Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County sticks with Crowe for audit contract after corrected scoring but faces procurement questions
Summary
After a scoring error was corrected, the county’s evaluation panel reaffirmed a recommendation to award the independent-auditing contract to Crowe LLP; a partner from Eide Bailly asked the board to revisit the award, and supervisors pressed staff about RFP clarity and post-award negotiations.
A public comment from a partner with Eide Bailly and extended supervisory questioning marked the County of Orange’s consideration of a multi-year independent-auditing contract on April 28.
Kinali, a partner at Eide Bailly, told the board corrected evaluation materials show Eide Bailly as the highest-ranked firm and asked the board to review the procurement before taking final action. She said a corrected score, cost differences and Eide Bailly’s experience auditing large counties merited further review. "Given the corrective scoring, the cost differential, and the stated evaluation priorities, I respectfully request the board review the procurement results before taking final action," she said.
County procurement and auditor-office staff acknowledged an earlier calculation error in applying a high-low scoring rule but told supervisors the evaluation panel re-evaluated the proposals and recommended retaining Crowe. Staff said Crowe led or tied in most of the 15 evaluation criteria and had stronger customer-service metrics; they also explained challenges tied to the RFP language on single audits and the need to negotiate the scope of potential "single audits" that vary year to year.
Supervisors pressed staff on why the county did not require mandatory language or clearer RFP specifications about unlimited single audits and why additional services were added during negotiation. One supervisor said unclear RFP language can dissuade bidders and create unfair negotiation advantages if scope items are added post-RFP.
Supporters of the Crowe recommendation, including board members who said the scope negotiated with Crowe is more comprehensive than prior agreements, argued that anticipating some negotiated scope changes reduces the risk of later change orders and additional costs.
After discussion the board moved and approved the staff recommendation to award the contract to Crowe LLP. Staff told the board it has implemented a secondary review process to reduce scoring errors in future procurements.
The board’s action authorizes the County Procurement Officer to execute the contract and includes provisions for a cost contingency increase under specified conditions. Several supervisors requested tighter RFP drafting and closer oversight of negotiations on future solicitations.
