County flags procurement discrepancy after used equipment delivered under a new‑equipment quote

Wilson County procurement staff told commissioners Sept. 22 that a piece of used equipment delivered by RDO was quoted as new on the vendor’s paperwork and that the county is holding payment while legal and procurement staff determine whether the purchase complied with the cooperative purchasing contract cited on the invoice.

The purchase originated from a county purchase order prepared under the assumption the equipment was new and that RDO was an approved vendor on a purchasing cooperative (H‑GAC/HCAbuy or similar). Staff later learned the vendor’s invoice referenced a cooperative contract number but the delivered unit was used; county counsel and procurement staff are reviewing whether the cooperative contract allowed a used item in this procurement channel.

The county has taken delivery of the machine (described in the meeting as a Sakai compactor or similar) but has not paid the vendor pending final determination. Procurement staff said they and the county attorney will meet with RDO after the meeting to correct terminology if it was a clerical error; if it is not correctable under cooperative rules, staff said they will return the item and reprocure according to purchasing rules.

Treasury staff said the invoice had been pulled from prior pending bills to avoid payment while the matter is resolved. Commissioners instructed staff to meet after court to resolve the paperwork and to confirm whether the Buy Board or cooperative terms were applicable.