Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Audit Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves CliftonLarsonAllen forensic audit contract at $250,000 after discussion of bid ranges

Culpeper County Board of Supervisors · July 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After discussing a wide spread in proposals, the Culpeper County Board voted to accept a best‑and‑final offer from CliftonLarsonAllen for a two‑year forensic audit at $250,000; one supervisor raised procurement transparency concerns during debate.

County staff presented the results of an RFP for forensic audit services and recommended CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) after evaluation under the RFP criteria. Staff said five bids were received and that the initial CLA proposal had been higher in prior offers but, following negotiations directed by the board, CLA submitted a best‑and‑final offer for $250,000 covering a two‑year engagement.

Supervisor Bates pressed staff on the procurement process and the apparent variation in proposals, noting that CLA’s original price shown in evaluation materials was $637,000 while some other firms initially bid in the $130,000–$140,000 range. "It stands to reason that if everybody's looking at the same request for proposal... why there would be such a difference in the range of cost," Bates said, and asked whether the procurement should be rebid. Staff and procurement consultants responded that CLA scored highest under the RFP criteria and that the board had previously authorized staff to negotiate up to $300,000 for a two‑year scope; the presented $250,000 figure was staff’s negotiated, best‑and‑final offer.

A motion to accept CLA’s proposal was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The chair stated the recorded result as a 6–1 vote. The board directed staff to proceed with the contract per the negotiated amount; no amendments to scope were described in the public presentation.

Board members who questioned the process asked for clearer documentation of evaluation criteria and scope comparisons among bidders. Staff said the written evaluation used the RFP criteria and that documentation of that evaluation had been provided to the board prior to the meeting.