SFE, the company that ranked highest in initial scoring for RFP 25-00033, told the Hendry County School Board on Wednesday that district staff and board members relied on information outside the solicitation when recommending negotiations with Sodexo.

The dispute concerns the district's procurement for food-service management. Monte Staggs, chief executive officer of SFE, told the board that SFE’s proposal and its oral presentation together produced the highest score and that SFE “by all account of the procurement procedures listed in the RFP and by state regulation, should have been awarded the contract.”

The meeting matters because the award would determine the district’s food-service vendor and because SFE grounded its protest in procurement rules tied to federal and state guidance governing school-food funds. SFE’s counsel argued the district had an obligation to follow the written evaluation criteria set in the RFP and should not have relied on information that was not part of the original scoring.

SFE’s outside counsel, Allison Perhort, cited federal procurement rules in the meeting materials and presentation. “Procurement of federal funds ... is done in accordance with 2 CFR 203 21,” Perhort said, and she pointed the board to written evaluation criteria in the RFP that, she said, required award to the most advantageous offer based on those criteria. Perhort also referenced district policy 6326 and USDA guidance the presentation said require full and open competition.

Board counsel Madison Tanner explained the process the board must follow for a bid protest hearing and the options that the board faces after hearing SFE’s presentation. Tanner told the board the informal meeting was “to give SFE an opportunity pursuant to our board policy to participate in this informal meeting with the board,” and that, if unresolved, the matter could be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for a formal hearing.

Superintendent Swindle presented the district’s position that the evaluation process properly included oral presentations and that the “totality of written scoring and oral presentations” led staff to recommend negotiating with Sodexo. Swindle also noted that, after the board approved continued negotiations, Sodexo and district staff agreed to a lower price.

After the presentations the board took a roll-call motion on whether the protest was "resolved" (meaning the board would change course and award to SFE) or "unresolved" (meaning the board did not accept SFE’s protest and the matter could be referred onward). The board voted the protest "unresolved" by a 3–1 vote; a member was absent. Those in favor of unresolved were recorded in the minutes as a 3–1 outcome; individual named votes recorded in the transcript include Miss Nelson voting "unresolved" and Mr. Samerdike voting "resolved." The board chair announced the result as "unresolved," and counsel said she would work with the superintendent on next steps if SFE elects to proceed to DOAH.

The board did not take any immediate action to change the recommended vendor during the meeting. Board counsel recommended, and the superintendent said he would consider, retaining outside counsel experienced in DOAH bid-protest procedures before any administrative hearing.

The hearing included direct references to RFP 25-00033, board policy 6326, federal procurement guidance cited as “2 CFR 203 21,” USDA procurement guidance for school-food authorities, and a Florida procurement statute cited during the presentation as Florida statute 838.22 regarding bid tampering.

If SFE files for a DOAH hearing, DOAH will issue a recommended order that the board would then consider in a quasi-judicial capacity before issuing a final order.