Palatka audit selection committee approves RFP release, revised timeline and selection criteria

The Palatka audit selection committee approved release of the city’s request for proposals for the annual audit and adopted a revised timeline and selection rubric after a detailed discussion of personnel protections, schedule flow and reference checks. The committee voted unanimously to send the corrected RFP and the revised timeline to the city commission for final approval.

Why it matters: The RFP sets the schedule and evaluation rules that will govern which audit firm the city hires and how the audit will be performed. Committee members stressed the need to protect against proposers swapping out key staff or specialists after award, and to use peer reviews and targeted reference checks before making a final recommendation to the commission.

Committee members reviewed emailed comments from a committee member and walked through proposed edits across the RFP. On the content side they agreed to add a ‘‘comprehensive list of funds’’ (names only) to the RFP’s description-of-government section so proposers understand which enterprise and special funds the city expects to audit. On schedule, the committee agreed to clarify that the RFP covers a multi-year engagement and to make the timeline flow across fiscal years: fieldwork was revised to target February, with follow-up meetings and draft deliverables expected in mid-March and final drafts by the end of April.

The committee spent significant time refining the paragraph that controls changes to personnel listed in proposals. Staff and counsel explained the difference between a firm’s employees, ‘‘firm specialists’’ and outside consultants; the committee decided the RFP should require the city’s prior written approval for any proposed replacement of specialists, consultants or ‘‘key staff’’ named in a proposal so proposers cannot substitute lead personnel without consent. As the city attorney noted, some boilerplate sections (including scrutinized-companies and human-trafficking language) are statutorily required in Florida and were left unchanged.

Mr. Sheffield presented a scoring framework outlining technical qualifications, firm experience, and personnel experience by level (entry–expert). The committee confirmed that each member must score proposals independently under Florida’s Sunshine requirements; staff will tally individual scores at the evaluation meeting. The group agreed to limit reference checks and background inquiries to the top three scoring firms: peer reviews and licensing checks for named individuals will be used as supplemental information rather than a reweighting of previously submitted scores.

Key timetable decisions: proposals will be due April 10; committee members will pick up RFP packets and scoring rubrics the week after proposals close; the evaluation meeting was set for April 28. The committee scheduled a follow-up meeting on May 6 to receive reference-check results and narrow the top three to a single recommendation in time for the city commission’s May meeting (agenda cutoff May 8, commission meetings May 14 and May 28). The committee agreed there will be no oral interviews as part of the schedule included in the RFP.

Formal actions taken: the committee moved and approved a single motion to accept the RFP with the corrections discussed (dates, wording and the addition of the funds list). The committee then moved and approved the selection criteria with a minor wording change to section three. Staff will present both the final RFP and the approved criteria to the city commission for formal release and posting.

Ongoing oversight and membership obligations: staff read a 2014 resolution that created the audit committee; the resolution requires the committee to monitor the annual audit, review financial statements after audit completion and evaluate management’s corrective-action plans and the auditor’s performance. Staff said that obligation extends beyond the RFP selection step and asked members to notify staff if they are unable to serve through those duties; the city will fill vacancies through the commission if needed. The committee asked staff to circulate the original resolution for members’ records.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the agreed edits, align all dates in the draft, and forward the RFP and the approved criteria to the commission for final approval and posting. The committee will gather proposals, perform independent scoring, and reconvene on the calendar dates above to finalize a recommendation to the commission.