Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Audit Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County evaluation committee ranks audit firms; asks follow-up on Forvis hours
Summary
An evaluation committee scored six proposals for Hillsborough County's external auditing contract, ranking Cherry Beckert LLP first, Forvis Mazars LLP second and CliftonLarsonAllen LLP third, and directed procurement to confirm Forvis’s estimated 3,000 hours before the recommendation is finalized.
Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee reviewed six proposals for the county’s external auditing services and reached a consensus ranking Friday, recommending Cherry Beckert LLP as its top choice, followed by Forvis Mazars LLP and CliftonLarsonAllen LLP as the second and third-ranked firms.
The committee’s scoring and ranking followed review of six proposals submitted in response to RFP25-151 for external auditing services. Procurement staff reported the total scores, including cost, bonus points and an incumbent deduction, and the committee agreed to forward the top three firms to the Board of County Commissioners with a written caveat: procurement will verify Forvis Mazars’ estimate that the work can be completed in about 3,000 hours before the selection is finalized.
The verification question emerged after the committee reviewed detailed technical scoring and the firms’ proposed staffing hours. Ajay Gajar, finance director for the Clerk of the Circuit Court, presented reference checks and historical audit-hour figures and flagged differences among firms. He told the committee that "the hours that the RSM hours and the Sherry Beckert hours, I had that. It wasn't in their proposal," noting RSM’s recent audits used about 4,200 hours and Cherry Beckert previously used about 3,675 hours for Hillsborough-related work. Committee members raised concern that an estimate of roughly 3,000 hours — Forvis Mazars’ proposal — appeared lower than recent experience for the county’s audits.
Procurement staff supplied cost scoring and other adjustments. The committee recorded the combined totals reported by procurement: Carr, Riggs & Ingram LLC — 86.82; Forvis Mazars LLP — 97.35; CliftonLarsonAllen LLP — 95.00; RSM US LLP — 85.67; Crowe LLP — 84.85; Cherry Beckert LLP — 100.27. Procurement also reported that Forvis Mazars, RSM and Cherry Beckert had been awarded the county’s DMDWBE bonus points and that RSM received an incumbent-staff deduction.
Committee members discussed options for resolving the hours discrepancy: rescore now, hold oral presentations, or ask targeted written follow-up. Scott (staff member) advised the panel that they could rescore, but he also suggested the committee had other options. "You definitely can rescore if you want to," Scott said. Procurement staff offered a narrower approach: send a focused question to the firms asking them to confirm or explain their proposed hours and methodology, and report back to the committee. The committee agreed procurement should ask Forvis Mazars to confirm its 3,000-hour estimate and, if the firm cannot stand by that estimate, procurement will notify the committee and the committee may move to the next-ranked firm.
Diane Reichardt, presiding as the evaluation committee chair for this meeting, led rounds of discussion across the scoring criteria — approach and methodology; experience with similar local governments; experience with audits involving ERP and complex systems; and general qualifications — and requested consensus scores listed by procurement. Sakina Ford, chief buyer for the project, reminded attendees that the meeting was recorded and that the county’s cone of silence remains in effect during the procurement process. "The cone of silence is still in effect," Ford said at the meeting opening.
Next steps: procurement will follow up in writing to get clarification from Forvis Mazars about its staffing-hours estimate and methodology. The committee will include in its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners the top three ranked firms (Cherry Beckert LLP; Forvis Mazars LLP; CliftonLarsonAllen LLP) and the committee’s requirement that procurement confirm the hours and independence risk before the county executes a contract. If Forvis Mazars cannot confirm the hours or the clarification raises concerns about independence or execution risk, the committee directed procurement to proceed to the next-ranked firm.
The committee also noted procedural items for the record: six proposals were received in response to RFP25-151 (Carr, Riggs & Ingram LLC; Forvis Mazars LLP; CliftonLarsonAllen LLP; RSM US LLP; Crowe LLP; Cherry Beckert LLP), technical advisors are non-voting, and the group may request oral presentations if further clarification is required.
