Purchasing Presentment

The Special Grand Jury followed the recommendation of the September 1999 regular Grand Jury to fully investigate the Purchasing Department of Augusta-Richmond County. We have reviewed hours of testimony, read thousands of documents, become familiar with the Augusta-Richmond County Code as it pertains to Purchasing, toured the Purchasing Department, followed several bid processes from invitation to bid through to award, studied the Purchasing Department's budget (overruns and overtime), as well as the Purchasing Department's impact on other departments.

Functions

The Purchasing Department's functions are to oversee the bid process by: 1) getting the bid specifications from the various departments, 2) making sure that these are properly advertised and the bid packages are sent to the proper vendors, 3) holding pre-bid meetings and sample showings, 4) generating any addendums necessary, 5) conducting bid openings, 6) evaluating the bids, 7) receiving and responding to protests and 8) awarding bids subject to the user department head and Commission approval. The Purchasing Department acts as a liaison between departments and vendors, maintains the county list of vendors, tracks all purchase requests and provides purchase orders so that different departments can acquire supplies, labor, technology and expertise.

Prior to May 1, 2002, Purchasing handled the weekly grocery orders for the Richmond County Correctional Institution, the Sheriff's Department (Phinizy Road facility and Judicial Law Enforcement Center - JLEC), as well as the quarterly order of non-perishable foods and supplies for Phinizy Road, JLEC, Recreation Department and Riverwalk Special Events. Until May 1, 2002, Purchasing ordered the monthly janitorial supplies for 23 departments, but has now parceled out these responsibilities to the departments (which will be discussed later).

The Purchasing Department must adhere to the Augusta-Richmond County Code approved by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission on September 1, 1997. The Director notifies the Commission, via an agenda item, of bid awards, problems with contracts and/or any change orders to a contract. This is a key department and must be run with careful oversight. The Department Head is Ms. Geri Sams.

Purchasing Code

In order to fully explain discrepancies, we must first understand the Code. Article 6 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code outlines the Procurement Source Selection Methods and Contract Awards, 1-10-42 mandates Purchase Orders (see Office Furniture section), 1-10-43 governs the Sealed Bid Selection Method and 1-10-47 covers the Quotations or Informal Bid Selection Method.

1-10-43: Augusta-Richmond County uses a competitive sealed-bid process for all contracts except as provided in the Code. Invitations to bid are issued by Purchasing and specifications are included and prepared according to the Code with applicable terms and conditions. Public notice for all invitations must be advertised no less than ten working days before receipt date of the bids. Publication takes place in the legal gazette and in at least one local, minority-owned newspaper. (The notice contains place, date and time of pre-bid conferences and openings, where documents are obtained and description of the purchase.) Bids may be solicited directly from the Augusta-Richmond County bidders’ list maintained by Purchasing. Pre-bid conferences (not required, but strongly recommended) are held five days before the bid date. Changes from these conferences are published as addendums. Bids are accepted without alterations if they meet the deadline, are opened publicly in front of at least one witness and the amounts are recorded for public inspection. All bids are to be evaluated on the requirements set out in the invitations.

Bids are awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible vendor meeting all of the requirements. In addition to price and other material factors, the Purchasing Director in consultation with the user agency, may consider the following in the context of award recommendations: 1) ability, skill and capacity of a bidder to perform the contract or provide the services required, 2) the capability of the bidder to perform the contract or service promptly or within the time specified without delay or interference, 3) the character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder, 4) the quality of performance on previous contracts, 5) the previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or services, 6) sufficiency of the financial resources of the bidder relating to his ability to perform the contract, 7) the quality, availability of the supplies or services to the particular use required and 8) the number and scope of conditions attached to the bid by the bidder.

If the lower bidder is not to receive the contract, the Purchasing Director and/or Administrator must, for the record, prepare and sign a statement as to why the vendor was not awarded the contract for audit purposes.

1-10-47: Purchases under $5,000.00, in total value, may be made according to procedures designated in this Code: "Quotations or Informal Bids Selection Method." No contract may be artificially divided so as to fall under $5,000.00. Under the $5,000.00 amount, the request for quotes can be done by telephone or writing, but specifications must still be prepared for appropriate vendor response.

"Informal Oral Quotes" must be solicited from at least three vendors with at least one being from a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) as provided in 1-10-52 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code. The maximum purchase under this system is to be $1,500.00 including sales tax. The vendor quotes are to be written on the requisition for retention.

"Informal Written Bid Quotes" must also be solicited from at least three vendors with at least one being from a DBE. The maximum purchase amount under this system is to be $10,000.00 including sales tax. Selection is based on: 1) lowest bidder on last quote, 2) next vendor on the list, 3) next DBE vendor on the list (as per Article 7), 4) repeat procedure until all vendors have been asked to quote and 5) begin new rotation of vendors by using the last low bidder on quote. No public notice is required. All quotes are recorded for public inspection, with information deemed relevant by the Purchasing Director. Again, bids are evaluated in the manner as the sealed bids; only criteria set forth in the request may be used to evaluate bids. Bids are awarded to the responsive and responsible bidder offering the lowest acceptable quote.

Budget

In looking over the Purchasing Department's budget for the last three years (1999, 2000 and 2001), the SGJ noticed several things. The 1999 budget had several categories with $0.00 budgeted. Yet, expenditures were charged against these areas causing many categories to be over budget. A good example would be postage that had nothing budgeted, but is obviously a very necessary cost for Purchasing. Still, there was $5,835.55 worth of postage expenditures in 1999. In 2000, the budget had more item categories but, by year's end, the department was more than $10,000.00 over budget, with $9,500.00 of this overage in overtime (with most of that divided between just two employees). In 2000, $3,300.00 was budgeted for postage, but expenditures exceeded this by $1,325.18. Then in 2001, only $1,000.00 was budgeted for postage. By year's end postage, had cost $6,146.09. The overall budget for 2001 was over by $4,429.00. It appears that Geri Sams was unable to come up with an accurate budget based on the realities of the Purchasing Department. Sams has been consistently over her budget, yet has received no reprimand, as have other departments.

Office Furniture

The Purchasing Department Code (1-10-42) demands that anything purchased by the County must have a purchase order cut before any item or service can be purchased. On September 12, 2000, the Purchasing Director, Geri Sams, purchased a Gooseneck oxblood executive chair ($349.50), an "as is" 2-drawer lateral mahogany file cabinet ($350.00) and a 6’6" mahogany hutch with glass doors ($699.50). The hutch was over the $500.00 limit requiring fixed-asset funding. The Purchasing Department did not have this capital funding (fixed assets) in its budget. The Director ordered and received this furniture with no purchase order being cut. On January 2, 2001, the vendor faxed notification to the Director. (Appendix A) A purchase order for the furniture had not been cut and the bill had not been paid. On January 3, 2001, the Director instructed an employee to create a requisition for the furniture. Typically, these requisitions have notes on the various vendors contacted, the lowest price listed, etc. and this is done before the purchase order can be cut, well before any delivery. In testimony on January 17, 2002, the Purchasing Director claimed that she had three quotes and had consulted a catalogue. The SGJ has found no proof of this after two comprehensive subpoenas to obtain it.

The Finance Department, as is its obligation, inquired as to why an office furniture company had been allowed to deliver without a purchase order. The vendor informed Finance that it was the Director who had made the purchase so it must be okay. When questioned, the Director blamed another employee for the failure to cut a timely purchase order. Ms. Sams also stated that the money she had budgeted for the furniture was gone when it came time to pay the bill. The hutch had to be returned to the embarrassment of the County. The Purchasing Director did not follow the rules or the County Code as it pertains to purchasing. This incident is important because it shows Sams does not follow the procedures she must administer countywide.

Travel Expenses

On May 11, 2001, the Purchasing Director requested a check for $467.32 covering mileage, parking and a per diem for a conference scheduled for May 16, 17 and 18, 2001 in Clearwater, Florida (the Eastern Regional Meeting for Bi Tech, the company who owns the Integrated Financial Accounting System - IFAS, used by Augusta- Richmond County). (Appendix B) The check was cut on May 14, 2001. Then, on January 24, 2002, the Purchasing Director issued another requisition to pay Sungard Bi Tech Inc. another $100.00, the cost of the May 16-18, 2001 East Coast Users Group Conference. The bill was marked "Past Due," but Accounting no longer had funds for a 2001 expense. The Deputy Administrator over Purchasing signed off on the requisition, yet did not reprimand Sams for allowing a bill to go unpaid for eight months. This carelessness on Sams’ part deserved some censure, but she seems to be allowed more leeway by Administration than any other department head.

Training

Training is a weak spot in the Purchasing Department. With limited instruction on IFAS (Integrated Financial Accounting System), new hires are turned loose with instructions to "ask if they have questions." Even the Director's training and orientation was minimal since her predecessor had little training time because she accepted the early retirement offered. The training of new hires, in the Purchasing Department, mainly falls to Purchasing Technician, Doreen Holmes, who primarily oversees the office supplies, i.e. ordering, maintaining the inventory in the stockrooms and back charging all the departments for supplies. She also oversees the purchases of the Finance and Human Resources Departments in the County. This weakness in training became evident when Geri Sams and Mary Bedenbaugh, the former Purchasing Agent, were simultaneously out due to illness. Several details of the bid process fell through the cracks and no one was able to step in to fill the void. There seems to be little to no cross training in this department to cover when someone is out sick or resigns.

The Director, in testimony before the Special Grand Jury, was asked about aspects of the Code that govern the Purchasing Department. She was very uncertain in her responses. For example, she did not know that the County has the right to audit a vendor. The Director seemed confused on many issues and then attempted to vindicate herself with documents not related to the issues at hand. She then contradicted herself and failed to explain her own paperwork. As the SGJ has witnessed on more than one occasion, she throws paper at a problem and assigns responsibility elsewhere rather than addressing the problem directly. Sams’ lack of knowledge of her Department's Code and rules is detrimental to the entire government.

Purchase Order Procedure

There have been problems reported to the SGJ concerning the basic purchase order approval process within the Purchasing Department. To better understand the problems, we examined the proper procedures for purchase orders.

