Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board reviews draft forensic‑audit RFP language; CFO warns of heavy staff burden and recommends support to assemble documents
Summary
The board reviewed a draft forensic‑audit/internal‑controls RFP and instructed staff to remove vague wording, confirm evaluation criteria, and return with edits; the CFO warned the document retrieval workload is substantial and recommended hiring temporary support to prepare records for any vendor.
Board members and finance staff reviewed a draft request for proposals (RFP) Sept. 11 for forensic audit and internal‑control review work. Wendy Forsman, chief financial officer, walked through a multi‑page draft scope that included p‑card and accounts payable reviews, internal control sampling, and bank/cash procedures.
Key points and draft changes: board members asked for removal of vague “etcetera” language in several places; they confirmed proposed contract timing (staff suggested a May 2026 start and May 2027 completion window) but left final dates to the board. Vice Chair McGee and others said they preferred keeping a comprehensive scope on the RFP and narrowing it later if cost estimates were too high.
Workload and practical limits: Forsman warned that asking a vendor to review “all transactions” could be very time‑consuming and costly — she estimated p‑card transaction counts in the thousands and told the board the invoice image itself is not exportable from the division’s financial system (e‑trieve), which would require manual retrieval. She recommended the board consider a threshold or sampling approach and asked the board to consider hiring temporary help to assemble documents for any contractor so current staff are not overwhelmed. Forsman said the division has had nine retirements in the last five years and that current staff are working extended hours; she flagged the risk of overburdening staff during budget season and ongoing federal audits.
Evaluation and timeline: board members discussed the evaluation rubric and scoring weights and agreed to confirm the point scale and proposal requirements before issuing an RFP. Staff suggested a 20‑day minimum advertisement window to give potential respondents sufficient time to prepare competitive proposals.
What’s next: board members asked staff to return with small edits (remove “etc.”) and bring the item back for action at the next regular meeting; several members asked staff to add clarity to proposal requirements and to confirm the contract term date. Forsman said if the board proceeds, staff will return with options to fund temporary document‑preparation support before the contract begins.
Ending: the board confirmed edits and timelines for further review; no procurement contract was awarded at the meeting.
