By Florida Daily Investments
A devastating internal audit has revealed that Broward County Public Schools’ top leaders, Superintendent Dr. Howard Hepburn and Chief Operating Officer Wanda Paul, led a procurement process so irregular, rushed and strategically manipulated that auditors have warned it could violate Florida’s competitive selection law.
But this isn’t the first time the district has seen a major initiative promoted by this same leadership duo under questionable circumstances.
The results of the audit on RFQ 26-059, a high-stakes solicitation for construction managers, reveal a troubling pattern of heavy-handed management pressure, withheld or inaccurate information, shortcuts, and an end goal that appears to be predetermined long before the process begins.
For many observers, the entire episode feels like deja vu.
Patterns Are Back: A Handy Architectural Handbook
The audit’s revelations reflect another controversy that is still fresh in the public’s memory. It is the Handy Building leasing initiative led by Superintendent Hepburn and Chief Operating Officer Wanda Paul.
In that case, the two administrators would:
• If you provide inaccurate or incomplete information to the school board regarding the terms of your lease.
• Misrepresentation of costs;
• Misstatement of termination clause;
• The amount of space required is incorrectly described, and
• Proceeded with proposals that appeared to be designed to achieve a predetermined goal of leasing the building without regard to operational feasibility, financial health, or the reality of empty classrooms districtwide.
Board members subsequently learned that material facts had been misstated or omitted, raising serious questions about transparency, accuracy, and motives.
The similarities with RFQ 26-059 are clear.
• Create a sense of urgency at the leadership level;
• Important details remain vague or internally inconsistent.
• Bypass standard procedures;
• Compression of decision making;
• And processes that appear to be moving toward a predetermined outcome.
Although the audit stopped short of asserting intent, the similarities are too obvious to ignore.
Superintendent Hepburn allowed the RFQ to proceed against the board’s direction.
On March 4, 2025, the Board of Education directed district leadership to submit a draft RFQ prior to publication.
Superintendent Hepburn, under Wanda Paul’s direction, allowed staff to issue RFQ 26-059 without board review and only notified members several weeks later.
This was not a procedural mix-up. This was a direct violation of the Board’s express directives and fundamentally undermined the Board’s oversight role.
Auditors concluded that Mr. Hepburn’s failures created a compressed schedule and a sense of crisis that was later used to justify avoiding the necessary evaluation steps.
COO Wanda Paul’s pressure shaped the process and neutralized safeguards
Several staff members told auditors that they felt significant pressure from Wanda Paul to move forward with all three companies, even though none of them met the necessary financial standards.
The Assistant General Counsel confirmed that Paul had clearly communicated his desire to proceed, and in the process launched a legal investigation seeking justification for keeping all three vendors in place.
Members of the Qualifications Selection and Assessment Committee (QSEC) described the October 15th meeting as unique in their careers:
• No vendor documentation will be provided upfront.
• No opportunity to review or score qualifications.
• A motion prepared in advance by an attorney.
• Tense atmosphere in line with management’s wishes.
Ultimately, QSEC was directed to abandon all evaluations, scoring, and rankings, even though state law required these actions.
This is one of the audit’s most damning findings, pointing directly to leadership pressures stemming from Paul and enabled by Hepburn’s lack of intervention.
Was the process steered towards Jacobs? Audit raises serious questions
The audit references Wanda Paul’s previous failed attempt to piggyback on a contract with Duval County’s Jacobs Engineering Co. for the same CMA-OR services, a move the school board rejected.
That failed shortcut now looms large.
Based on RFQ 26-059:
• Jacobs again appears as one of three proposers.
• All three companies do not meet financial standards.
• Still, all three were advanced players anyway.
• Paul then expressed a desire to negotiate with all three companies, despite the RFQ’s original design to select two companies, and despite the legal requirement to evaluate qualifications.
This raises the inevitable question:
Was RFQ 26-059 (including the waiver, inconsistent language, and created urgency) structured in a way to keep Jacobs in contention or increase the odds of selection?
Although the audit does not explicitly allege intent, the situational pattern reflects prior conduct.
• Previous attempts to piggyback and high-speed chase Jacobs;
• Followed by an RFQ process that eliminates competitive guardrails that typically disadvantage companies that do not meet financial prerequisites.
Whether it was accidental or intentional, the result was the same. Jacobs remained alive despite not meeting the essential criteria.
Confusing and contradictory RFQ language was created under Paul’s supervision.
The audit identified numerous discrepancies in the petition, all of which were created or overseen by Paul’s office.
Confusion between CMA-OR and PMOR
Paul claimed that CMA-OR is intended to provide “supplemental staffing,” but the RFQ mentioned program management more than 20 times.
contradictory award structure
The RFQ language declared that the district intended to select two companies, but also stated “at least two companies,” language that staff could not justify or explain.
This ambiguity:
• Confused potential proposers;
• Acts that undermine the integrity of the solicitation;
• Created a situation in which administrative priorities could override competitive fairness.
Unfounded financial standards
Under Paul’s supervision, RFQ reused the following working capital ratio of 1.5.
• It was unrealistic, but
• Disqualify all proposers in 2020,
• Disqualify all proposers again in 2025;
• It was included despite having no documented rationale or explanation from staff.
This raises the following questions:
Why include a standard that everyone is guaranteed to fail unless the administration intends to waive it later?
______________________________________________________
QSEC’s legal role was dismantled under pressure from leaders
QSEC members failed to meet their statutory obligations and were effectively excluded.
• They were denied the offer in advance.
• No ability to score or rank companies;
• Motions made by the administration and attorneys are presented;
• And funneled into a truncated process that auditors say could violate state law.
Members told auditors they had never experienced anything like this.
Conclusion: Patterns of Operation, From Convenient Buildings to RFQ 26-059
The Handy Building story now looks more like a warning sign of governance culture than an anomaly.
In both cases:
• Superintendent Hepburn permitted, and in some cases facilitated, a process that circumvented the Board’s authority and overrode its oversight.
• COO Wanda Paul aggressively advanced efforts using incomplete, inaccurate, or contradictory information while exerting pressure to distort standard procedures.
• As a result, decisions were made in line with the wishes of the government rather than transparent and legitimate evaluations.
And this audit has uncovered even more troubling possibilities.
The RFQ process may have been structured, intentionally or not, to keep Jacobs as the preferred vendor despite legal and policy barriers.
Whether these patterns reflect incompetence, indifference, or deliberate strategies, they point to a leadership model in which the ends justify the means, even when public trust, legal compliance, and competitive fairness are collateral damage.
Boards of Education are currently facing critical issues, including:
Can these leaders be trusted to continue in their roles, and can the district afford to proceed in a governance culture that repeatedly avoids oversight and legal obligations?