The user Department's designated personnel initially enter the purchase order request (the requisition) into the IFAS System. Then, the department head must approve it. At this point, the purchase order is electronically transferred to the Purchasing Department where it enters the queue of the designated purchasing technician for that user department. Each morning, the technicians should run an "approval sheet report." This report itemizes the department, what is being purchased, the vendor, the vendor number, the requisition number, the date, the unit price and the total amount of the requisition. The on-line approval screen only shows the requisition number, the date and the total amount. Only when utilizing the "approval sheet report" can the technician see that all of the vital information needed to approve the requisition is correct. The technician must also check the "notes screen" and verify that the correct account number and object code have been used. This screen is used to determine if the item is being purchased under a state contract and, if so, what that contract number is. They must also use this screen to verify if the items are either a fixed asset ($5,000.00 or greater) or to be paid out of the Special Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Accounts. If either of these scenarios is valid, the requisition must also have the approval of the sales tax manager or the fixed asset manager before the purchase order request can proceed. If everything is in proper order, the technician checks "yes" and approves the request. When the purchase amount is over $5,000.00, the purchase order request must then go to the Purchasing Agent for approval. Once past these checks and balances, the request then goes to the Purchasing Director for final approval.

Once the Purchasing Director approves the purchase order request, the purchase order is cut. Both a paper (the pink copy) and an electronic purchase order are sent to Accounting. The three white copies are: 1) filed, 2) sent to the vendor and 3) attached to the requisition form in Purchasing. The yellow copy is returned to the user department for their files. When the invoice comes in, it is matched with the purchase order and then it is ready to be paid.

It is possible for the technician to approve the purchase order request without doing the necessary fact checking mentioned above. Someone could simply approve the requisitions and clear out their queue. This would free them up for the rest of the day to do "other things." It has been reported that there have been several days worth of "approval sheet reports" left in the copier so the technician(s) could not possibly be using this necessary tool to properly approve the purchase order requests. Some of the recurring problems from this oversight include an improper vendor number, a lack of address or a correct address for the vendor and incorrect prices entered. These problems would land on the desk of the Purchasing Agent, who then had to mop up the mess (adding to the workload). Time was wasted, as she had to backtrack the process and correct it. A compliance audit by the internal auditors, at this level, would be beneficial in identifying individuals who need additional training on the necessary steps required to properly complete the purchasing order request process. It would also show where mistakes are being made.

  Toner Bids

The following is an example of the lack of analysis by the Purchasing Department and how it cost the County. The toner cartridges, both recycled and new, used in the various printers throughout the county departments are part of a bid package administered by Purchasing. Prior to 1999, the bid was a "per cartridge" or "line item" bid award, enabling the County to get the lowest price on each toner cartridge purchased. In 1999, the annual bid package changed to a single supplier "lowest overall" bid format by the Purchasing Director, using the cost of one new and one remanufactured (recycled) of each type listed. There were only seven types of cartridges listed in the bid request and research shows that five other types were not listed but were purchased in 1999. Purchasing simply ordered the unlisted cartridges from the contract company as an add-on without checking to see if they could purchase them elsewhere for a better price. In evaluating the purchase orders for 1999, two things became immediately evident. The non-bid cartridges netted the contract company an additional $5,057.40 that year. One toner (HP92291A) was not purchased at all and should have been removed from the bid list.

With the 2000 toner bid, two of the previous year's non-bid cartridges (HP C4182X and Optra S) were added to the bid package. One new cartridge was also added (HP C3906A). However, the more expensive toner cartridges (MICR 5si and HP8100), necessary for printing checks, were not included on this bid package. The cartridges were subsequently purchased from the previous year's contract company and not as a part of the competitive bid process. They were still not included in the 2001 bid package.

The cartridges that were easily identified as no longer needed from the 1999 purchase orders were left on the 2000 and 2001 bid package. Lack of due diligence became even more apparent with the 2001 Toner Bid. The contract company for the 1999 bid researched his previous orders and determined both the high volume and low-to-no volume toners. He was then able to charge ridiculously low prices on the unused and low usage toners and build in his profit margin on the high volume ones since this was a total cost bid. For example, in 1999, for the HP92291A cartridge, he bid $92.95 new and $51.95 remanufactured. On that same toner cartridge in 2001, he bid $20.00 new and $10.00 remanufactured. On the HP92295A (of which he'd only sold seven of the remanufactured in 1999 at $28.95), he bid $15.00 in 2001. Conversely, on the high volume toner cartridges in 1999 (62 purchased at $74.95 new and 130 at $41.95 remanufactured), he bid in 2001 $65.00 new and $59.99 remanufactured. With only a small difference between the new and remanufactured cartridges, he could make up for any loses should any of the low usage toners be ordered. Remanufactured cartridges are typically 50% to 60% less than the price of the new cartridges. On the HPC3909A (another high volume cartridge), his 1999 bid was $139.00 new, selling 39 and $81.99 remanufactured, selling 52. This volume was reflected in his 2001 bid - $139.99 new and $119.99 remanufactured. Had Purchasing simply eliminated the non-used cartridges on their 2000 bid, another vendor would have had the lowest overall bid and the County would have saved thousands of dollars.

The SGJ immediately recognized problems with the tab sheet for the 2001 bid when the winning bidder listed cartridges for $10.00 new and $5.00 remanufactured (Lexmark 4039 and Lexmark 4019/4029). The next closest competitor listed these as $100.00 for new cartridges. Once again, the very expensive magnetic cartridges necessary for the check printers were not included in the bid. The HP8100 is now $379.00. (Appendix D)

When one of the vendors contacted Purchasing concerning Toner Bid #01-525 to get previous usage information which should be available and part of the Open Records Act, he was told that the information was not available. To be diligent, the Purchasing Department should maintain this information for their own records and freely release it as per the Code. It should be noted that this vendor had previously questioned the propriety of the toner bids.

Specific recommendations for this bid are:

1. The bid be returned to the line item format,
2. Let the different departments handle their own toner purchases,
3. The purchase orders need to be checked yearly and non-used cartridges removed from bid list,
4. There needs to be a master list of all printers and the necessary toner cartridges needed for each department and, at a minimum, update this list prior to the letting of the Toner Bid, and/or
5. A toner usage list needs to be maintained by the Purchasing Department.

While to some this must be a small bid, but the lack of oversight and vigilance indicates that there may be similar oversights throughout other bids as well. Clearly, the County loses money on this bid and, therefore, one has to wonder where else the County is losing money because of Purchasing.

Pool Chemical Bid

The Pool Chemical Bids are an example of where the Purchasing Department has created more work for themselves than is necessary. Instead of combining all the pool chemicals into one bid with line-item awards, each chemical was given its own bid number. (#02-082 - Carbon Dioxide, 50 lb. cylinders, #02-083 - Tri-Chloro's Triazinetrione sticks, 50 lb. buckets, #02-084 - Granular Chlorine, 50 lb. buckets, #02-085 - Sodium Hypochlorite, liquid bleach, #02-086 - Sodium Bicarbonate, 50 lb. bags, #02-087 - Calcium Chloride, 50 lb. bags). Having individual bids, per chemical, created much heavier bid packages to be mailed to the vendors, increasing the postage required. The pool chemicals, if handled by the Recreation Department, on an individual basis (like the line-item award) would easily have been under the ceiling amount for informal written bid quotes (1-10-47). This would eliminate the need to mail bid packages, advertise in the local papers or take up time with bid openings. Another interesting fact in these bids was the notice for invitation to bid was put in the Augusta Focus on March 20, 2002. Yet, the bid opening took place on March 4, 2002. (Appendix E)

Sheriff's Uniform Bid

The Sheriff's Uniform Bid has been problematic for years. By 1999, these problems seemed to be worked out. The bid was broken into two sections (A Uniforms and B Accessories). One vendor, Command Uniforms, was lowest in both sections and won the bid. (Comprehensive timeline Appendix F) When it was time for the Sheriff's Uniform Bid to be let out for 2001, the Purchasing Director requested that approximate quantities be added to the bid package. On October 13, 2000, the Sheriff's Department sent the Uniform Bid Specifications with the approximate quantities to the Purchasing Department. (Appendix G) In the bid package, it clearly states, "Approximate Quantities * subject to change due to inventory calculations and INCREASE or DECREASE in personnel." At this point, there was no separation between the two sections as in 1999. These approximate values were not helpful in evaluating the bid since the department had just suffered a major budget cut - the loss of 30 personnel and the retirement of others. On December 22, 2000, the Sheriff's Uniform Bid #01-023 was opened. Unlike previous uniform bids, the Sheriff's Department had not received notification of the bid opening. Usually, a representative from the Sheriff's Department attends the bid openings, but they were not made aware of the bid opening until vendors started calling to inquire about the results. This bid was also different because there had not been a pre-bid meeting or a sample showing which is usual for a bid this size. When the Purchasing Director was later asked why these things had not happened, she said that the person in charge of bid forgot to schedule them. (This is an example of an area where training and accountability are lacking.) Someone needs to know how to perform these functions when both the Director and the Purchasing Agent are out on sick leave, as was the situation in this instance.

The bid also stated that the prices were to be in effect from January 2, 2001 until December 31, 2001. This is peculiar since the #99-042 Uniform bid did not expire until July 6, 2001 as stated by the Commission upon its award.

January 2001

Anxious about getting the uniform ordering process underway (usually a lag time of 60 to 120 days for delivery) and considering the apparent problems, the Sheriff's Office contacted the County Attorney on January 22, 2001 about this bid. (Appendix H) They followed his instructions of separating out the Sections A (uniforms) and B (accessories) as had been done on the 1999 bid. Sidney's Department Store and Uniforms, Inc. was the lowest total bidder in each section as well as being the overall lowest bid. On January 24, 2001, the Sheriff's Department sent a memo to the Purchasing Director to award #01-023 to Sidney's. (Appendix I)

After this, Command Uniforms’s manager (the other vendor competing for the bid) sent a letter to the Purchasing Director. "I understand that the Sheriff's Dept. and the City Attorney have recommended that Sidney's Uniforms be awarded the above bid. However, when taking the oversize fees into consideration and based on the History of the Purchasing of the Sheriff's Department (Italics SGJ’s emphasis) this could cost our City much more than Bid prices from Command Uniforms would cost." (Appendix J) According to the bid tabulation sheet, both vendors added 20% for 2X 3X on Item #6 and Sidney's had the lower starting price. Command had added an additional $1.00 for 2X, $2.00 for 3X and $3.00 for 4X on Item #10, whereas Sidney's had no charge for oversize. Command also had 20% additional charges for sizes 18-1/2 - 22 for Item #16. This made Command now higher and, if the bid was awarded to Sidney's, he would be compelled to sell the oversized items at the price quoted in his bid. Command Uniform’s claim in their protest letter was inaccurate. Yet this letter, full of flawed logic and false claims, helped to stall the awarding of this bid for eight months.

