Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny Georgia Strategy Group contract, call for open procurement
Summary
Rockdale County commissioners voted to deny a proposed $100,000-per-year contract with Georgia Strategy Group after public and commissioner concern over perceived conflicts and procurement transparency. Board directed staff to pursue a competitive process.
Rockdale County commissioners on Feb. 25 voted to deny a proposed professional-services contract with Georgia Strategy Group for marketing and community relations (Item 2025-92), and members directed staff to prepare a competitive procurement for the county's public-relations needs.
The proposed contract, presented as a March 1, 2025'through Feb. 28, 2026 agreement at $100,000 per year, prompted public comment and board debate. Several residents raised conflict-of-interest concerns because consultant George Diaz previously worked on campaigns for some commissioners. A commissioner acknowledged that Diaz had provided campaign services to members in the past and said that history should not automatically disqualify a vendor but that the county must model transparency.
One commissioner said the firm had negotiated a previously unpaid savings for the county and argued the firm could deliver value; another said the relationship with campaign work made approval difficult. After deliberation, the board denied the contract by voice vote. Commissioners who supported denial also moved and seconded a direction that staff issue a request for proposals or similar open solicitation so qualified firms, including Georgia Strategy Group, could compete.
At the meeting one commissioner said: "Georgia Strategy Group and George Diaz worked on my campaign. He was paid for a service that was rendered. I do not owe him any favors." Another commissioner noted the contract amount was just below the threshold that would have required a formal bid and urged the board to use an open process to avoid the perception of favoritism.
The board's action was couched in consistent references to transparency and procurement practice: commissioners expressed a desire for a fair, competitive process and for clear evaluation criteria. County staff said that rejecting the contract does not preclude the firm from competing in a public solicitation. The clerk recorded the motion to deny (with a second) and the board then directed staff to prepare procurement materials to solicit proposals for marketing/community relations services.
The denial was one of several agenda items at the Feb. 25 meeting that drew public comment and debate over budget priorities and procurement practices.
