Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Purchasing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Policy committee reviews edits that would remove preference language from district purchasing rules
Summary
The Special School District, St. Louis County policy committee reviewed proposed edits to DJF/DJFR that remove language giving purchasing preference to minority, women, veteran and disability‑owned firms, citing legal guidance and MSBA alignment; no vote was taken and staff proposed non‑status alternatives such as apprenticeship criteria.
The Special School District, St. Louis County policy committee discussed proposed revisions to the district purchasing policy (DJF and DJFR) that would remove language giving selection preference based on minority, women, veteran or disability‑owned business status.
Staff said the deletions were recommended after legal review and to align the district’s language with MSBA updates and recent executive‑order guidance. Kevin, a staff presenter, said the changes affect purchasing, bids and requisitions — not classroom instruction or student placement — and are intended to reflect evolving federal and state guidance.
Committee members expressed concern about the practical impact of removing preference language. One committee member said the edits “gutted everything we were talking about before,” adding that the change would eliminate a tool they had used to support hiring people with disabilities. That member also cautioned that the district’s operations historically defaulted to the lowest bid, and noted the district had previously chosen a lower‑priced vendor despite past efforts to favor certain employers.
Staff described a recent example in which Challenge Unlimited, a firm known for hiring people with disabilities, bid approximately $1 million more than competing bidders on a custodial contract; because of the price difference the district selected the lower bid. Staff said that fiscal stewardship and significant cost differentials had driven prior selections when status‑based preference language was not decisive.
Rather than restore status‑based preference, board members and staff discussed alternatives: including contractor apprenticeship or pre‑apprenticeship requirements, RFP evaluation criteria that reward hiring or training commitments, and maintaining an approved‑vendor list vetted by purchasing staff and periodic Secretary of State checks. Kevin said those elements could be included in vendor bid packages so the district could pursue equity objectives without using statutory status as a tiebreaker.
No formal motion or vote was recorded on the purchasing policy during the meeting. Staff said the REGG/REG language that would instruct the superintendent to set up an authorized‑provider process is carried through other packet documents and results from BCLP legal review; further legal consultation was noted as possible before any final action.
The discussion closed with staff and members agreeing to continue review and to bring any recommended procedural language or RFP criteria back to the committee for further consideration.