February 2001

On February 13, 2001, in spite of the Sheriff's and the City Attorney’s recommendation to award the bid to Sidney's, the Purchasing Director sent an agenda item to the Interim Administrator stating, "The Sheriff's Department and the Purchasing Department made the following recommendation: The Uniform Bid for the Sheriff's Department be awarded to Command Uniforms - 511 Broad Street - Augusta, Georgia." (Appendix K) The agenda item also stated that "various representatives from the department viewed all samples," (Appendix K-1) yet there had been NO sample showing. The Sheriff's Department had made it clear that their choice was Sidney's, but Sams felt she could overrule the decision of an elected official heading an agency her department is supposed to serve.

On February 19, 2001, the Sheriff, having received a copy of the agenda item, wrote the Purchasing Director requesting "historical data" that the Purchasing Director supposedly had gathered from "1996 - 2000 to aid in determining to whom the 2001 bid should be awarded. Since our past records are in records retention, would you supply a copy of this information for my files?" (Appendix L) If their records prior to 1999 are in Records Retention, then the Purchasing Director got her information from Command Uniforms. The Sheriff never received this "historical data" from Purchasing. In his letter he also wrote, "Realizing the time frame involved in ordering uniforms, I hope this bid award can be resolved soon." On February 23, 2001, the Purchasing Director responded to the Sheriff's letter stating, "Bid Item #01-023 will not be awarded under the specifications as written. A Rebid #01-023A is schedule for Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. Details concerning the Rebid are attached. A complete bid package will be mailed to you on March 1, 2001." (Appendix M and N) She was asked for data, but she neither provided it nor gave any reason for the re-bid. In her testimony (January 17, 2002), the Purchasing Director, when asked why she re-bid the uniform contract, claimed that, upon her return in January 2001, the bid package was flawed due to the changes made by the Sheriff's Department to the bid. When she was asked, "If this bid was so flawed, then why did you try to award this bid in February 19, 2001 to Command?" she gave no reply. In investigating this bid (#01-023), the SGJ found that there were NO changes to the specifications at all by the Sheriff's Department. Continuing with her letter to the Sheriff, she also states, "Command Uniform’s contract does not expire until July 30, 2001. If you are in need of uniforms, please continue to place your order with Command." This new bid now states that the contract period for #01-023A will be a 24-month period. This is just the first of many changes this bid undergoes before it is finally awarded.

March 2001

On March 9, 2001, Jim Wall, City Attorney, Geri Sams, Purchasing Director, Mary Bedenbaugh, Purchasing Agent, Ronnie Strength, Sheriff, Mary Ann Gibbs, Richmond County Sheriff's Office (RCSO) Purchasing Agent, and Walter Hornsby, Interim Administrator, met to discuss the February 13, 2001 agenda item and bid award. As a result of that meeting, the City Attorney sent a letter to the Interim Administrator confirming the re-bid and making suggestions for the bid tabulation sheet. He stated, in reviewing the new specifications (Bid Item #01-023A), "I believe there is still room for confusion." Later he states, "Therefore, in my opinion, the same bid sheet as was utilized with the 1999 Uniform and Accessories bid, should be utilized." (Appendix O) This 1999 bid simply listed each type of item for a single unit price and did not include approximate quantities. It was evaluated for overall lowest bid to determine the vendor winning the contract.

The vendors did not receive the bid package and had to be notified by the Sheriff's Department of the MANDATORY Pre-Bid Meeting scheduled for 3:00 p.m., Thursday, March 22, 2001. Obviously, someone in Purchasing had not done their job in mailing out the bid packages. The new bid tabulation sheets now had multiple sizes listed for each uniform item in Section A and Section B for the belt, kitchen shirts and reversible flight jackets. The Sheriff's Department will never order some of the sizes listed. For example, the quartermaster (the person in charge of the Sheriff's stockroom for uniforms and equipment) only stocks motorcycle pants up to size 40, but the tabulation sheet asks for sizes 52 and up. The same is true for bicycle pants and shorts. They only stock up to 2X, but the tabulation sheet again asks for 52 and up. In testimony (January 17, 2002), the Purchasing Director, who designed this tabulation method (as a result of Command Uniforms protest in January) admitted to not consulting with the RCSO quartermaster before submitting #01-023A. By not consulting with him or asking about their inventory and the sizes they stock, the Purchasing Director was not getting all the pertinent information needed. Yet, the Special Grand Jury had no difficulty in getting this information. It was this new tabulation method that the City Attorney wrote of with concern in his February 13, 2001 letter. At this juncture, it should be pointed out that the Sheriff's Uniform Specifications were exactly like those on #01-023 opened in December and that the two main vendors also knew what the other had bid previously on each item.

On March 30, 2001, the addendums to #01-023A began. The first change (addendum #1) concerned military creases. This change called for Landtrex creases as opposed to sewn in military creases stated in the specifications for the long sleeve shirts (item #2) and the kitchen shirts (item #31). By April 6, 2001, addendum #2 reversed addendum #1 and called for stitched in creases. (Appendix P) The specifications were reversed and Command seemed to benefit.

April 2001

At this point, the Sheriff's Department had already lost two months of lead-time necessary for getting an order in and to begin the new process. They needed to restock their supplies in order to get uniformed deputies out on the road. Fear of litigation due to the handling of #01-023 and #01-023A compelled the Sheriff's Department to order enough uniforms to last the majority of the year while this bid was straightened out. On April 4, 2001, the Purchasing Director called the Sheriff's Department requesting that they immediately fax to her the uniform orders with quantities. Purchasing usually only enters the initial order for a new sealed bid then has the department enter the rest of the orders themselves. After all, this is why the various departments are on the Purchasing system in the first place. Immediately after testifying January 17, 2002, the Purchasing Director instructed the Sheriff's Department that they could no longer enter any items to be purchased from a sealed bid contract. This seems to be an attempt to make reality mirror her testimony. There was no need to tie up Purchasing's limited personnel to do what the outlying departments can do themselves.

On April 5, 2001, the Purchasing Director in a memo acknowledged the order received for the uniforms from the Sheriff's Department. She went on to say that she had found a net savings of $7,136.46 by comparing Command and Sidney's, yet the prices she used were not Command’s 1999 bid prices. She had increased the cost of the pants by 3½% (from the 1999 price of $48.76 to $50.50) and the two shirts (long- and short-sleeve) by 10% (long 1999 price of $42.90 to $49.55 and short 1999 price of $35.97 to $41.90). (Appendix Q) Our first question was why did Sams allow increased prices when the contract holds the vendor to the bidded prices. After all, the very reason for having contracts is to prevent sudden price increases. Second, she should not do a comparison with Sidney's 1999 prices at all when that contract is already valid. When the Sheriff's Department did their own comparison, they found a cost increase of $16,340.97 to the County (using the 1999 bid prices versus the "new" inflated prices that the Purchasing Director had created). In searching the Augusta-Richmond County Code, the SGJ did not find anything allowing the Purchasing Director to increase prices in an open valid contract. It is also the opinion of the City Attorney that Sams could not do this. Not only had she manufactured these inflated prices, but she also cut the purchase orders (PO# P39486, PO# P39487 and PO# P39488) for the Sheriff's uniforms using these prices instead of the 1999 bid prices. (Appendix R) The Purchasing Director is supposed to help the County save money, not help a vendor make a larger profit.

In testimony (January 17, 2002), Sams justified inflating the prices by saying that the contract had been extended, thus giving a loophole for a price increase. This is not true. In her letter of February 23, 2001, she stated clearly that the contract ran through July 30, 2001, as did the Commission when the contract was originally awarded. (Appendix M-1) Therefore, there was no need for an extension (or a price increase). She also stated that since the manufacturer had increased their prices, the vendor needed to increase theirs. First, the Commission must approve all change orders (code 1-10-82). The Purchasing Director cannot do this unilaterally. Second, since the manufacturer owns the vendor, they can, therefore, supply Command cheaper. Third, the vendor is bound by the submitted bid prices for the duration of the contract. It is not the County's responsibility to make sure that the vendor is making enough of a profit.

On April 11, 2001, the City Attorney wrote Sams about several concerns. He first reminded the Purchasing Director of a memo he had faxed to her on March 29, 2001, indicating his opinion that "Command Uniform was bound by their bid amount." He further stated, "These Purchase Orders should be revoked immediately, and a new Purchase Order issued to Command Uniforms at the prices indicated above, which is their 1999 bid prices, good for a two-year period." (Appendix S)

Another area of concern for him was the new Bid Tabulation Sheet to be used in #01-023A. The City Attorney wrote, " I do not believe the bid tabulation sheet, and instructions, are designed to give Augusta the best bid price. Previously, I had indicated that by breaking out the numerous sizes of shirts, you have given undue emphasis to the shirt prices, which will give a skewed total price." Further he stated, "The bid tabulation sheets for the 1999 uniform bids should again be utilized for the 2001 bids, in my opinion, absent a basis for estimating the different quantities of each item that would be purchased. To do this, I am told, would be guess work since the Sheriff's Office does not know what quantities might be ordered over a one or two year time period." (Appendix S-2) In the conclusion he wrote, "I urge you to submit an addendum to the uniform bid package. Otherwise, I believe that you are inviting a protest that frankly may have merit." (Appendix S-3)

On April 16, 2001, the Purchasing Director faxed a portion of the Augusta- Richmond County Code to the City Attorney, which purportedly allowed her to increase the pricing as she had done on the Command Uniform purchases. (Appendix T) "1-10-52 (d) Negotiating:" only refers to "when the low responsive bid exceeds the available funds as certified by Finance and such bid does not exceed funds by more that 20% then when time permits or economic considerations preclude further resolicitation of work of a reduced scope the Administrator and Purchasing Director negotiate an adjustment with the low responsive bidder." This Code is referring to a project that overbids the available funds and involves cutting the bid price. It has nothing to do with "keeping a contract" by raising the County's cost to do business with a company with whom the County already has a two-year, firm price contract. 1-10-34(c) states the following: "Required submissions relating to change orders or contract modifications. A contractor shall submit cost or pricing data prior to the approval of any change order or contract modification, including adjustments to contracts awarded by competitive sealed bidding, whether or not cost or pricing data was required in connection with the initial pricing of the contract, whenever the change or modification involves aggregate increases or aggregate decreases of five percent (5%) or more of original bid or proposal price." (The Purchasing Director did the underlining.) This does not give Sams the right to change the prices.

