Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee keeps ban on joint proposals, debates peer-review requirement
Summary
Keystone Heights committee debated whether to require external peer reviews and whether to allow subcontracting or joint proposals in the auditor RFP. Members retained the RFP's original restriction on joint proposals but agreed that any subcontracting or staff replacements should require city approval.
The auditor review committee spent substantial time May 1 debating two technical procurement questions: whether to make an external peer review a mandatory pass/fail requirement and whether to permit joint proposals or subcontracting in the audit engagement.
Staff described the industry practice and suggested flexibility, while one committee member argued that a mandatory peer-review requirement could exclude newly formed firms even when experienced staff would be assigned. "I think the peer review needs to be in that mandatory requirement because if they haven't had a peer review in the last 3 years, I'm not really sure I want you walking through those doors," said speaker 3 during discussion, voicing one perspective favoring stricter screening.
After extended discussion the committee struck mandatory peer review from the pass/fail screening criteria but discussed keeping peer-review history as a scored item. The committee ultimately retained the RFP language that disallows joint proposals and subcontracting outright; members clarified later that any replacement of staff or subcontracting would require city approval during the engagement.
