Council postpones approval of $333,930 external audit contract after questions about bidder change and disclosures

The Riviera Beach City Council on Wednesday postponed approval of a proposed three‑year, $333,930 external auditing contract after public commenters raised questions about the winning bidder’s identity and disclosures, and council members asked staff to investigate further.

The audit contract before the council, listed as Resolution 41‑25, would have authorized the city to engage an external auditor through Request for Proposal (RFP) 1130‑24‑4 for an initial three‑year period with two one‑year renewal options and to authorize the director of finance to make payments from the appropriate account.

The item drew multiple public commenters who said the proposal evaluation and award raised compliance concerns. “Markham LLP is actually the company that submitted a response and as an entity no longer exists,” said Nakasha Wells, a West Palm Beach resident and public commenter, adding that “no such written authorization” to substitute a different named firm appeared in the backup materials. Wells also said the company awarded top points for having a Palm Beach County principal place of business when state records show a Miami or Fort Lauderdale address and that Markham previously had been the subject of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and a significant penalty that was not disclosed in the proposal.

Procurement staff told the council the RFP (1130‑24‑4) had been issued under Florida Statute 218.391 and that the solicitation closed in October 2024 and was evaluated in February 2025. “The RFP evaluation factors were experience and expertise, personnel, qualifications, approach, references, price, and a principal office location,” procurement staff said in their presentation. Staff said the evaluation committee scored Markham LLP highest and that, after evaluation, procurement was notified of a corporate name change and sought legal counsel before recommending award to the successor entity now operating as CBIZ CPAs PC (styled in the agenda backup as CBIZ). Procurement staff also said addenda clarified which pension plans were in scope and that vendors had acknowledged the clarification.

Council members and the public pressed staff on several points: whether principal‑office points had been verified, why an evaluation committee member recused herself, whether the committee had been notified of the Markham/CBIZ change before scoring, and whether the SEC matter and penalties had been investigated and considered by evaluators. Finance Director Sharma (first referenced in council discussion as “Mr. Sharma”) explained that the finance director’s office had not participated in the evaluation committee process, which is governed by the applicable state statute and conducted by the audit committee and procurement.

Council members and several public speakers urged staff to confirm the facts before awarding a contract that will produce a required audit the city must file with the state. “Now they know. And the vote hasn’t been taken. We haven’t awarded the contract, so there’s time to do it,” a council member said during the discussion.

After extended public comment and staff discussion, a council member moved to postpone the item to the council’s next regularly scheduled meeting to allow staff and legal to investigate the questions raised. The motion passed unanimously.

The postponement means staff will return with findings about the corporate name change/substitution, the principal office scoring, and any relevant regulatory or enforcement history associated with the recommended firm before the council decides whether to award the contract and execute the agreement.

Why it matters: the city must deliver an audited financial report to the state and needs a contracted auditor in place, but council members said they also must ensure the procurement process and the award meet legal, procedural, and disclosure standards. The council explicitly directed staff to investigate and report back before any contract is finalized.

What’s next: staff will review the evaluation record, procurement addenda, the corporate change documentation, and any regulator findings and return the item to the council at its next regularly scheduled meeting with recommendations and any proposed corrective steps.