Any increased cost to the company from their manufacturer is not a problem that the County needs to address. They had an opportunity to increase their prices and profit margin with #01-023 and #01-023A. Any change in prices must go before the Commission for approval before there can be any changes made (as per Code 1-10-82). The Commission had no such involvement in this instance. The Purchasing Director totally misinterpreted the Code. This is further evidence of Sams’ inability to perform her job. Because of the inflated prices and since it would be used as "historical data" later, Sams insisted on Purchasing entering the order instead of the Sheriff's Department.

April 18, 2001 brought two letters from the Interim Administrator to the Purchasing Director. The first letter instructed her to void PO# P39486 immediately and issue a new purchase order using the contract prices instead of the inflated ones. (Appendix U) New purchase orders, with the proper contract prices, were cut April 19, 2001. (Appendix V) However, the previous purchase orders cut April 5, 2001 were not voided until April 26, 2001 and the Sheriff's Uniform line item was overdrawn by $233,182.00. The quantities on this purchase order resurfaced as "historical data" for the "weighted average" bid tabulation sheet.

The second letter from the Interim Administrator instructed her to issue an addendum to all vendors on bid #01-023A utilizing a bid tabulation form similar to 1999 Uniform Bid. (Appendix W) In response, the Purchasing Director issued addendum #4 (there was no addendum #3) on April 19, 2001, utilizing the single unit bid tabulation sheet. On the addendum she wrote, "Per the directives of Mr. Walter Hornsby, Interim Director and Mr. Jim Wall, County Attorney, enclosed you will find the bid tabulation sheet to be used for Rebid #01-023A."(Appendix X) As of April 19, 2001, the specifications in both #01-023 and #01-023A were identical and 4-1/2 months had elapsed with no resolution.

As for the voided purchase orders, the head of the Purchasing Department is one of the few employees allowed to void a purchase order, yet she was (and is) incapable of completing the three necessary steps and was unable to direct her staff as to the process. Concerning the overdrawn uniform line item in the Sheriff's budget, the City Attorney sent a letter to the Purchasing Agent in the Purchasing Director's absence on April 26, 2001, instructing her to void the original April 5, 2001 purchase orders (PO# 39486, PO# 39487 and PO# 39488). (Appendix Y) Why must the City Attorney follow up on something requested by the Interim Administrator a week before? Clearly, Sams did not feel she was accountable to her supervisor. Also, it is telling that she did not know how to void a purchase order and had to wait for Bedenbaugh to return to work to do it properly. When Sams returned to work, she immediately wrote the City Attorney and placed the blame for not fully completing the three-step void process on the Finance Department. (Appendix Z) Further research showed that, because the uniform line item was overdrawn, an automatic system block was placed on it. As soon as the void process was completed properly, the system block was automatically removed. This block was triggered because of the Purchasing Director and not the Finance Department as the Purchasing Director stated in her letter to the City Attorney on April 26, 2001. Again, she blamed her mistakes on others.

On April 30, 2001, yet another addendum (#5) was issued for Re-bid #01-023A. This one made changes to the collar of the summer short-sleeved shirts (Item #3) and to the OC Spray Holder (Item #33 - listed as item #32 on the addendum). (Appendix AA)

May 2001

On May 2, 2001, Commissioner Lee Beard organized a meeting with Jim Wall, City Attorney, Geri Sams, Purchasing Director, Jerry Brigham, Commissioner, Willie Mays, Mayor Pro Tempore, George Kolb, the new City Administrator, Walter Hornsby, Deputy Administrator, Ronnie Strength, Sheriff, and Mary Ann Gibbs, RCSO Purchasing Agent. At this meeting, it was decided to "save face for Geri" and reinstate the multi-sized bid tabulation sheet with a "weighted average" evaluation. This was done even though Hornsby and Wall had already advised against this and had documented their decisions. As a result of this meeting, addendum #6 was issued on May 7, 2001, including the eight-page bid tabulation sheets, notification that the bid award would be based on the total weighted average of each item number, as well as alerting the vendors that the May 9, 2001 bid opening had been postponed until Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. (Appendix BB) Why were Commissioners involved with this at this point? Was it patronage, micro-management or both?

On May 11, 2001, a second "addendum #6" went out stating that the bid opening had again been changed to Tuesday, May 22, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. (Vendors reported receiving several "addendum #6’s".) (Appendix CC) Originally, a sample showing was scheduled for May 14, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. That day, the Sheriff's Department received a call from Purchasing at 9:00 a.m. stating that there would not be a sample showing. At 1:55 p.m., a second call informed them that there would be a sample showing at 2:00 p.m. By 2:05 p.m., Sheriff Department representatives were present for the sample showing, but they could not bring their samples due to the time frame. They arranged to bring the samples in on Monday, May 21, 2001. On that Monday, the quartermaster, sergeant and the RCSO Purchasing Agent took the samples to Purchasing. The Director and three other Purchasing employees were there, but no vendors were present. Confusion was the order of the day due to this miscommunication.

On May 22, 2001, Sheriff's Uniform Bid #01-023A was opened. It appeared that Sidney's had won both Sections A and B and was the overall lowest bidder. [A ($2,023.94 versus $2,297.68), B ($853.80 versus $954.40) and overall ($2,877.74 versus $3,252.08)]. (Appendix DD) However, it was not over. The Purchasing Director issued a memo on May 30, 2001 to the bidders stating that the "weighted averages" gave Section A (Uniforms) to Command ($49.82 versus $50.46) and Section B (Accessories) to Sidney's ($30.10 versus $33.61). (Appendix EE) When the SGJ researched this "weighted average" bid tabulation sheet, we found every possible collar size along with every conceivable sleeve length listed for bidding. By listing little used and large-sized collars and sleeve lengths, Sams gave disproportionate "weight" to the winter shirts in determining the "weighted average" bid. This, according to her math, would give the more valuable section to Command. By using these phantom numbers, it would cost the County more money.

June 2001

On June 4, 2001, Purchasing received a protest from the attorney representing Sidney's Department Store and Uniform, Inc. calling the bid tabulation "fatally flawed" and "that it is based on non-typical quantity computations - and is not as required and previously announced by you an average of the quantities needed and required by Richmond County Sheriff's Department over the past four (4) year period." (Appendix FF) Here again, this "historical data" raises its ugly head and still no one has seen it. Under 1-10-67-(c) of the Augusta-Richmond County Code, he requested "that the Purchasing Director not proceed further with the solicitation or award of the contract until all administrative remedies have been exhausted or until the Augusta-Richmond County Administrator or Commission makes a determination on the record that the award of the contract without delay is necessary to protect the interests of Augusta-Richmond County." (Appendix FF-2) They requested a conference with the "Purchasing Director, City Attorney, Administrator and a representative from the Sheriff's Department to establish creditable numbers of the items that are sought to be purchased." The argument was this. The quantities that were on the bid tabulation sheet is the same "historical data" the Sheriff's Department ordered in April 2001, not the four-year history as claimed by the Purchasing Director on several occasions. These numbers skewed the overall outcome because of the number of oversized and little used shirt sizes listed. This is the very thing that the City Attorney addressed in his letter of April 11, 2001 to the Purchasing Director. (Appendix S) By all normal evaluation standards, Sidney's was low bidder until you throw in the quantities. The manufacturer, Fechheimer, owns Command Uniforms. Therefore, Command can offer the County lower prices on the overage sizes. However, the prices offered were not necessarily the lowest. The specifications call for Fechheimer merchandise "or equal" items. Sidney's would have to order from Fechheimer or risk being found "not meeting specs." Command can offer Fechheimer oversizes at a loss-leader cost while they charge Sidney's a higher fee. This bid tabulation sheet allows a minority of odd sizes to disproportionately determine the outcome of the re-bid. This tabulation sheet is the only possible way to reward the contract based on disproportionate numbers. There are obvious questions: Where did this bid tabulation sheet originate? Was this based on information given to the Purchasing Director by the manager of Command Uniforms? Or was this the brainchild of a Commissioner "to save face" for the Purchasing Director? Either way, this was not a process that was in the best interest of the County nor was it truly competitive, since it seemed to punish a local business.

July and August 2001

There was a meeting on July 20, 2001 with Command Uniforms, Sidney's, Sidney's attorney, the Sheriff, the RCSO Purchasing Agent, the Purchasing Director, a Purchasing technician and the City Attorney. On August 3, 2001, the Sheriff met with the Administrator and decided to award the contract to Sidney's. (Appendix GG)

On August 6, 2001, an agenda item was submitted to the Public Safety Committee awarding the bid to Sidney's. There were actually two agenda items written with the difference being in the recommendation section. The first states: "In their determination to select the most economically feasible provider, emphasis was placed on not establishing monopoly situations." Given the skewed bid tabulation sheet, that would only give Section A to Command who already had the contract previously, so it seems that Command already has a "monopoly" as they have the majority of uniform contracts with the County. This agenda item was rewritten to read only: "Selected the most economically feasible provider." (Appendix HH)

With no recommendation from the Public Safety Committee, the item moved to the regular commission meeting. At the August 21, 2001 meeting, eight months after the original bid opening, the Administrator asked that both Sections A and B of the Sheriff's Uniform Bid #01-023A be awarded to Sidney's. "My recommendation, and I believe the Sheriff would concur with me, is to bid it on the basis of the unit prices". (Appendix II-2) Since the contract with Command had expired, action needed to be taken that day so the Sheriff could get uniforms for his deputies. Commissioner Williams decided that he wanted to hear from the Purchasing Director as to "whether or not this is the normal way. "Is this the same way we've been doing the process over the years?" (Appendix II-2 (a)) The Purchasing Director answered, "Yes." Yet, she then proceeded to outline how this was different than how it had been done in the past. She tried to explain that the purpose of the total weighted average was for the bid tabulation sheet to mirror the purchase orders to be let by Augusta-Richmond County. (Appendix II-3) There is no way that this could possibly happen, given the well publicized changing needs of the Sheriff's Department's personnel and budget restrictions. Obviously, the quantities purchased will not match the bid tabulation sheet. And she could not prove how this "mirror" could help the County.

