Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Auditor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews auditor RFP; members question 22% fee gap, vote not recorded
Summary
The Winslow Township Board of Education discussed a recommendation to award auditing services through an RFP and fielded questions about a roughly 22% fee differential.
The Winslow Township Board of Education discussed a recommendation to award auditing services through a request for proposals during its May 28 meeting. Board members questioned why the recommended firm’s proposed fees were substantially higher than other respondents.
Board member Mister Clark asked about the price difference, saying, “it seems to be that there's a substantial 22% differential between that ... and we're going a higher end, not the lower bid. Correct.” The Business Administrator/Board Secretary responded that the district used an RFP evaluation process rather than selecting the lowest bid, and that prior working relationships and additional services were factors in the recommendation.
Why it matters: the auditor selected by the district conducts financial reviews that inform board decisions and fulfill oversight responsibilities. Differences in proposed fees can affect the district budget and the scope of audit work.
During discussion the Business Administrator/Board Secretary described the procurement approach: “If it's ... competitive contracting, RFP, we evaluate.” She contrasted that process with a sealed bid requirement for purchases and noted the district values prior vendor performance and additional services when evaluating RFP responses. The administrator also said the district had an existing working relationship with a vendor referenced in the discussion, which informed the recommendation.
No formal vote or roll-call on the auditor RFP is recorded in the available transcript. A motion to approve the auditor RFP was introduced but the transcript does not include the result of that motion.
Board members pressed staff for clarity on the fee gap and evaluation criteria; staff said the RFP scoring, not price alone, drove the recommendation. The record shows questions and staff explanation but does not show the outcome of the motion or a recorded tally.
The item remained at the stage of a motion introduced in open session with follow-up questions from board members about evaluation and price.
