Board pauses cafeteria flooring procurement after auditor raises comparability concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board discussed three vendor quotes for LVP cafeteria flooring and an auditor-identified risk that the quotes are not comparable for procurement rules; staff will provide revised specs and samples and no procurement action was taken at the meeting.
Board members spent an extended discussion on quotes for LVP (luxury vinyl plank) flooring for Sulphur Springs Elementary's cafeteria, reading three vendor responses and product descriptions and debating whether the quotes were materially comparable under audit rules.
An unidentified reviewer cautioned, "If you choose that high one, I'll have to have justification when our auditors review this," and later warned auditors typically require equivalent product quotes and could question a procurement if vendors' responses are not comparable. That speaker urged the board to either require a single, specified design for all vendors or obtain comparable quotes for the design the district prefers.
Staff described three quotes and differing product presentations (one vendor returned a 'cumulus' pattern the school did not prefer, another returned a closer 'interface' product and a third offered an alternative). The discussion referenced prices that the transcript records approximately as differing by several thousand dollars (examples given orally in the meeting include figures near $18,595 and $24,856, and staff said the larger figure reflects colors and design matching the interior design plan). Staff said the product is a 5-millimeter vinyl plank similar to flooring used in recent projects and that they can reissue the solicitation with specific color and pattern specifications if the board prefers.
Board members and staff discussed options: rebid with a neutral/base-color specification to increase vendor comparability; prepare a detailed spec sheet showing the precise design requested and ask vendors to quote that exact product; or move forward if comparable quotes for the chosen design are available. Staff agreed to supply samples and clarified that rebidding or revised specs would address auditor concerns. No formal procurement award or final vote on the flooring was recorded at the meeting.
The discussion underlined a routine procurement control issue: specification clarity affects audit defensibility when quotes differ significantly or when vendors provide non-equivalent products.