Commissioner Williams continues, "I'm trying to following Purchasing, Mr. Mayor, cause I think our procedure ought to be the same all the time. We ought to do what we going to do and right, so I need some clarification from Ms. Sams, your office, as the way your recommendation is." (Appendix II-3 (a)) Then in direct opposition to her superior’s recommendation, the Purchasing Director answered, "My recommendation is to award the bid Section A to Command Uniform and Section B to Sidney's Department Store based on weighted average as specified in the specifications." Commissioner Williams immediately turns her recommendation into a motion, seconded by Commissioner Beard. Commissioner Cheeks voiced his concern. "My concern is that we got all the way to the floor with this type of concern or debate or whatever over the math that we’re using to do these calculations. At this point, you have math one way that says one person is low bidder and math the other way that says another person is low bidder." (Appendix II-3 (a)) The City Attorney then spoke, "I guess I would like to clarify perhaps something that Ms. Sams said because the question was asked whether or not this is the way we've always done it and I differ – not sure how she interpreted the question, but I would respond to that question differently. . . . The methodology is different than we've used before so there has been a different method for the last two bids that has gone out. Before what we did, we bid it strictly on unit prices." He continued, "When you look at the dollar amounts that are down the list, you will see that only in three categories does Command have the lowest per item cost. That's in the men's trousers, women's trousers and then, I believe, it's the emblems, the third item."(Appendix II-4) Commissioner Cheeks stated, "it's my understanding that we've massaged and calculated these things a couple of times – that lends the appearance to the public that we're trying to adjust the bids and the outcome of the bids to suit a particular vendor." (Appendix II-5) Commissioner Shepard said, "I just can’t escape the conclusion that all these weighted averages are fuzzy math and I think we need to do something that can be defended when we do it and That's the actual cost per item method. (Appendix II-6 (a)) Ultimately, the Commission voted to award the bid to Sidney's, but Commissioner Williams voted "No" and Beard, Colclough and Mays abstained. Before the Purchasing Director and the City Administrator left the chambers, the Mayor said, "The Chair would like to make just an observation, Mr. Kolb, that it's really frustrating, at least to myself, and it may be to some of the others, when the staff comes in here divided on a recommendation. . . . They may, some of the staff may not like the final decision, but Mr. Kolb is the final arbitrator to this group and I would encourage you, when you bring items before us, that your staff be behind you on these things and not come up here with mixed messages that just further cloud the issue." (Appendix II-6 (a)-7) This caused great embarrassment for both the Administrator and the Purchasing Director.

Conclusion

This bid process was needlessly extended eight months, exposed the County to possible litigation and delayed what could have been easily settled in January 2001. Why did the Purchasing Director extend this process, use flawed numbers and logic from Command and go to great lengths to recommend Command and contradict the County Attorney, Administrator and the Sheriff? She could never answer these questions. When asked by the SGJ, Sams made this process unnecessarily hard, created a confused mess and the end result was that Sidney's still won the bid. Her motivation must be questioned. This episode was riddled with blunders to say the least. Sams demonstrated gross incompetence in attempting to perform her duties as a department head.

Sheriff's Uniform Addendum

An additional cost to the County concerning the Sheriff's Uniform Bid that did not show up on the bid tabulation sheet was the cost of the close involvement of the City Attorney with this bid and all its problems. When the SGJ requested his time sheets concerning the Sheriff's Uniform Bid, we discovered that his time cost the County an additional $2,025.00 on just this one issue. Had the contract been awarded in January 2001, this additional cost would not have been incurred. Because of Geri Sams’ blundering, the attorney was needlessly involved and she continually ignored his advice. It was a waste of his time and our money. (Appendix JJ)

Other Uniform Bids

There are several other major uniform bids let out by the County under the purview of the Purchasing Department. They are the Richmond County Correctional Institution (RCCI), the Fire Department, the Public Transit Department, the School Patrol, Public Work Uniforms and the Marshal's Uniform Bid. None of these have had the scrutiny, attention and direct involvement of the Purchasing Department as the Sheriff's Department Uniform Bid.

Marshal's Uniform Bid

A unique feature of the Marshal's Uniform Bid was the introduction of the one-year/one-year option contract term. We heard testimony on several occasions that the Purchasing Department was trying to move all uniform bids to a two-year contract in order to save time (given the start-up delay for a new vendor) and money (to lock the vendor into a set price for two years). When asked the reasoning for the one-year/one-year option, the Purchasing Director, in her January 17, 2002 testimony, stated that the manufacturer's costs might rise during the two-year contract and this one-year option would enable vendors to renegotiate prices upward. She also stated that the Marshal wanted to have this one-year option. The possibility of increases in uniform prices makes the two-year contract far more advisable for the financial sake of the County. As stated previously, Richmond County is not responsible for a vendor's profit margin.

RCCI Uniforms

The RCCI 2001 Officer Uniform Bid #01-002 only received bids from the two vendors who already had the split contract from the previous year and two "No Bid" responses from the two companies who, in previous years, had responded with "No Bid." The Purchasing Department should have stepped in to make sure there was a more competitive environment. Prices were to remain in effect through December 31, 2001. The new bid was split between the two responding vendors virtually on a line-item basis with no "approximate quantities," numerous size possibilities or a weighted average evaluation. For example, Mid America Uniforms was awarded the bid for the pants and short- and long-sleeve dress shirts while Uniforms Unlimited, out of Athens, was awarded the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) pants and the long- and short-sleeve BDU shirts. Unlike the delay with the Sheriff's Uniform Bid, there were neither pre-bid meetings nor sample showings and this bid was awarded by January 11, 2001.

Fire Department Uniforms

The Fire Department is responsible for the second largest uniform contract in the County. The Fire Department Uniform Bid #00-071 was awarded to the highest bidder, Command Uniforms, with approval of the Department Head (former Fire Chief, Ronnie Few), the Purchasing Director and the Commission. This was an overall lowest cost evaluation, yet the highest bidder received the contract. The lowest vendor did not bid on one item, so he was eliminated from consideration. In her testimony on January 17, 2002, the Purchasing Director was unclear as to why the second lowest vendor did not receive the bid award. At one point, she tried to say that because the vendor charged a set-up cost for one item and the higher vendor did not, the higher vendor was awarded the bid. It was pointed out to her that even when taking in consideration the set-up fee, the second lowest vendor was still lower than the bid winner. At that point, she could not explain why the bid was awarded the way it was. (Appendix KK) Sams said that the Fire Chief (Ronnie Few) had chosen the highest bid vendor as the Department's choice as was his right; however, the Purchasing Director had insisted that another department go with the lower bid when they had chosen a higher vendor. Why not insist on what was most cost effective for the County this time instead of what the department head desired?

Transit Uniforms

The Public Transit Uniform Bid #02-029 contract was for a twenty-four (24) month period. There were neither approximate quantities, multitude of size differentiations nor weighted average evaluations. However, there was a sample showing on December 20, 2001. This bid opened December 13, 2001, yet by January 17, 2002, when the Purchasing Director testified, it still had not been awarded nor had several others. Her reasoning was that, because the Commission had not finalized the 2002 Budget, she would not award the contract. This is not a viable reason for delaying the process. A bid can be awarded without a department ordering from the vendor. This allows the vendor to prepare and stockpile items. Even after the Commission finalized the Budget on February 21, 2002, the Purchasing Director still delayed the bid awards until March 18, 2002.

School Patrol Uniforms

Another bid was the School Patrol Uniform Bid #02-033. The bid opening date was December 7, 2001. Since this is a one-year contract period, swiftness of the contract award would be prudent, especially since the specifications require the vendor to maintain a stock of items in a variety of sizes that can be delivered to the RCSO within 48 hours after they are requested. This bid was awarded on January 25, 2002, in spite of the fact that the Commissioners had not yet approved the 2002 Budget; an excuse the Purchasing Director used for not awarding the other uniform bids just the week before in her testimony (January 17, 2002). The specifications included a tabulation sheet including "approximate quantities." A sample showing was part of the bid specification requirements. Unique to this bid was the "Brand Name Statement." It states: "Any reference to brand names, trade names, model numbers or other descriptions peculiar to specific brand products is made to establish a required level of equality and functional capabilities; it is not intended to exclude other products of that level. Comparable products of other manufacturers will be considered if proof of comparability is contained in the bid." This is the only uniform bid that we examined to use this "Brand Name Statement" even though the Code (1-10-30) allows for an "or equal" option meeting or exceeding the bid specifications. This statement is not a part of all the uniform bids.

Public Work Uniforms

The 2002 Public Work Uniforms Bid (#02-001) was one of the largest uniform bid contracts with a December 6, 2001 bid opening date, later moved to December 10, 2001. This Uniform Bid is a blanket bid for several departments throughout the County. This particular bid included a MANDATORY Pre-Bid Conference on November 30, 2001, a sample showing on December 19, 2001 and the stipulation that the vendor must bid on all items in a section to be considered for awarding in the section. No partial bids for a section would be accepted. This was a one-year with a one-year option to renew contract. Any changes in the contract must be requested in writing sixty days (60) in advance pending approval. This bid had the various types of shoes broken down into various sizes, yet it did not include approximate quantities or a multitude of sleeve and collar sizes. However, it did ask for size breakdowns up to 4X and 5X sizes for shirts and jackets. The specifications included the information that the bid would be determined by the most feasible bid meeting or exceeding specifications. This is another delayed award, "due to the Commissioners," not awarded until March 4, 2002. One interesting thing about the work shoes in these specifications is that the County only allows a $75.00 allowance for work shoes, yet the specifications call for specific footwear (Wolverines), which is priced much higher. The specifications should reflect the shoes that will be attainable with the shoe allowance restrictions.

An interesting aspect of the #99-001 Public Work Uniform Bid was that the Purchasing Department piggybacked "dress down Friday" golf shirts on this bid. The Purchasing Department employees did not have to pay for these shirts nor did they have to turn them into Purchasing when they left the County's employment. This was definitely an "add-on," but we have found no evidence of Committee or Commission approval to do so, even though the Purchasing Director, as noted earlier, gave testimony to this necessary step. The Purchasing Director allowed other departments to order golf shirts as well; for example, the Tax Commissioner’s Department. Employees in work areas where uniforms are not mandated should be required to reimburse the County for "dress down" or "special event" shirts.

911 Uniforms

When the 911 Center elected to wear uniforms, they were told by Purchasing that whatever they got would have to come from the contract holder of the Public Work Uniform Bid (#99-001), Uniformals Unlimited. They were not allowed to have their own contract. Yet in testimony on January 17, 2002, the Purchase Director clearly stated that any department choosing to wear uniforms had the option of putting out their own bid, although Ms. Sams encouraged departments to use the Public Work Uniform Bid.

The 911 Center was not allowed to put out a bid even though they had their own specifications ready. Getting the uniforms they wanted proved challenging. Because of the limitations of the contractor, the 911 Center could not get the quality shirts or the logos that they wanted. There were delivery problems as well. The 911 Director testified he would have preferred to do his own bid process instead of being restricted by this contract.

