By Florida Daily Investigations
A routine procurement for construction-management oversight at Broward County Public Schools has instead become a flashpoint, with internal documents and public records requests raising serious questions about how Request for Qualifications (RFQ) RFQ-26-059 was drafted, issued, and evaluated.
The solicitation — titled Construction Management Agent – Owner’s Representative (CMA-OR) — appeared publicly in August 2025 and called for the district to select two firms to serve as owner’s representatives. But critics say the RFQ’s language, timing, and evaluation procedures effectively narrowed competition, produced inaccurate statements about School Board approval, and culminated in a Qualifications Selection and Evaluation Committee (QSEC) meeting on October 15, 2025, that left more questions than answers.
Restricted Design, Thin Response.
Public listings show the RFQ language describing the School Board as having “determined that engaging the assistance of a team … organized in two (2) Construction Management Agent – Owner’s Representative (CMA-OR) agents is the most flexible, cost-effective means…”
Critics say that statement is factually incorrect. The School Board never made such a determination. In fact, several Board members requested an opportunity to review and comment on any draft RFQ prior to its release and suggested holding a workshop to evaluate the district’s future needs for program management services.
Despite those requests, the RFQ was issued without Board review or approval. Only three firms submitted responses, and, according to internal documentation, none fully met the RFQ’s restrictive requirements.
Procurement logs show that while more than 100 plan holders registered for the solicitation, many industry observers argue that the RFQ’s unusually narrow financial and experience criteria discouraged meaningful competition for this $ 22 million contract.
Background Concerns and an Aborted Piggyback Attempt.
Before the RFQ was issued, Chief Facilities and Chief Operating Officer Wanda Paul and her team attempted to bring in one form, Jacobs’ Engineering’s, through a “piggyback” agreement based on Jacobs’ Engineering’s existing contract with Duval County Public Schools — a move that would have bypassed competitive bidding.
The School Board rejected that proposal, citing Jacobs past performance issues, including a facilities condition assessment that substantially underestimated project costs tied to the 2014 bond referendum.
Following that rejection, the district proceeded with RFQ-26-059 — which some now claim was written to replicate the earlier effort’s outcome, favoring firms aligned with Jacobs or similarly positioned.
Questionable Decisions by District Staff
Beyond the technical flaws, the procurement process itself has come under scrutiny for questionable decisions made by senior staff, including Superintendent Howard Hepburn, Chief Facilities and Chief Operating Officer Wanda Paul, and the Assistant General Counsel Tom Cooney.
District sources report that the Superintendent’s office and facilities leadership authorized the release of the RFQ without Board approval, even though the document’s opening statement falsely asserted that “the School Board of Broward County, Florida (SBBC) has determined” that engaging two CMA-OR firms was the preferred and most cost-effective model.
To test that claim, a public records (FOIA) request was filed on September 29, 2025, seeking any evidence that the Board had, in fact, voted to approve or authorize the engagement of two Construction Management–Owner’s Representative firms as described in the RFQ.
As of November 7, 2025, the District has not produced any such records. Instead, it has requested multiple extensions — further fueling suspicion that no supporting documentation exists because the Board never voted, reviewed, or approved the RFQ.
This revelation directly undermines the factual foundation of the RFQ and raises legal questions about how a multimillion-dollar procurement could be issued under the false premise of Board authorization.
Compounding matters, during the October 15th QSEC meeting, the Assistant General Counsel allegedly provided mid-meeting guidance that altered evaluation procedures — a move that observers say compromised transparency and fairness.
The Handy Building Connection
The RFQ controversy echoes a broader pattern of questionable decision-making within the district, particularly regarding the Handy Building, a long-debated property in downtown Fort Lauderdale.
Multiple sources allege that the same leadership team — including Ms. Paul and district legal counsel — made unilateral decisions concerning the Handy Building’s lease arrangements and operational control without timely notification to the School Board.
These actions, combined with the opaque handling of RFQ-26-059, have fueled concerns that administrative staff are routinely bypassing Board oversight on high-stakes financial and facilities matters.
QSEC Meeting, Legal Counsel, and Transparency Concerns
The Qualifications Selection and Evaluation Committee (QSEC) meeting on October 15, 2025, was intended to score and rank firms based on the RFQ’s published criteria. Instead, participants reported procedural irregularities, incomplete scoring documentation, and legal input that appeared to shift the evaluation framework mid-process.
Assistant General Counsel Tom Cooney who led the QSEC meeting, handed pre-prepared motions for QSEC Committee members action including a motion to waive the RFQ’s Financial Responsibility requirements because none of the three firms met the requirements. Cooney referred to the failure to meet the District’s Financial Responsibilities as a “minor irregularity.” He furthermore stated that all three firms met the remaining responsiveness and responsibility criteria and moved that all three firms be awarded contracts. One firm, EXP, not only failed to meet the financial responsibility requirements, but after review of their proposal, failed to meet any of the minimum requirements for length and relevancy of experience. Evidently Mr. Cooney was given great latitude to make decisions for the QSEC.
Critics argue that this interference — combined with the absence of clear Board authorization for the RFQ itself — renders the entire process invalid and potentially exposes the District to legal and financial liability.
What the Documents Show — and What Remains Unclear
The growing body of public records, meeting minutes, and FOIA correspondence reveal a troubling picture:
• No Board Vote: No record exists showing the School Board voted to approve the use of two CMA-OR firms as described in RFQ-26-059.
• Unauthorized Issuance: The RFQ was released without prior Board review or workshop discussion, contradicting requests from Board members.
• Restrictive Structure: The RFQ’s design limited competition and may have been structured to favor specific outcomes.
• Legal Interference: The Assistant General Counsel’s actions during QSEC deliberations altered the evaluation process.
• Pattern of Secrecy: Similar issues have surfaced around the Handy Building’s management, indicating a broader breakdown in governance and transparency.
Calls for Answers
Several School Board members and community advocates are now calling for an independent audit and a public investigation into both RFQ-26-059 and administrative actions surrounding the Handy Building.
Stakeholders have requested immediate release of all internal communications, evaluation materials, and legal correspondence connected to the RFQ.
To date, neither Superintendent Hepburn, Ms. Paul, nor the District’s General Counsel has issued a formal response.
Why This Matters
Procurement and capital management decisions shape how public resources are spent on schools, safety upgrades, and construction oversight. When those decisions occur outside of transparent Board processes, they undermine both public trust and legal compliance.
The unanswered FOIA request and the continued lack of documentation confirming Board authorization for RFQ-26-059 highlight a fundamental issue: key administrative staff acted without proper approval, under the guise of a decision the School Board never made.
For taxpayers and parents, it doesn’t look like a procedural failure, but on the surface, it looks like a breach of public trust.
Until the district produces documentation proving otherwise, RFQ-26-059 stands as a symbol of a system in need of serious reform.
