Pittsfield Audit Committee Begins Work
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The city received two bid responses for an independent audit, and a recommendation will be made later this month.
Last week, the Auditing Services Evaluation Committee, enacted through the Finance Committee, elected its leadership and laid out next steps in the procurement process for an independent city audit.
Ward 2 Councilor Cameron Cunningham was elected as the chair. Members of the committee also include Councilors at Large Pete White, Kathy Amuso, and Earl Persip III, as well as former councilors Karen Kalinowsky and Yuki Cohen, and residents Richard Backer and Paul Procopio.
This process was prompted by Rule 40 of the council rules and the City Charter.
In Rule 40, any year when the City Council votes to hold a competitive procurement process for an independent certified public accountant or firm to audit Pittsfield's books and accounts, the city must, through its Finance Committee with the assistance of the purchasing department, solicit requests for proposals or invitations for bids before June 1.
The council in March recommended that the purchasing agent draft a request for proposals and put it out to bid.
This subcommittee is responsible for reviewing municipal auditing proposals and procedures.
Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren explained that two auditors responded to the RFP with multi-page proposals explaining their backgrounds, qualifications, and references. He has called for an independent audit for some time and was the petitioner.
That information will be reviewed and scored by all members, and the panel will reconvene later this month, with hopes of submitting a recommendation to the council in August.
Purchasing Agent Colleen Hunter-Mullett outlined the process in an email to the committee, along with a scope of work and blank evaluation forms. Reference checks have been completed for both applicants.
The group has to decide if they want to conduct oral interviews or presentations, which would be televised and open to questions from committee members. The committee could also evaluate the proposals based on just the information received.
Warren said he wants to decide on interviews after the proposals are reviewed in case one is significantly better than the other. He said he would be leaning towards interviews if they are close.
"I just don't want to waste their time, and also, like I said, it would be counterproductive if one is head and shoulders above the other," he said.
Amuso agreed that it is best to decide on interviews at the next meeting when all of the data is reviewed.
At the end of the evaluation form, there is a composite rating section where committee members summarize the overall rating of each proposal using the words "highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous, or unacceptable."
Hunter-Mullett wrote that this is a very subjective process, and "You'll find in the end that everyone sees something different when reviewing proposals." Those two evaluations will be sent to her, and she will then open price proposals and communicate the prices received.
The RFP process does not require that the city award the contract to the lowest-priced proposal; the most qualified firm will be selected.
Warren argued that if they are neck and neck and one is substantially less than the other, he is going to consider cost.
"I just want to make it clear that it's just not taking the most qualified, regardless of the price," he said.
"If there's like a $200,000 difference, we need to consider that."
Tags: audit & evalu committee,
.png)