Overview

Looking at all these uniform bids, there are questions: With so many uniform contracts utilized by the County, why are there so many variations? Why are there not standard tabulation sheets, specification criteria, equal contract time durations and a single method of bid evaluation? Why are some bids line item awards, some section awards and some overall lowest cost? Why does the Purchasing Director give such scrutiny to one Department's uniform bid, yet be practically hands off with others? Why does the Purchasing Director determine the winning bidder in some cases, yet let the user agency determine for themselves in others? Why does the Purchasing Director use as an excuse the Commissioners’ delay in approving the 2002 Budget? When it was approved, why did she not immediately award the bids instead of prolonging the process of crucial uniform bids even further? The Purchasing Director and even her supervisors were unable to give the SGJ clear answers to these questions. There is clearly chaos in Purchasing.

K-9 Renovation Bid

In 2000, the Sheriff's Department K-9 Division needed to renovate an existing building located at the Richmond County Training Center to make four new office spaces. The Sheriff's Department got the required three written bids with each bidder doing a manual check of the facilities prior to submitting the bid. Then, they submitted the requisition to the Purchasing Department. Since a state grant, expiring in June 2001, was to fund three quarters of the expense of renovation, the requisition was submitted on January 4, 2001 for "prompt" attention. On February 27, 2001, the Purchasing Director scrawled, "All Bids rejected due to not following Purchasing Procedure." Yet, the Purchasing Director did not point out what was still needed. In testimony (January 17, 2002) the Purchasing Director told the Special Grand Jury that they did not have all the paperwork, yet she could not tell us what paperwork was missing. Since two of the bids were under the $10,000.00 sealed bid requirement ($9,768.00 and $9,925.00) and the bids were attached, this response puzzled the Sheriff's Department. Meanwhile, precious time was passing. The Purchasing Director then submitted written Bid #01-511 on March 5, 2001. The two lowest bidders did not participate in written Bid #01-511. The low bidder, in this written bid, lowered his original bid of $11,988.00 to $10,250.00 and the only other bidder submitted a bid for $23,370.00. There were not the required three written bids and the winner charged more than the project would have cost had the Purchasing Director let the Sheriff's Department's original written bid stand. The Sheriff's Department, on April 9, 2001, submitted the requisition for this new bid four months after the original requisition was submitted. (Appendix LL) Here again, the Purchasing Director unnecessarily cost the County more money and valuable time in a bid situation.

During this same time period, the Recreation Department submitted a written bid, in the same form as the Sheriff's Department had done, getting three written estimates and submitting them to the Purchasing Department. The two lowest bidders were $8,372.00 and $9,360.00 and the Purchasing Director accepted them. (Appendix MM) Again, the RCSO is being held to different standards than other departments.

On December 17, 2001, the Fire Department submitted a requisition for a Thermal Imaging Camera. Three written estimates were submitted with the requisition, (but the Interim Chief had not signed it), then a second camera was added bringing the total amount to $17,800.00 – well above the $10,000.00 amount necessary for sealed bids. (Appendix NN) The Purchasing Director let this faulty process proceed. Ms. Sams handled the paperwork personally. According to Code 1-10-82, any contract modification, which has not already been approved by the Commission, is subject to approval by the Commission. The Commission did not act on this change before the purchase order was cut. Eventually, the Interim Chief signed the requisition, but only after the purchase order had been cut. Certain departments are being treated differently and held to different standards by the Purchasing Department.

Food for the Jails

Until May 1, 2002, the Purchasing Department was responsible for ordering the weekly food for the Phinizy Road, Judicial Law Enforcement Center (JLEC) and Richmond County Correctional Institution (RCCI), feeding over 900 inmates two to three meals a day. The process began on Monday morning when the jails’ Food Managers faxed the next week’s food orders to Purchasing. By Tuesday, the week’s orders were faxed to the vendors for quotes to be faxed back by Thursday. On Friday morning the bids were awarded and the orders faxed to the winning bidders for delivery the following Monday or Tuesday at the latest. The company who supplies the majority of the meat order had to receive the order by 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time in order to have the necessary supplies shipped and delivered in time.

On Thursday, January 31, 2002, the Purchasing Agent, Mary Bedenbaugh (who was temporarily assigned the responsibility of the weekly jail food orders in addition to her already heavy workload, when the responsible Purchasing Technician resigned), prepared all the jail food bids and had each order ready to be faxed to the appropriate vendors. When she woke up sick Friday morning, February 1, 2002, she called Ms. Sams before 8:45 a.m. to request sick time and to inform her that the vendor orders were ready and simply needed to be faxed and that the numbers were already programmed into the fax machine address book. Sams indicated that she would take care of it. On Saturday morning, one of the vendors who regularly provide a portion of the groceries called Mrs. Bedenbaugh at home and stated that he had not received an order that week. When Mrs. Bedenbaugh called Ms. Sams at home to inquire if the jail food orders had been faxed to the vendors, Ms. Sams said that she guessed they had not, but that she had been busy with the Commissioners all day. (The meeting did not start until 2:00 p.m.) Fax records show that one fax was sent after 5:00 p.m. and the vendor has confirmed that he did not receive the order. (Appendix OO) After 5:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon, it is too late to get these orders to the vendors in time, especially the one in California. Simply faxing the orders Friday morning was all that needed to be done.

To rectify the situation, Mrs. Bedenbaugh left her sick bed Saturday, February 2, 2002, went to the office to fax the orders to as many vendors as possible and waited for their replies. (Appendix PP) The faxes themselves document this. On Monday, February 4th, the Sheriff received calls from the Jail Food Managers regarding the groceries not being delivered. The RCSO Purchasing Agent, Mary Ann Gibbs, Mrs. Bedenbaugh and several others worked all morning to try and reach the vendors who had been missed on Saturday. (Appendix QQ) Given the delay, they were unable to fill the main meat order. When one of the main Purchasing Technicians was asked by Mrs. Bedenbaugh why she did not fax the orders on Friday, she responded, "I'm not getting into your groceries. I don’t know how or want to know how." Fortunately, due to Mrs. Bedenbaugh’s concern on Saturday, February 2, 2002, most of the orders were received, including one that came without an order, but whose vendor knows what is needed weekly. However, the jails were short on the majority of their meat orders due to the delay. A department, responsible for such an important weekly duty, should have several people cross-trained and proficient in ordering the weekly jail food. Sams failed to carry out a simple duty and then explained her inaction by blaming others. She did not make sure that another employee completed this vital, time-sensitive work and she disregarded the needs of the Richmond County Sheriff's Office and over 900 inmates.

Food for the Jails, Part 2

This is not an isolated incident with the food orders. On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, the Purchasing Agent was out sick so she contacted one of the Purchasing Technicians to ask her to fax the orders to the vendors for quotes for the week. The Purchasing Technician responded that she did not have time to send the faxes; however, none of her responsibilities are of this same time-sensitive nature. The Purchasing Technician finally sent the faxes Wednesday morning, but not before the Purchasing Agent returned to work. On Wednesday, February 20, 2002, the Purchasing Director began asking questions about the jail food orders when she began to receive questions concerning this situation. Until that day, she had not discussed the food situation with the Purchasing Agent. The Purchasing Director then called a meeting with the Purchasing Agent and two other Technicians at 4:45 p.m. The meeting turned into a shouting match.

As a result of this meeting on February 20, 2002, the Purchasing Agent wrote a letter requesting a meeting through the chain of command and then a grievance, dated February 21, 2002, was filed concerning her treatment regarding the food orders for the jail. On February 26, 2002, the Purchasing Director suspended the Purchasing Agent for three days for "insubordination, misrepresentation of important facts in seeking information in an administrative process, and refusal to follow the directives of your department director." Unfortunately, for the Purchasing Department, the suspension began on Wednesday, February 27, 2002, which put the department into the dilemma of getting the jail food ordered for the week. Although the Purchasing Agent had faxed the orders to the vendors on Tuesday for the quotes, the Purchasing Director insisted that the Sheriff's Department refax the orders again to Purchasing on Wednesday. The Purchasing Director found herself not knowing how to handle the next steps in the ordering process nor was there anyone else in the department capable of handling the situation. Because of the time sensitivity, the Purchasing Director contacted the former Purchasing employee who had held this position prior to resigning from Purchasing. Reportedly, the Director had to get step-by-step instructions from this former employee in order to be able to proceed. This shows the ineptitude of the Purchasing Director (and Department) and is a glaring example of the lack of cross training. It is rather damning that the Purchasing Director had to contact a former employee in order to handle such situations in the Department.

The outcome of this order was frustrating for the Food Service Managers at the jails. Instead of the 20 cases of hot dogs requested (1,920 hot dogs), only 20 pounds of hot dogs were ordered (200 hot dogs). Instead of the 10 cases of Hot Pockets requested (480), only 4 cases were ordered (96). Instead of the requested 5 cases of chicken patties yielding 800 patties, the 5 cases ordered only yielded 270 patties. (Appendix RR) Because of the lack of analytical ability to look at quantities in cases as well as prices, the user agency was shorted what they needed. Again, Purchasing failed to service the Sheriff's Department. When questioned as to what happened, the Purchasing Director blamed the Food Managers for not catching the mistakes created by the Purchasing Department in this order. Yet, by the time the Food Managers received the order information, it was too late in the process to make the necessary changes.

In preparation for the Purchasing Agent’s suspension hearing, the Purchasing Director contacted one of the food vendors and asked the representative to send a letter describing the problems of February 1, 2002 and the Purchasing Agent’s "errors." It is clearly improper to involve a vendor in an internal proceeding. The resulting letter was detrimental to Sams’ case against Bedenbaugh. The letter emphasized two points, i.e. Purchasing's lack of ability to handle the food orders and Ms. Bedenbaugh’s help and professionalism in remedying this situation. (Appendix SS) At the hearing, the three-day suspension was overturned and Bedenbaugh was given only a written reprimand.

Conclusion

Under the guise of streamlining and making the weekly grocery orders easier, the Purchasing Director issued a letter on March 6, 2002 introducing a new "process change for weekly groceries." (Appendix TT) (This also affected the monthly grocery orders and janitorial supplies.) The new process will be: Monday: the Department will fax the orders to the vendors before 2:00 p.m., Wednesday: the Vendors must fax quotes back by 4:00 p.m. to the Purchasing Department, Thursday: Purchasing will fax quotes to user departments by 10:00 a.m. The departments then have to fax the orders to the vendors. Finally, "Purchasing will only be responsible for the approval of the requisition submitted electronically and the execution of the purchase order." In another letter written on the same day, the Purchasing Director states, "This procedure will . . . cut down on the number of City personnel involved in what should be a simple process." All this "new" process has done is add another level of bureaucracy and more employees to the procedure. This slows the system and is less efficient. Instead of correcting the deficiencies in Purchasing, Sams dumped the burden onto user agencies. Simple cross training would have solved the problem. The resulting shell game protected the Purchasing Director and hid her bad judgement and the Department's inability to get the job done.

