external audit services - broward county...administrator, their respective support staff, and any...

SUMMARY MEETING MINUTES COMBINATION INITIAL and FINAL EVALUATION MEETING

R2112554P2

External Audit Services

Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:30 AM

Governmental Center Building, 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room GC430,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

The Combination Initial and Final Evaluation Committee Meeting was called to order for RFP No. R2112554P2, External Audit Services at 9:37 am by Carolyn Messersmith, the Non-Voting Committee Chair.

The Purchasing Division representative, Mark Roberts, introduced County staff.

In attendance were:

• Jed Shank - Project Manager • Bryan Thabit - County Auditor’s Office • Mitch Cohen - Purchasing Division • Connie Mangan - Purchasing Division • Melissa Cuevas - Purchasing Division • Glenn Miller - County Attorney’s Office • Israel Fajardo - County Attorney’s Office • Lisette Forrest - Office of Economic and Small Business Development • Lori Fortenberry - Finance and Administrative Services Department

The Purchasing Division representative stated the RFP R2112554P2 for External Audit Services, was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 14, 2017, Agenda Item 87. At the time of the RFP advertising deadline, 5:00 PM on April 24, 2017, there were four (4) submittals. The Chair stated that a Quorum Present with the following named Committee members:

• George Tablack, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Administrative Services Department • Kathie-Ann Ulett, Interim County Auditor, Office of the County Auditor • Helena James-Rendleman, Director, Finance Division, Broward County Aviation

Department • Linda Levinson, Finance Director, Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office (External

Member) • Michael Novar, Auditor, Broward Sheriff’s Office (External Member)

The Chair stated the responsibility of the Evaluation Committee.

The Chair stated the Purpose of the Meeting.

The chair stated that all firms that are determined to be both responsive and responsible will move on to final evaluation, presentations, and will be scored. The Chair stated that a sign-in sheet is being circulated and to be sure that everyone signs in.

The chair stated the Cone of Silence for this project has been in effect since March 31, 2017 which prohibits potential vendors from discussing this RFP with the Evaluation Committee, the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, Assistant County Administrator, Assistants to the County Administrator, their respective support staff, and any other person authorized to evaluate or recommend Evaluation in this RFP process. The chair continued to state, upon the first meeting of the Audit Committee, which was held on March 31, 2017, that the Cone of Silence expanded to also include County Commissioners and their staff. Potential vendors and their representatives are substantially restricted from communicating with County Commissioners and their staff regarding this RFP as stated in the Cone of Silence Ordinance; and all inquiries should be directed to the Project Manager or the Director of Purchasing.

The Chair stated that in accordance with Broward County Procurement Code all Committee Members shall be free of conflicts of interest. A message was read by the chair as submitted in an abundance of caution, by Evaluation Committee member, Kathie-Ann Ulett:

“While I do not believe I have a conflict of interest, in an abundance of caution, please be advised that prior to my employment with Broward County over thirteen years ago, I have worked with members of responding firms in various capacities. Since that time, I have held no continuing relationships with any of the members. Please advise of any further actions I should take relative to this disclosure”.

The Chair then called on the Purchasing Division to report on their findings about responsiveness and responsibility. The Purchasing representative stated the four (4) responsiveness requirements of the RFP were Domestic Partnership, receipt of a Lobbyist Registration Certification Form, acknowledgement of “Must” Addenda, and Pricing. The RFP did not contain any “Must” addenda. The Purchasing representative stated that all four firms are being recommended to be evaluated as responsive to receipt of the Domestic Partnership Certification Form, receipt of the Lobbyist Registration Certification Form, and Pricing requirements of the RFP. The Purchasing representative stated, in the area of responsibility, the RFP Contained a County Business Enterprise (CBE) participation goal requirement of 25% and all four firms provided the required documentation and met the responsibility requirements of the RFP regarding (CBE) participation goals.

The Purchasing representative stated, there are six (6) other areas of responsibility in the RFP concerning financial documentation, litigation history, evidence with their response that the firm is authorized to transact business in Florida and is in good standing with the Florida Department of State, affiliated entities of the principal(s), proof of insurance, and evidence of Florida CPA license of partner in charge of this engagement. The Purchasing representative stated, all firms provided the required financial information as stated in the RFP and the firms who claimed confidentiality did provide the applicable statutory exemption to the public records law.

The Purchasing representative stated that all firms are being recommended to be evaluated as responsible to the remainder of the RFP requirements. The Purchasing representative stated two of the four firms took exception to the County’s standard terms and conditions: Cherry Bekaert LLP and RSM US LLP.

