By Florida Daily Investigations
A devastating internal audit reveals that Broward County Public Schools’ top leaders — Superintendent Dr. Howard Hepburn and Chief Operations Officer Wanda Paul — presided over a procurement process so irregular, rushed, and strategically manipulated that auditors warn it may violate Florida’s competitive selection laws.
But this is not the first time the district has seen a major initiative pushed through by this same leadership duo under questionable circumstances.
The audit’s findings on RFQ 26-059, a high-stakes solicitation for construction management agents, expose a troubling pattern: aggressive administrative pressure, withheld or inaccurate information, procedural shortcuts, and an end goal that appears pre-determined long before the process even begins.
For many observers, the entire episode feels like déjà vu.
A Pattern Reemerges: The Handy Building Playbook
The audit’s revelations echo a separate controversy still fresh in public memory: the Handy Building lease push, also driven by Superintendent Hepburn and COO Wanda Paul.
In that case, the two administrators:
• Provided the School Board with inaccurate or incomplete information about leasing terms,
• Misrepresented costs,
• Misstated termination provisions,
• Mischaracterized the amount of space required, and
• Advanced a proposal that appeared designed to achieve a predetermined goal of leasing the building, regardless of operational feasibility, fiscal prudence, or the reality of empty classrooms throughout the district.
Board members later learned that key facts had been misstated or omitted — raising serious questions about transparency, accuracy, and motive.
The parallels to RFQ 26-059 are unmistakable:
• Urgency manufactured at the leadership level,
• Key details left vague or internally contradictory,
• Standard procedures bypassed,
• Decision-making compressed,
• And a process that appeared to be headed toward a predetermined outcome.
The audit stops short of alleging intent, but the similarities are too stark to ignore.
Superintendent Hepburn Allowed RFQ to Move Forward in Defiance of Board Direction
On March 4, 2025, the School Board instructed district leadership to return with a draft RFQ before it was issued.
Superintendent Hepburn allowed staff — under Wanda Paul’s direction — to publish RFQ 26-059 without Board review, only informing members weeks later.
This was not a procedural mix-up. It was a direct violation of explicit Board instructions, and it fundamentally undermined the Board’s oversight role.
Auditors conclude that Hepburn’s failure created the compressed timeline and sense of crisis later used to justify bypassing required evaluation steps.
COO Wanda Paul’s Pressure Shaped the Process and Neutralized Safeguards
Multiple staff members told auditors they felt significant pressure from Wanda Paul to push forward with all three firms, even though none met the required financial criteria.
The Assistant General Counsel confirmed that Paul explicitly told him she wanted to proceed, prompting a legal search for a justification to keep all three vendors alive in the process.
Members of the Qualifications Selection Evaluation Committee (QSEC) described the October 15 meeting as unlike any in their careers:
• No vendor materials provided in advance,
• No opportunity to review or score qualifications,
• Pre-written motions delivered by legal counsel,
• An atmosphere of urgency aligned with administrative preference.
In the end, QSEC was steered into waiving all evaluation, scoring, and ranking, despite state law requiring those steps.
This is one of the most severe findings in the audit — and one that points directly to leadership pressure originating from Paul and enabled by Hepburn’s lack of intervention.
Was the Process Steered Toward Jacobs? Audit Raises Serious Questions
The audit references an earlier failed attempt by Wanda Paul to piggyback a Duval County contract with Jacobs Engineering for the same CMA-OR services — a move the School Board rejected.
That failed shortcut now looms large.
Under RFQ 26-059:
• Jacobs again appears as one of only three proposers,
• All three firms failed the financial criteria,
• Yet all three were advanced anyway,
• And Paul signaled a desire to negotiate with all three, despite the RFQ’s original design to select two firms — and despite the statutory requirement to evaluate qualifications.
This raises an unavoidable question:
Was RFQ 26-059 — including the waivers, inconsistent language, and manufactured urgency — structured in a way that kept Jacobs in contention or increased its odds of selection?
While the audit does not explicitly assert intent, the circumstantial pattern mirrors previous conduct:
• A prior attempt to fast-track Jacobs via piggybacking,
• Followed by an RFQ process that eliminated competitive guardrails that would normally disadvantage a firm failing financial prerequisites.
Whether coincidental or purposeful, the effect was the same: Jacobs remained viable despite failing mandatory criteria.
Confusing, Contradictory RFQ Language Originated Under Paul’s Oversight
The audit identifies numerous inconsistencies in the solicitation — all developed or overseen by Paul’s office.
CMA-OR vs. PMOR Confusion
Paul claimed CMA-OR was meant to provide “supplemental staffing,” yet the RFQ referenced program management more than 20 times.
Contradictory Award Structure
RFQ language declared the district intended to select two firms — yet also stated “no less than two,” a phrase staff could not justify or explain.
This ambiguity:
• Confused potential proposers,
• Compromised the integrity of the solicitation, and
• Created conditions in which administrative preference could override competitive fairness.
Financial Criteria With No Basis
Under Paul’s oversight, the RFQ reused the 1.5 working capital ratio that:
• Was unrealistic,
• Had disqualified all proposers in 2020,
• Disqualified all proposers again in 2025, and
• Was included despite having no documented basis and no staff explanation.
This begs the question:
Why include criteria guaranteed to fail everyone unless the administration intended to waive them later?
________________________________________
QSEC’s Legal Role Was Dismantled Under Leadership Pressure
Rather than perform their statutory duty, QSEC members were effectively sidelined:
• They were denied the proposals in advance,
• Given no ability to score or rank firms,
• Presented with motions crafted by administration and legal counsel,
• And funneled into a truncated process auditors say may violate state law.
Members told auditors they had never experienced anything like it.
Conclusion: A Pattern of Manipulation, From the Handy Building to RFQ 26-059
The Handy Building saga now appears less like an anomaly and more like a warning sign of a governance culture.
In both cases:
• Superintendent Hepburn allowed — and in some cases facilitated — processes that bypassed Board authority and ignored oversight.
• COO Wanda Paul aggressively advanced initiatives using incomplete, inaccurate, or contradictory information while applying pressure that distorted standard procedures.
• The result was decision-making aligned with administrative preference rather than transparent, lawful evaluation.
And now, the audit introduces an even more troubling possibility:
The RFQ process may have been structured — intentionally or not — to keep a preferred vendor, Jacobs, in the running despite statutory and policy barriers.
Whether these patterns reflect incompetence, indifference, or a deliberate strategy, they point to a leadership model in which the ends justify the means — even when public trust, statutory compliance, and competitive fairness are collateral damage.
The School Board now faces a critical question:
Can these leaders be trusted to continue in their roles — and can the district afford to proceed under a governance culture that repeatedly skirts oversight and legal obligation?
