Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Live Oak city council votes to rebid audit contract after debate over Baker Tilly terms
Summary
The Live Oak city council voted to rebid an audit contract after members raised concerns about liability limits in the draft agreement and the auditor’s use of affiliates. The council also cited prolonged delays in scheduling the audit and ordered the procurement office to put the audit back out to bid.
The Live Oak city council voted to rebid an audit contract after several members questioned language in the draft agreement with Baker Tilly that would allow the firm to use affiliates and that limited liability for certain conduct.
A staff member reviewing the draft said Sections 20 and 21 make allowances for Baker Tilly to use affiliates for parts of the engagement and include post‑merger disclosures; the staff member also summarized Section 19 as a "no third‑party beneficiaries" clause that would prevent outside parties from suing under the contract. "Part of it is to the extent necessary if they need to use another Baker Tilly affiliate," the staff member said, adding he could clarify the language with the firm.
Several council members objected to the affiliate language and to other added provisions. "I just wanted us to get audited and not go change the world," one council member said, arguing the city needed a straightforward audit of finance procedures rather than expanded contractual terms. Another warned that repeatedly rebidding the contract could delay the audit further: the council has been trying to obtain this audit for nearly two years, the member said.
The chair pressed for action and at one point urged the council to vote, saying, "We lost almost a half $1,000,000," linking past financial problems to the urgency for an audit. A different council member urged caution, noting that a prior review by Purvis and Gray (referred to in the record as Fergus Gray) had identified issues that were later mitigated.
The staff member proposed two paths: have the city attorney seek the firm’s acceptance of requested contract changes or rebid the audit. The staff member said he could send the requested clarifications to Baker Tilly by Monday and recommended scheduling a special workshop if no response arrived in time.
After discussion, a motion to rebid the audit contract was put to a roll call. Recorded votes were: Aubrey, yes; Collins, yes; Campbell, yes; Brown Robinson, no. The chair announced the motion carried and directed procurement to place the audit back out for bid.
The council moved on to the next agenda item on surplus property. No implementation timeline for the rebid was specified in the discussion.
