Caroline County staff propose raising small-purchase thresholds, seek clearer sole‑source and debarment rules

Deputy Administrator Daniel Fox presented a workshop on Jan. 6 proposing targeted updates to Caroline County’s purchasing code to reduce administrative burden on routine buys and correct outdated job titles and authority references.

Fox said departments and directors had identified recurring “pinch points” in purchasing processes and that parts of the code haven’t been updated since about 2014. Under the draft changes Fox described, incidental purchases would rise from $1,000 to $2,500; the current $1,000–$5,000 minor-purchase range would move to $2,500–$7,500; and the $40,000 bid threshold would remain unchanged.

The proposal would allow departments more flexibility for low-dollar transactions while keeping written-proposal requirements for larger purchases. "We're not saying you can't price it out," Fox said; the change simply would let departments use judgment for items under $2,500.

Commissioners pressed staff on several implementation points. One asked whether the code includes an in-county preference for vendors; Fox read the existing bid preference language, which allows up to a 5% preference for in-county bidders on contracts between $40,000 and $100,000 and 2.5% for contracts above $100,000. A commissioner asked staff to add language encouraging solicitation of local vendors where appropriate.

Members debated the practicality of requiring three written or verbal quotes for smaller purchases, with staff and commissioners agreeing documentation by email or written notes is often sufficient when vendors do not respond. Fox said finance will continue to monitor for invoice-stacking and other attempts to fragment purchases to avoid thresholds.

The board also discussed sole-source procurement and whether repeated lack of responses should justify sole‑source designation. One commissioner suggested adding a provision that if multiple solicitations within a defined period produce only one respondent, staff could treat the purchase as sole source; Fox said staff would draft proposed wording. On professional services (audits, engineering, legal), Fox said negotiated selection often makes competitive low‑price bidding impractical.

A commissioner called the debarment-language “a hot mess,” urging clearer rules on who may propose debarment, notice and appeal rights and removing references to hearings where none are intended; staff said formal debarments are rare in practice but agreed to refine the language.

Fox closed by saying the changes would require formal amendments to county code: staff will meet with the office of law to draft revisions and then follow the public hearing and legislative process required for code changes.

The board did not take a final vote on code changes at the meeting; staff will return with draft ordinance language after legal review.