Monthly Janitorial Bid

Before changes, the Purchasing Department maintained a six-month bid list for janitorial supplies. The Purchasing Technician would send a blank order form to the departments. They would fill it out and then return it to Purchasing. Once the orders were returned, the Technician would compile an order for each vendor according to the bid tabulation sheets and submit that order by cutting a purchase order. The Technician, who resigned December 21, 2001, held this monthly responsibility. When she left, it was shifted to the Purchasing Agent along with the weekly jail food orders previously mentioned. The weekly jail food orders and the monthly janitorial supply orders had to be manually entered into IFAS, in the Purchasing Department, making these more time consuming, unlike most of the purchase order requests that are electronically transferred to the Department.

On March 5, 2002, the Purchasing Director issued a memo changing the monthly janitorial supply ordering process. (Appendix UU) Effective May 1, 2002, each user department became responsible for ordering and entering requisitions into the IFAS System for the department. The new process works as follows:

1. Purchasing will tabulate advertised quotes every six months (Current bid expires December 2002).
2. Purchasing will tabulate and highlight each low bidder.
3. The user department will be responsible for ordering from the award, listing any janitorial item from the low specified vendor.
4. The user department will be in charge of entering all requests into the IFAS System.
5. Purchasing will only be responsible for the approval and printing of requests for processing a purchase order.
6. Should a problem or correction arise, it will be the Department's responsibility to correct the problem with the vendor and place order accordingly.
7. If a constant problem exists with a vendor concerning products or delivery, it must be addressed in writing to the Purchasing Department.
8. Users will be trained for this new procedure during a training seminar scheduled April 1-5, 2002.

Also, the Director was unaware of the time frame or the process necessary to place the monthly janitorial supply order. In early April 2002, Mrs. Bedenbaugh requested release from an afternoon training session in order to take care of the monthly janitorial supply order for May. Ms. Sams’ questions showed a total lack of understanding of the process. The preference to parcel this out to the user departments and no longer be responsible for it was advantageous to the Department.

The Purchasing Director should have a working knowledge of the basic responsibilities and duties of the Department. This knowledge is necessary for filling in or instructing others in the Department when the responsible employee is absent or resigns. This ability is essential to good management; Sams is not providing adequate leadership in the Department.

With responsibility of the weekly jail food orders and monthly janitorial supply orders distributed to the user departments (the workload of a Purchasing Technician), the position could be removed from the Purchasing Department and its salary moved to the Sheriff's Department's budget to handle the additional work load now placed on that user department.

Print Bid

The County out-sources the Printing services, stationery, envelopes and business cards for the County's needs. Bid #02-003 was set up in two sections: A (Typesetting, Art/Paste up, Negatives, etc.) and B (Two-color letterhead, envelopes and business cards). The contract time is for one year with a one-year option beginning at the time of the award. This bid is not without problems. One vendor sent a letter outlining several flaws with the bid and the bid process. (Appendix VV) The first problem, outlined in his letter, was the lack of communication when he repeatedly tried to get answers to his questions from Purchasing, following the General Information instructions included in the bid package. (Appendix VV-1) The second, most impacting, flaw concerned the two-color, window, #10 business-size envelope. The bid specifications indicated that these should be white linen, yet the example included in the bid package was a commodity grade regular white stock envelope. There is a tremendous difference in cost and the County does not use "white linen" envelopes for any of its correspondence. The vendor’s letter states, "Everyone should be bidding on a linen envelope due to your specifications in order to be competitive and fair, but if someone knew they were not linen but were regular envelopes then they would have a great advantage over the other bidders if they quoted a commodity grade price." This is the item that created many of the problems and caused a delay in awarding the bid.

The original award was split between two vendors, each winning a section. The tab sheet showed Phoenix Commercial Printers to be the lowest bidder for Section B and McGowen Printing Co. Inc. to be the lowest bidder for Section A. The bid was awarded on February 4, 2002. (Appendix WW) Then on February 14, 2002, the Purchasing Director sent a letter to Phoenix Commercial Printers stating that Section B of the bid had been awarded to them in error and the new bid tabulation sheet was attached. (Appendix WW-6) Apparently, McGowen noted on his bid that the sample for the two-color window envelope was not "white linen" but a "white woven window" and entered prices for both the "white linen" and the "white woven window." The first tabulation sheet reflected the "white linen" prices while the second tabulation sheet showed the "white woven window". Phoenix Commercial Printers had noted on their bid that their price was "not linen." All of this could have been avoided if the Purchasing Department had been more responsive to the vendor who wrote the letter. An addendum should have been issued to clear up the confusion.

The award of Section A to McGowen Printing Co. Inc. brings up additional questions. According to the Tax Commissioner, this vendor owes over $90,000.00 in delinquent taxes for both property and equipment. (Appendix XX) A bid should not be given to a vendor who has an outstanding debt to the County. If a vendor owes taxes, has an outstanding water bill or owes any money to the County, the outstanding debt should automatically disqualify them from participating in the bid process. If a vendor is in good standing at the time of the bid award, yet becomes delinquent during the period of the contract, the County should enforce a lien against the money owed the vendor until the debt is paid.

Year-End Purchase Orders

Usually in December, the Finance and Purchasing Departments jointly determine a particular date to cut off purchase orders and checks for that year, giving themselves leeway for any encumbered purchase amounts, so that the new year's purchase orders and checks begin with round numbers to aid in the auditing process. This is simply good accounting practice and has been the County's procedure for years. For example, if the purchase order number was at 57200 by mid-December, Purchasing would start January’s purchase orders at 58000. This allows enough purchase orders to cover expenses and begin the year with a round, easily distinguishable number.

Even though Finance gave the departments a date cut off, Purchasing did not set a purchase order cut-off date for 2001. On December 12, 2001, the Interim Finance Director sent an e-mail to the Purchasing Director stating, "Perhaps I’ve missed the cutoff date for 2001 purchase orders? we've given the date that is the last to process payments against the 2001 budget, but they are asking about purchase orders as well." On December 14, 2001, the Interim Finance Director again e-mailed the Purchasing Director and got no response. (Appendix YY) Only the funds encumbered properly could be taken from the 2001 Budget. Departments, thinking they had until December 31, 2001 to utilize any money remaining in their budgets found that only those purchase orders where the items had actually been delivered prior to December 31, 2001 could be paid by their 2001 Budget. One such situation occurred with the Sheriff's Department. They had ordered equipment from a vendor, but instead of the 2001 funds being encumbered to cover the purchase, the 2002 budget was charged for the $1,900.00. (Appendix GGG)

On January 22, 2002, Accounting notified all department heads about the purchase orders that would not be paid by the 2001 budget. (Appendix ZZ) They wrote, "There was a tremendous amount of purchase orders issued with the date of December 31, 2001. This memo is to inform you that just because these purchase orders have an issued date of 2001 does not necessarily mean that they were processed and paid from your 2001 Budget. In order for that to happen, the goods/services had to be received by December 31, 2001. If that was done and we had your departmental approval copy of the purchase order and had the invoices from the vendor, the purchase order was paid on either January 4, 2001 or January 18, 2001 against 2001. If these purchase orders did not have an invoice with a date of December 31, 2001 or earlier, they absolutely were not paid with funds from the 2001 budget." She states further, "Any of the purchase orders dated the 31st of December 2001 not paid will affect your 2002 budget at this point and time. The only purchase orders, for which funds can be carried forward, are those charged to a capital outlay object code."

The Purchasing Director sent an e-mail on January 23, 2001 giving the first Purchase Order for January (P52027), not a cut-off number. (Appendix AAA) Again, she responds with a non-response. When the subject of the year-end purchase orders was raised in the Department Head Meeting on January 24, 2001, the Purchasing Director, who had originally sent a Technician in her place, was advised of the conflict and brought three of the Purchasing employees with her into the meeting to "explain." This time she threw personnel instead of paper at a problem and placed blame on the Finance Department saying that Accounting had told her to run all 300+ purchase orders with the December 31, 2001 date. Accounting had only approved 15-20 purchase orders to be run with that date and this had been clearly communicated to the Purchasing Director, yet she ignored the request.

In using the December 31, 2001 purchase order date for so many purchase orders, the Director carelessly included several purchase orders that had a 2002 bid contract date. (For example: #02-007, Tip Top Tees, T-shirts for the Tennis programs at the Newman Tennis Center, and #02-600, Forms & Supply, Inc., office supplies for the stockroom maintained by the Purchasing Department.) (Appendix BBB) Of course, there was no money in the 2001 Budget to cover these since they were a 2002 Budget bid. Yet, her indiscriminate changing of the purchase order dates included them in the collection of purchase orders that were already causing confusion.

Because the Purchasing Director ignored the Interim Finance Director's e-mail and did not set a cut-off date for purchase orders, County departments will experience a budget shortfall around September or October of 2002. Ms. Sams’ rationale to the Deputy Administrator for not responding (as he stated in testimony) was because she receives so much junk mail; she does not check her e-mail. It makes no sense as to why the Purchasing Department would do something so vastly different from previous years. An arbitrary decision by Ms. Sams has now greatly impacted the other County departments and their budgetary effectiveness.

As a result of this year-end purchase order situation, a mandatory, time- consuming training session (taught by Purchasing) for all the user departments was scheduled for mid-April. (Appendix CCC) There was no correcting the direct problems in Purchasing (the Director's unwillingness to respond to the Interim Finance Director's e-mail). The Administrator’s response to the problem was to insist on an administrative regulation mandating a December cut-off date.

