Board approves $400,000 cap for independent elections review despite public objections over vendor’s past breach

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 to approve a contract recommendation to hire a private firm to conduct a comprehensive review of county election processes, including chain of custody, physical security, ballot drop boxes, hiring and training of temporary workers, and vote center setup.

County procurement and internal audit staff described a formal, state‑governed request-for-proposal process that produced five responsive proposals and an internal-audit evaluation panel recommendation in favor of a single vendor. Kevin Tine, director of the Office of Procurement Services, said the recommended award on the agenda was “an amount up to $400,000” and that the evaluators found Barry Dunn the most advantageous across the solicitation’s six criteria.

Susan Adams, director of the Internal Audit Department, told the board the evaluation committee consisted of senior internal-audit staff who independently scored responses based on qualifications, proposed approach, timeline and fee. Adams said the committee considered vendor independence, staff qualifications, and proposed deliverables and that the county’s IT and counsel reviewed vendor responses about a prior data breach.

Several members of the public objected to the choice. Jamie Martin and other speakers criticized the county’s selection of a firm that previously suffered a reported data breach and pointed to pending litigation and a class-action settlement tied to that breach. Public commenters asked whether the vendor would be auditing prior work it had performed for the county.

County staff responded that Barry Dunn previously performed narrow engagements in 2018 and 2021 that did not cover the full scope now proposed, that auditors commonly revisit past audits, and that the vendor provided written corrective actions which county technology staff reviewed. Assistant county manager Zach Scherer, speaking for Elections, said the elections office welcomed an independent review and viewed audits as a path to process improvements.

Supervisor Mark Stewart cast the sole no vote, saying he preferred a vendor with deeper national election‑specific expertise and expressing concern about perceived conflicts if a firm reviews past work. The motion to approve the recommendation carried by 4 to 1.

Tine and Adams described the review timeline and procurement steps: the county advertised the solicitation, extended the response deadline to encourage competition, and received seven submissions overall; two were nonresponsive, leaving five proposals for evaluation. The RFP required evaluators to weigh qualifications, proposed solution and fee rather than selecting by low bid. County officials said vendor identities became public when the solicitation closed, but proposal content remained confidential until contract award.

The board directed staff to proceed with contract finalization; county staff said the one‑year contract includes renewal options and that any extensions would require mutual agreement. Supervisors and staff said they would use the audit findings to identify operational improvements and, where appropriate, to recommend statutory or policy changes to the Arizona Legislature.