By Florida Daily Investments
Broward County Public Schools’ routine procurement for construction management oversight has become a rather flash point, 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 Agents – Owner Representatives (CMA-OR), was published in August 2025 and asked districts to select two companies to serve as owner representatives. But critics say the RFQ’s wording, timing, and evaluation procedures effectively narrowed the competition, created inaccurate statements about school board approvals, and ultimately culminated in the Qualifications Screening and Evaluation Committee (QSEC) meeting on October 15, 2025, which raised more questions than answers.
Limited design, thin response.
The public list shows language in the RFQ explaining that the school board “determined that leveraging the assistance of a team of two Construction Management Agent-Owner Representative (CMA-OR) agents was the most flexible and cost-effective option.”
Critics claim that statement is factually incorrect. The school board has never made such a decision. In fact, several board members requested an opportunity to review and comment on the draft RFQ before it was released and suggested holding a workshop to assess the district’s future needs for program management services.
Despite these requests, the RFQ was issued without board review or approval. Only three companies submitted responses, and according to internal documents, none fully met the RFQ’s restrictive requirements.
More than 100 planholders registered for the offering, according to procurement logs, but many industry participants argue that the RFQ’s unusually narrow financial and empirical criteria prevented meaningful competition for the $22 million contract.
Background concerns and aborted piggyback attempts.
Before the RFQ was issued, Chief Facilities Officer and Chief Operating Officer Wanda Paul and her team sought to implement one form of Jacobs’ Engineering through a “piggyback” agreement based on Jacobs’s existing contract with Duval County Public Schools. This was a move to avoid competitive bidding.
The school board rejected the proposal, citing Jacobs’ past performance issues, including a facility condition assessment that significantly underestimated project costs related to a 2014 bond referendum.
In response to this denial, the district moved forward with filing RFQ-26-059. Some are now claiming that this RFQ was written to replicate the results of previous efforts and to favor companies that partnered with Jacobs or were in a similar position.
Questionable decisions by district officials
Beyond technical flaws, the procurement process itself is under scrutiny due to questionable decisions by senior staff, including Superintendent Howard Hepburn, Facilities Director and Chief Operating Officer Wanda Paul, and Assistant General Counsel Tom Cooney.
District sources report that the superintendent’s office and facility leadership approved the release of the RFQ without board approval, even though the document’s opening statement falsely claimed that “the Broward County, Florida Board of Education (SBBC) has determined” that a partnership with two CMA-OR companies was the most desirable and most cost-effective model.
To test that claim, a public records (FOIA) request was filed on September 29, 2025, seeking evidence that the Board did in fact vote to approve or authorize the involvement of the two construction management and owner representative companies listed in the RFQ.
As of November 7, 2025, the District has no such record. Instead, it has requested multiple extensions, and the board did not vote on, consider, or approve the RFQ, further raising suspicions that no supporting documentation exists.
This revelation directly undermines the factual basis of the RFQ and raises legal questions about how millions of dollars in funding could be issued under the false premise of board approval.
To make matters worse, during the October 15th QSEC meeting, the Assistant General Counsel allegedly provided guidance during the meeting to change the evaluation procedures. Observers say this undermines transparency and fairness.
Convenient building connections
The RFQ controversy reflects a broader pattern of questionable decision-making within the district, particularly regarding the long-controversial Handy Building in downtown Fort Lauderdale.
Sources allege that the same leadership team, including Ms. Paul and the district general counsel, made unilateral decisions regarding the lease and management of the Handy building without timely notification to the school board.
These actions, combined with the opaque response to RFQ-26-059, have fueled concerns that management staff routinely circumvent board oversight on high-stakes financial and facility matters.
QSEC meeting, legal advice, and transparency concerns
The Qualification Selection and Evaluation Committee (QSEC) meeting to be held on October 15, 2025 was aimed at scoring and ranking companies based on the criteria published by the RFQ. Instead, participants reported procedural flaws, incomplete scoring documentation, and legal opinions that appeared to have changed the evaluation framework midway through.
Assistant General Counsel Tom Cooney, who led the QSEC meeting, handed out pre-prepared motions calling for action by QSEC committee members, including a motion to waive the RFQ’s financial responsibility requirements because none of the three companies meet the requirements. Cooney called the district’s failure to meet its fiscal responsibilities “minor misconduct.” He further stated that all three companies met the remaining readiness and accountability criteria and asked that all three companies be awarded the contract. One company, EXP, not only did not meet the financial responsibility requirements, but upon review of the proposal, did not meet the minimum length and relevance requirements. Clearly Mr. Cooney was given significant discretion to make QSEC’s decisions.
Critics argue that this interference, combined with the lack of clear board approval for the RFQ itself, could invalidate the entire process and expose districts to legal and financial liability.
What the document shows and what’s unclear
A growing body of public records, meeting minutes, and FOIA communications reveal an alarming picture.
• No Board Votes: There is no record that the School Board voted to approve the use of the two CMA-OR companies listed in RFQ-26-059.
• Unauthorized publication: The RFQ was published without prior board review or workshop discussion, contrary to requests from board members.
• Restrictive structure: The design of the RFQ limits competition and may be structured to favor certain outcomes.
• Legal intervention: The actions of the Assistant General Counsel during QSEC deliberations resulted in changes to the evaluation process.
• Patterns of secrecy: Similar issues have surfaced regarding the management of handicrafts, indicating widespread failures in governance and transparency.
a voice calling for answers
Several school board members and community activists are now calling for an independent audit and public inquiry into both RFQ-26-059 and the administrative actions surrounding the Handy Building.
Stakeholders are demanding immediate release of all internal communications, evaluation materials, and legal documents related to the RFQ.
To date, neither Superintendent Hepburn, Ms. Paul nor the District General Counsel have issued a formal response.
why is this important
Procurement and capital management decisions determine how public resources are spent on schools, safety improvements, and construction oversight. When these decisions are made outside of a transparent board process, both public trust and legal compliance are undermined.
The unanswered FOIA requests and continued lack of documentation confirming the school board’s approval of RFQ-26-059 highlight a fundamental problem. That is, key administrative staff acted without proper authorization under the guise of decisions never made by the school board.
To taxpayers and parents, this doesn’t seem like a procedural blunder, but on the surface it appears to be a betrayal of the public’s trust.
Until the district provides documentation proving otherwise, RFQ-26-059 serves as a symbol of a system in need of serious reform.
