Hillsborough County auditor-selection committee reviews conflicts, scoring and schedule for RFP 25-00151

Members of the Auditor Selection Committee for Hillsborough County’s Request for Proposals 25-00151 on external auditing services met in an introductory session to review conflict-of-interest rules, Sunshine Law restrictions, evaluation criteria and a tentative meeting schedule.

Sakina, the county’s chief buyer on the project, opened the meeting by identifying the purpose as an orientation for committee members and technical advisers and by confirming that the session was being recorded. "We're here to have an introductory meeting for the committee members, that are involved in the solicitation for request for proposal Dash25Dash00151," she said.

The meeting focused on three practical safeguards for the procurement: conflict-of-interest disclosures, communication limits under the Sunshine Law, and how the committee will score proposals. Scott Stromer, director of procurement for the Board, read the list of firms that submitted proposals and asked committee members to report any conflicts. "We just want to make sure that we've cleared everybody," Stromer said, and asked whether anyone had worked for or applied to the listed firms, which included Carr, Riggs & Ingram LLC; FORVIS; Mazars; CliftonLarsonAllen LLP; RSM US LLP; Crowe LLP; and Cherry Bekaert LLP.

Committee members confirmed a range of roles and potential contacts: one advisor disclosed a family relationship to a firm, and Ajay Gajar, identified in the meeting as a finance director, noted that RSM is the incumbent auditor and "this will be their sixth audit." Stromer said an incumbent firm may respond to the RFP but that the procurement process applies negative points for incumbency per the evaluation rules.

Stromer explained the Sunshine Law constraint for committee members: only the designated committee members may discuss proposals as a group in a publicly noticed meeting; technical advisers may be consulted individually or in a public setting but "you should never meet as a group," he said. Sakina and procurement staff will serve as the central point of contact for requests for information and for providing materials.

Sakina reviewed the evaluation criteria that will guide scoring: approach and methodology; organizational experience with similar local governments; experience auditing comparable ERP and accounting systems; organizational qualifications and relevant experience; and total cost (which procurement will score in the system). She also said economic-development-reviewed points (DM/DWBE bonus points) and deductions for incumbent staff will be handled during the committee process. "Your packet does have a list of all the respondents right on top," Sakina said, noting that packets include a sample scoring sheet, the bid documents and Q&A.

The committee discussed confidentiality and public-records timing. Stromer said the proposals are sealed for 30 days after receipt and are "technically still not public record till April 20 roughly," adding that the 30-day period is intended to avoid undue influence during evaluation. Sakina confirmed that procurement checked vendor markings and that vendors had indicated their documents were shareable.

On logistics, Sakina said procurement had scheduled three in-person committee meetings to accommodate deliberations and potential oral presentations: April 7 at 1 p.m., April 10 at 8 a.m. and a tentative April 14 meeting (the April 14 meeting was flagged for rescheduling due to a conflict). Technical advisers do not have to attend in person, but committee members must. The group agreed that advisers would conduct reference checks on proposers and bring findings to the committee for the first deliberation meeting.

The group also discussed the statutory requirement raised during the meeting that one member of the auditor-selection committee must be a member of the governing body and that such a member traditionally serves as chair. The committee deferred a final decision on the chairmanship pending confirmation with the clerk's office and the county commission appointment process.

The meeting closed with attendees asked to sign disclosure forms and receive evaluation packets; procurement staff said they would distribute electronic access (SharePoint or secure file link) to the materials and would funnel questions through the procurement lead.

Ending: The committee’s next steps are procedural: committee members will complete disclosure forms, advisers will check references and the group will reconvene at scheduled dates to begin scoring proposals. The selection process remains governed by the RFP and applicable Florida statutes and public-record rules discussed at the meeting.