The Mineola school district will revise its purchasing policies after a state audit found it lacked sufficient written procedures to ensure competitive bidding.
While the district does have a general policy governing purchases for goods and services, there aren’t specific requirements ensuring competition for purchases below the threshold for using competitive bidding requirements under state law, according to the report the office of State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli released Feb. 12.
In their response to the audit, district officials said they will develop such a procedure before the end of the fiscal year.
State general municipal law says the district must advertise for competitive bids when awarding purchasing contracts worth $20,000 or more and public works contracts worth $35,000 or more.
The law also requires municipalities to have a policy outlining procedures for getting bids on purchases below those amounts, the audit says.
The audit’s review of district purchases worth $5,000 to $19,999 from 23 vendors in the last fiscal year found the district didn’t get competitive quotes for purchases made from, worth a total of $106,952.
Six of the other 13 purchases were made under state or county contracts, which don’t need to be bid competitively. Six others solicited at least three quotes and one got two quotes.
The audit notes Mineola’s purchasing officials operate under a guideline that they should get at least three bids for all purchases below the legal threshold, but auditors recommended the district still establish written procedures for all such purchases and communicate them to anyone responsible for making purchases.
Without such a procedure, the audit says, the school board and district officials “do not have adequate assurance that the district is receiving the best price for the items it purchases.”
The report also recommended the district’s head purchasing agent should verify there was sufficient competition for purchases, or that applicable contracts are used, before approving them.
In their written response to the audit, Mineola school Superintendent Michael Nagler and school board President Christine Napolitano said the district would develop such a policy.
The response also said auditors “commended” the district for attempting to get quotes despite its policy’s silence on dollar thresholds.
“(W)e believe that the communication between the purchasing agent and those doing the actual purchasing is already in place, but we will make the effort to further stress additional diligence,” they wrote.
The 10 purchases auditors found problematic had explanations for why they didn’t get competitive quotes, Nagler and Napolitano said in the response, but they acknowledged the purchasing orders auditors initially reviewed lacked supporting documents detailing those explanations.
As an example, the audit cited one $16,698 purchase for musical equipment, including a $15,000 piano, that wasn’t competitive.
When auditors asked about it, district officials provided a letter from the vendor indicating it was a “sole source” purchase, meaning only one vendor could provide the desired equipment.
“Although the music department may choose to purchase a particular brand, there are many brands of piano and possibly other suppliers of that specific brand,” the audit says.
The district got three verbal quotes for the piano, Nagler and Napolitano wrote, but chose a local vendor to eliminate shipping costs and take advantage of a credit for an old piano no other vendor offered.
The response also noted the school board discussed this purchase in several public sessions.
“While we understand none of this was documented on the purchase order, the district certainly obtained the best price for the type of piano recommended to the board by the district’s director of fine and performing arts,” the response says.
Two of the other nine purchases auditors identified as problematic were also sole source purchases, the letter said.
Three were open purchase orders that had multiple charges against them, and three others referenced cooperative bids on the purchase orders, Nagler and Napolitano wrote, acknowledging that auditors didn’t initially have the supporting documents proving these explanations.
