Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $285,000 financial assessment contract after trustees question procurement process
Summary
Trustees approved a $285,000 professional financial assessment contract with Alvarez and Marcel Public Sector Services LLC but several members raised concerns about the lack of an RFP, vendor selection process and timeline; the superintendent said internal vetting determined the firm met the district’s needs and timing was a factor.
The Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Public Education approved a $285,000 professional financial assessment consulting contract to Alvarez and Marcel Public Sector Services LLC on June 4 after an extended public discussion about procurement procedures and vendor selection.
Board member Dr. Austin Sprout pulled the item from the consent agenda to ask why the district did not solicit competing proposals for what he called a substantial contract. Sprout asked whether the district had given potential firms an opportunity to bid and why principals listed in the vendor materials were described as “may work on the project.” He said he would support the work but planned to vote no on the contract because of the procurement process.
Superintendent Denise Watts and staff described the contract as a professional services engagement procured under the district’s procurement policy, which allows selecting specialized professional vendors without a full competitive RFP when the service meets defined criteria. Staff said they conducted internal vetting, reviewed other providers and determined this firm matched the district’s required scope. The superintendent also said timing was a factor: “If we go through an RFP process, we likely wouldn't be launching this for several more months,” and the board heard that the district wanted the assessment completed in time to inform next year’s budget cycle.
Trustee David Bremen and others urged greater transparency in future contract documents, including clearer procurement rationales and standardized templates that explain which procurement policy subsection was used. Several trustees asked staff to develop standard language to accompany future contract recommendations so the board and public can more readily see why a noncompetitive professional selection was justified.
The board approved the contract recommendation; multiple trustees recorded support but at least one member announced a planned no vote on procedural grounds.
