Is there a correlation between campaign contributions to school board members and the individuals and firms that currently hold contracts with the respective school boards?
The percentage of professional service contracts held by donors ranged from zero in St. Bernard Parish to 47 percent in Jefferson Parish.
The Jefferson Parish School Board had in effect, during the BGR study period, 100 professional service contracts totaling $3,477,270. The 48 contracts held by campaign donors aggregated $1,609,219. Construction-related professional service contracts awarded to campaign contributors comprised 86.5 percent of all construction-related contracts in effect (45 of 52).
The Orleans Parish School Board awarded 25 percent of its 94 professional service contracts to donors. The dollar value of the contracts to donors was low; of the $14,070,357 in total contract value, $295,737 (2.1%) went to contract holders who had made campaign contributions. One ten-year contract of $8.8 million is included in the total of contracts in effect.
The three smaller parishes’ school boards had a low percentage of contract awards to campaign donors. Plaquemines had only one donor awarded a contract under its unwritten process. BGR found no campaign contributions from contract holders in the St. Bernard school system. The St. Tammany School Board records showed four of 42 contracts awarded to campaign contributors, 6% of the $1,141,636 total of all professional service contracts.
The number and percentage of contract awards taken alone should not be considered either proof of political favoritism or of an absence of donor influence in that school board’s selection. It is possible for a high percentage to exist with good written policies in place. It is conversely possible that a low percentage can exist in spite of procedures that allow favoritism by the school board or its employees.
Through an analysis of the policies and procedures in place and documentation of adherence to those policies, the public can determine whether opportunities for donor influence on selection can occur.
To what extent do the school board’s procurement policies and procedures provide for fair and open competition in the selection of contractors?
None of the five school boards had written procedures covering all professional service contracts. Contract documentation was usually disorganized and at its worst missing. Files were not centralized in any district studied, nor was there a simple list of all professional service contracts. BGR’s research often required uniting a contract with its Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP), proposals, and proof of advertisement. Documentation of proposals received was often missing.
None of the school boards BGR visited had written or informal procedures requiring a minimum number of proposals and re-advertising if less than the minimum were received.
When reviewing the post-award phase of professional service contracts, BGR found no evidence of formal evaluation of on-going or completed work and only some evidence of informal review. Responsibilities for the evaluation of on-going and completed contracts were not addressed in any written procedures. Certification of progress in construction-related design contracts was the responsibility of the architect, though not all school boards specified this requirement in writing.
Contract renewal clauses were written into some service contracts. The norm was an option to renew annually for three years. It is a questionable practice to renew a contract without formal evidence of school board satisfaction with the provider. A few school boards reported dissatisfaction with contractors informally, but these incidences were undocumented.
In the Jefferson Parish school system, where the percentage of construction-related contracts held by donors is 86 percent, there is at least the appearance of a quid pro quo, because the school board members have the authority to personally select construction-related contract recipients. The Jefferson Parish School Board’s written policies require firms to qualify for a list of potential contractors. This is a good method of screening companies, but it does not go far enough in assuring an unbiased selection. Once a firm is on that list, no additional objective review is required. The board may select any firm for any reason without benefit of staff recommendations. The Jefferson Parish School Board is not required to give a reason for a selection.
The Orleans Parish School Board has written procedures that follow the BGR model for capital-projects-related professional service contracts. Contract documentation indicates that the staff generally applies the same procedures to contracting for other types of professional services.Plaquemines Parish’s school system has no written procedures and appears to favor one construction-related design firm (not a contributor). The St. Bernard school system has been following sound, though unwritten, policies.
The St. Tammany system had an unfortunate experience with the lack of formal policy and board member involvement in the selection of professional service providers but has learned from past mistakes. St. Tammany’s policies for selection of construction-related professional service firms were adapted in 1993. They have not, however, been extended to other professional services.