The Purchasing representative stated that the RFP contained Evaluation Criteria questions that are weighted and used in the evaluation and scoring of each firm by the Evaluation Committee. At the time of RFP opening, of the four (4) proposers, one firm, BCA Watson Rice LLP did not provide a response to any of the Evaluation Criteria questions, except pricing. BCA Watson Rice LLP responded to the draft Purchasing Director Recommendation Memorandum and provided an evaluation proposal which was forwarded to the Evaluation Committee.

The Chair gave the definition of responsiveness and asked for a motion. Motion was made by Kathie-Ann Ulett and seconded by Helena James-Rendleman to find all four firms responsive to the solicitation. The chair stated the motion passed. The Chair gave the definition of responsibility and asked for a motion. Motion was made by Helena James-Rendleman and seconded by Kathie-Ann Ulett to find both firms responsible. The chair stated the motion passed. The Chair asked for a motion to accept the firms that have been determined to be both responsive and responsible and will proceed to final evaluation. Motion was made by Kathie-Ann Ulett and seconded by Helena James-Rendleman to have all firms proceed to final evaluation. The chair stated the motion passed. The Purchasing representative reported exceptions to the County’s standard terms and conditions of the responsive and responsible proposers, Cherry Bekaert LLP and RSM US LLP, and stated that representatives from the County Attorney’s Office and County staff are here to discuss these exceptions and answer any questions. Glenn Miller from the County’s Attorney’s Office (CAO) called Cherry Bekaert LLP to the podium to discuss their exception to Article 5 Indemnification. John Gilberto, partner from Cherry Bekaert LLP stated he can bind the firm. After a brief discussion the exception to Article 5 Indemnification was waived by the firm with a provision to add clarifying language under reasonable cost. Glenn Miller from the CAO called RSM US LLP to the podium to discuss their exceptions. Section VI. Schedule C.; Article 5 Indemnification; Article 6, Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.7 - Insurance; Article 8, Section 8.5 - Equal Employment Opportunity & CBE Compliance; and Article 9, Sections 9.1, 9.2(d), and 9.3 - Miscellaneous. Bob Feldman, from RSM stated he can bind the firm. Only discussed non-negotiable Articles and Sections: Section VI. Schedule C was modified as discussed. Section 6.7 Insurance - RSM will accept a redacted version of the policy. Section 8.5 Equal Employment Opportunity & CBE Compliance - access to documents, as discussed RSM is fine with this. Section 9.2(d) Public Records Law agreed to as discussed. Section 9.3 Miscellaneous was also waived as discussed. Glenn Miller stated there are no exceptions taken by either company and that the exceptions that were not discussed will be taken to the table at time of negotiations if that firm becomes the number one ranked firm. The Chair stated that firms will have 15 minutes for their presentations followed by questions. The Purchasing Representative randomly drew names of the firms from a hat to determine the order of presentations and stated that Cherry Bekaert LLP was first, RSM US LLP second, S. Davis and Associates, P. A. was third and BCA Watson Rice LLP was fourth. All firms provided presentations in the allotted time with a question and answer period after each. The EC members asked questions of each presenter. The audio recording is available.

The Purchasing representative gave instruction to the Committee for scoring. The Committee completed scoring of the firms. A recess was taken at 12:50 pm to allow for tabulation of the scoring sheets. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 1:00 pm. The Purchasing representative announced scores. Points for pricing for each firm was announced, then each Committee member’s scores were read and then the total scores were read stating BCA Watson Rice LLP total score 376, Cherry Bekaert LLP total score 437.50, RSM US LLP total score 476.85 and S. Davis & Associates, P.A. total score 420.05. Then the rankings were read stating RSM US LLP was the number one ranked firm, Cherry Bekaert LLP was the second ranked firm, S. Davis & Associates, P.A. was the third ranked firm and BCA Watson Rice LLP was the fourth ranked firm. The Chair asked if a motion would be made to accept the Evaluation Committee’ scores. Motion was made by Kathie-Ann Ulett and seconded by Helena James-Rendleman. The chair stated the motion passed. The Chair stated the recommendation will be posted for three days as a “proposed recommendation of ranking” and following this three-day period, if no objections to the proposed ranking have been received in writing by the Director of Purchasing, a final recommendation of ranking will be posted and presented to the Board for approval; and information and documents reviewed by Evaluation Committee members as part of the evaluation process are posted for general review on the Purchasing Division website. The Chair stated the estimated time the final agreement will come to the Board for approval and execution is within 45 days from the final approval of the rankings. The Chair asked if there was any other business, seeing none, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 1:06 pm.