PGCPS committee backs revision of purchasing policy after administration outlines timeline, spending and workload impacts

The Policy and Governance Committee of the Prince George’s County Board of Education on June 17 recommended revised purchasing policy 33‑23 to the policy sponsor after administration staff described how lower procurement thresholds would change which contracts must come to the board and the effect on procurement timelines.

The presentation from Chief Howe and Director Johnson gave the committee a year‑long look (FY2024) at the district’s procurements and explained how different contracting methods and proposed threshold changes would change the number and type of procurements requiring open competition and board approval.

Committee chair Dr. Felton Moss said the policy had been revised several times and asked the administration to explain the operational impacts. Director Johnson and Chief Howe walked members through methods (IFB, RFP, ICPAs, sole/single source, emergency contracts), procurement timelines and thresholds and how the board’s approval requirement would add time to the process.

Chief Howe said PGCPS processed more than 1,600 procurements in FY2024, with the majority (over 1,200) under $50,000 by transaction count, and about 48 competitive IFB/RFP transactions that went through formal bid processes. She and Director Johnson told the committee that while transaction volume is concentrated in small purchases, the dollar value is concentrated in intergovernmental cooperative purchasing agreements (ICPAs), which they reported at about $138,000,000 in FY2024. The IFB/RFP category accounted for a substantial second share of total spend.

Administration outlined specific threshold changes under discussion and their projected effects. Lowering the professional services threshold from $250,000 to $150,000 would have added about 19 procurements in FY2024 representing roughly $3,900,000, many in the Office of the General Counsel and Operations; staff said that change would likely increase the end‑to‑end procurement time for those contracts from roughly one month to about 6½ months. Lowering the instructional/staff development threshold from $500,000 to $250,000 would have affected procurements totaling about $6,000,000 in 2024 and similarly extend procurement cycle times.

Johnson described the district procurement process steps—planning, preparation (scope/specifications, independent cost estimate), solicitation, evaluation, award and issuance of purchase order—and noted solicitations can take months (an RFP often runs about seven months from planning to award) and that formal board approval adds about 2½ months to the process. Johnson and Howe warned that if thresholds requiring board approval are lowered without additional staffing or process gains, the purchasing office would see its volume of competitive bids roughly double and the committee would see substantially more contract items on consent.

Committee members expressed support for stronger fiscal oversight but raised concerns about timing and operational impacts. Board Member Walker suggested the committee study peer districts’ practices (Montgomery County was cited) and proposed stricter reporting and transparency as one way to mitigate delay. Vice Chair Briggs and other members asked for more detail on implementation, suggested quarterly reporting on large contracts, and emphasized planning to reduce late procurements and emergency purchases. Chief Howe and Director Johnson said they would share comparative district policies and that an initial transition period likely would produce a backlog as the district adjusted procedures.

After discussion the committee voted 4‑0 to recommend policy 33‑23 to the policy sponsor for revision approval. Committee materials and the presentation cited Education Article 5‑112 and State Finance Article 13‑109 and referenced COMAR and the district purchasing manual in explaining thresholds and exceptions.

The committee’s action is a procedural recommendation to advance the policy for sponsor revision and subsequent steps (public comment and final board consideration). The administration said it would provide requested comparisons with peer districts and additional data on calendar impacts and suggested implementation would require planning and possible staffing or process improvements to avoid service disruptions.