and outlined a timeline and scope while commissioners debated cost, scope and possible alternatives.
Staff described the planned scope as an all-funds forensic compliance audit covering four fiscal years and a review of transactions and compliance with policies. The RFP timeline presented calls for a 45-day response window, proposals due Oct. 13, short-list interviews and presentations in November, and an award recommendation to the commission on Dec. 1.
"It's based on looking at all funds, all transactions for a 4 fiscal year time period," staff said when describing the draft scope. The scope calls for firms with at least five years' direct experience in forensic compliance audits and anticipates a regional firm rather than a small local CPA practice.
Staff reported sample proposal costs provided by other municipalities: a forensic engagement for the City of Belle Glade (noted as smaller than Deltona) came in at roughly $1 million and the City of Apopka at about $1.4 million. Based on those examples, staff said a full forensic audit for Deltona could approach or exceed $2 million, though the draft budget currently includes $500,000 for the work.
"Whenever we put a bid out, doesn't mean we have to accept it," the city manager said, noting bids will be evaluated against the city's needs and cost estimates. City Attorney John McKinney told commissioners the choice to pursue the RFP and any later contract award is a policy decision for the commission.
Commission debate centered on cost, prior audits and whether a different approach might deliver useful information at lower cost. Several commissioners requested a presentation from a private entity referenced in the meeting as "Doge" (commissioners described it as an organization that had contacted the city). Commissioners stressed that inviting a presentation did not obligate the city to select any alternative; the city attorney confirmed the invitation would be informational.
Some commissioners opposed spending large sums on a forensic audit, noting recent routine audits found no outstanding findings. Others said residents have repeatedly requested deeper reviews and that an independent forensic review could identify policy or procedural weaknesses not captured by standard audits.
Staff recommended the selection process include presentations by shortlisted firms and said the selection committee could include members of the commission. Commissioners were asked to provide availability for November interview/presentation dates. Staff also said they had shared the draft scope with the city’s regular auditors, Purvis Gray, and had incorporated that firm’s comments into the RFP language.
No contract was executed at the workshop; staff will release the RFP and return to the commission with proposals, shortlisted firms, and recommended interview dates. Commissioners directed staff to release the RFP but made no final award decision.
