Procurement controversies -- Beaumont, Texas

TEA: Beaumont ISD contracts did not meet state guidelines

The action came as a result of an audit conducted by the TEA which was investigating a number of contracts that were awarded within the last three years.

The TEA audit raises questions about whether the district violated Texas Education Code when entering into a contract with Walker's Electric Company.

The agency also questions whether Walker's Electric's master electrician had a valid license while performing work BISD.

Auditors also took issue with BISD declaring "emergency procurement status" to approve several contracts without going out for bids following Hurricane Ike.

One of those contracts was awarded to Healthy Resources Enterprises, Inc for more than $19 million. The contract was the second phase of a two-phase repair project to Smith Middle School. While the TEA says the first phase, worth $434,000, was properly awarded under emergency status, they say the second phase of the project, worth $18.8 million, is beyond the amount allowed "under a job order contract process."

BISD used emergency procurement status to explain bypassing TEC procurement requirements before awarding a contract to SeTex Construction Corporation for repairs to Martin Luther King Middle School following Hurricane Ike.

The district entered into a contract totaling $1,520,000 in December 2008 for cleanup, repairs, and damage mitigation, then entered into an additional contract with SeTex for additional repairs in February 2009 for nearly $5.4 million.

The Auditors agree that the first phase of the contract would be allowable under emergency procurement status.

Yet, auditors stated that the time between September 2008, when Hurricane Ike hit southeast Texas, and February 2009 would have been enough time for BISD to seek competitive bids for the second phase under TEC procurement requirements.

There are several issues raised in the story for you to read about, but it was this last transgression that really got my attention. The discrimination shown in separating the immediate emergency from the follow-on work arising from an emergency is something I have written about before, in this post: Since when is failure to manage and budget an emergency? There I wrote:

Since emergency procurements preempt the preferred competitive bidding and other forms of bidding, only the minimum amount of goods and services as will alleviate the "imminent" condition should be acquired by emergency, while the goods and services that cannot or need not be applied to the imminent condition should be acquired by other methods.

I was pleased to see this position reflected in the actions taken by the Texas Education Agency.