Customer Service

Customer Service is the interaction of Purchasing with vendors, business and the public in their role as a liaison for the government. Purchasing is the face of the County to businesses inside and outside of the County. It is important that the Purchasing Department be courteous, informative and make the purchasing process a fair and simple process. Yet, Augusta-Richmond County's Purchasing Department has not always created a courteous, informative or positive experience for area vendors and businesses. For example, when a vendor called to get previous years’ purchasing orders for usage numbers of each toner cartridge (information that prior contract holders had), he was told that the information was not available and they could not get it for him. As was stated in the Toner Bid section, Purchasing should have this information updated annually in order to maintain proper specifications for this contract. All that would have to be done was to put together previous purchase orders to get the requested information. Another example is with the Print Bid. As discussed earlier, a vendor, trying to get public information in order to enter a realistic bid, was unable to get answers to his pertinent questions. He made numerous calls and was told that the Purchasing Director would get back to him with the answers. This never occurred. Subsequently, he did not bid because of the lack of response. Then, there was the February 1, 2002 food fiasco with the jail food order. In a letter requested by the Purchasing Director (who said it was the fault of the Purchasing Agent who was out that day), the representative of Good Source states: "I called early in the day Friday to see what was the problem was. I was told that Mary was sick and the person who answered the phone was unclear what needed to be faxed. She said that she would find out and get back with me. I called back and this person was still unclear and said it would have to wait until Monday." (Appendix SS) The jail food orders could not wait until Monday.

One of the Purchasing Department's responsibilities is to maintain a vendor list for various products and services needed by the County user departments. Getting on the vendor list is simply a matter of requesting to be included. One vendor experienced difficulty in receiving bid information and discovered that his company had been removed from the vendor list for no apparent reason. He had done significant business with the County in the past and had not received any information as to why he was no longer receiving bid information. Coincidentally, this occurred after he publicly questioned why the Fire Department was accepting higher bids on fire equipment. Prior to being taken off the vendor list, this vendor found his company listed as being represented by a false agent’s name, a name unknown to his company. After complaining to the Purchasing Department and getting no satisfaction, the vendor complained to both the Special Grand Jury and the Mayor’s Office. Only at this point did this vendor receive bid packages, but not before he had missed out on other bid opportunities. This vendor never received notification that his company had been removed from the vendor list and there had never been action by the Commission on this as per the Code. Shortly before publication of this report, we learned that this vendor has once again stopped receiving bid packages from Purchasing.

Another vendor experienced problems with the Purchasing Department when they mailed the bid package for the Public Work Uniform Bid to an address that his business moved from 2-1/2 years ago. Yet, they had no trouble sending purchase orders from an existing contract to the proper address. (Appendix DDD) When the bid package was returned by the post office (the forwarding period had expired), no one in Purchasing took the time to see why the package had been returned. No one took the initiative to investigate this further. Uninformed about the mandatory pre-bid conference, the business missed the opportunity to bid. When he called on December 3, 2001 to see if there was any chance for him to submit his bid, he was told by the Director that the bid had already been opened, not that he had missed the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Because of not maintaining current vendor lists with proper addresses, the Purchasing Department caused this businessman (who held this bid) to miss a bid opportunity. This is not good customer service.

There is also sloppiness in the bid process. In the Print Bid, the Special Grand Jury discovered two errors in the final bid tabulation sheet when it was compared to the bids. One amount on the bid tabulation sheet was $1,000.00 less than the original bid submitted. There was a second error with a different vendor when the submitted bid amounts were transferred to the bid tabulation sheet. The Purchasing Department was fortunate that these errors did not change the bid outcome. There was also the late publishing of the invitation to bid for the Pool Chemicals in the Augusta Focus. There is a clear pattern of such sloppiness. This has caused confusion among vendors, user agencies and even Purchasing.

As mentioned earlier, there were long delays in awarding several of the Uniform Bids. Even though the bid openings were in December 2001 and the Commission approved the budget in February 2002 (the excuse of the Purchasing Director for not awarding the bids in a timely manner), the bids were not awarded until early to mid-March 2002. No notification of the bid awards caused several vendors to try to determine what the delay might be. The manager of a uniform company attempted to speak to the Purchasing Director both on the telephone and in person on several occasions yet got no response. The delay causes problems for the vendor and manufacturers preparing to fill the bid.

An engineering firm had difficulty with the Purchasing Department. The representative had provided the required bid plans for four County utility projects and submitted them to Purchasing as he had been instructed. The original invoice was dated June 25, 2001. For him to get paid, Purchasing had to acknowledge that they had received the bid plans in the Purchasing Department. For the next six months, the invoice went unpaid while the Senior Engineer tried to reach the Purchasing Director. Frustrated by lack of payment and lack of response, he wrote the Purchasing Director on February 20, 2002. (Appendix EEE) In his letter he states: "Over the last six months I have called your office three times to ask about the status of this invoice. Each time your staff was courteous, but never gave me any information. The last call was on February 14, 2002. At this time I was told that you were the only person who could handle this. I was assured that you would call back. Since that call was made almost a week ago, I am following up to make sure that this issue does not die." Upon receipt of this letter, Sams simply sent it down to Accounting. Without Purchasing acknowledging receipt of the bid plans, the invoice could not be paid by Accounting. On February 21, 2002, the Accounting office received the letter. Then, it was returned to Purchasing with a note asking for the Purchasing Director's signature indicating that the bid plans had been received in Purchasing. On February 25, 2002, the Purchasing Director finally acknowledged receipt of the bid plans so that the invoice could be paid – six months after the original invoice date. The invoice clearly states that 1.5% interest per month over 30 days delay in payment will be added to the bill. Had the firm charged the allowed interest, the Purchasing Director would have cost the County additional charges. Not only is this bad customer service, but it is also could be costly to the County and its reputation.

The differences in how the various uniform bids were evaluated (weighted averages, lowest overall, line item, by section) have caused confusion – especially when the same group of vendors was bidding on the various bids. There was (and is) no definitive way in which these bids were evaluated. These differences have caused varying outcomes; often the low bidder is ignored for no apparent reason. The lack of consistency not only caused vendors problems, but also the County failed to get the best price and/or service.

Often when a business is expecting to relocate or expand their operations, their experience with a County government plays a pivotal part in their decisions. Were the businesses and vendors who have had these experiences with our Purchasing Department to make a decision to locate or expand their business in our county, they would have to weigh the results of the problems in their decision. It is not good customer service when your department is viewed as self-serving.

Management

A Department's ability to serve its constituency is determined primarily by how capably its manager handles the department. A department head determines the atmosphere of the department and the atmosphere affects the productivity of the department. This is what should be the norm, yet it is not in Purchasing.

In testimony on more than one occasion, the SGJ heard about the low and falling morale in the Purchasing Department. Purchasing has been described as "stressful," "no focus" and "not a team atmosphere." The Director's unwritten policy is that she must examine and approve all actions before they can proceed. Yet, the Purchasing Director may or may not respond with direction, answers or even acknowledging receipt of the information. Employees hesitate to make any decision or act on a situation without the Purchasing Director's approval for fear of reprimand. The Director has given contradictory instructions or changed approaches mid-stream. Punishment for "offenses" is not meted out fairly or proportionately. This stressful environment is responsible for the high turnover in this Department in the last two years.

Mismanagement of personnel and resources is an ongoing problem in Purchasing. Presently, there are six hourly employees and the workload is disproportionately assigned. With the resignation of a Purchasing Technician in December 2001 most of her responsibilities were added to Bedenbaugh’s own workload. Until a replacement was hired, she was responsible for her own work and the weekly responsibilities of the empty Technician’s position. Once the new Technician was hired, an immediate change was made in how the weekly groceries, monthly groceries and monthly janitorial ordering were done. That responsibility was farmed out to the user departments. The newly hired Technician was instructed not to help Bedenbaugh with either the jail food orders or the janitorial supply orders "so she won’t get confused." This would have been a perfect opportunity to begin the cross-training process and give the new Technician understanding of how the changes to these two responsibilities would affect both the user departments and Purchasing. This would have eased Bedenbaugh’s overburdened workload.

When the former Purchasing Technician resigned from the department, her name was not completely removed from the IFAS System. Any purchase orders that came to Purchasing after she left still went into her queue for approval at her level. The hierarchy for purchase order approval begins with the Department's Purchasing technician and then it goes to the Department's approval person. Once it leaves the department, it moves to the person assigned that department in Purchasing for approval at the Purchasing Technician’s level. Once the Technician approves it, the Purchasing Director must approve it before the purchase order is cut. After all the approvals have been made, it goes to Accounting to be paid. The former Purchasing Technician’s name was left in the system so that the Purchasing Director could continue to approve the purchase orders in her queue. The purchase orders should have been rerouted to a different Technician for approval so that the checks and balances in the approval hierarchy would not be compromised.

Unfortunately, the Purchasing personnel who truly understand all the facets of the department are few and far between. When they are out, or swamped with their own work, others in the department can only tell vendors "that will have to wait until Monday." Again, this is evidence of the great need for cross training in this Department. Without this cross training, the Department ceases to function efficiently and effectively.

Interdepartmental Relations

The Purchasing Department and the Finance Department are designed to work together to guard the County's monetary assets while acquiring products and services necessary for the County at the best possible cost. There should be a smooth working relationship between these two departments forming a check and balance system. Unfortunately, this is no longer the way Augusta-Richmond County's Purchasing and Finance Departments interact. Under the former comptroller, interaction between the two departments became antagonistic, confrontational and personal. When the comptroller raised concerns over questionable actions, the Purchasing Director would react by going to members of the Commission. Even with the termination of the comptroller, the tension remains. For example, as stated in the Year-End Purchase Order section, the Purchasing Director did not respond to the Interim Finance Department's Head repeated inquiries for a purchase order cut off. Later this year, when departmental budgets run out prior to year-end, the results will be severe.

This lack of response impacted the productivity of the County's user departments when they had to attend a countywide, mandatory training session on the IFAS System in April. This training session covered far more than each of them was concerned about or capable of doing in their capacity as Purchasing Agent for their department and was in many cases an unnecessary waste of their time. The problem was in the Purchasing Department, not the user departments. When the City Administrator was asked why this training session was scheduled, his response was, "we have to start somewhere." Where he should start is with the Purchasing Director and her lack of response to the Finance Department.

Favoritism has been a hallmark of the Purchasing Department under its present department head. Within the government, there has been the feeling that some departments get more lenient and favorable treatment than others do. Under Chief Few, the Fire Department would not always take the low bid on bid items (the pumpers from Harless and the uniforms from Command). The Purchasing Director never questioned these decisions in the way that the Sheriff's Department was scrutinized. There are other incidents of favoritism to the Fire Department. Many non-county related items, such as expenditures from the Phoenix Media Awards and the Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs, got through Purchasing without any questions. (Appendix FFF) When Chief Few spent money on a white uniform for personal use, Purchasing allowed this to go through. When Finance questioned this, Administrator Oliver signed off on it. Only during Mr. Oliver’s testimony (August 2, 2002) was he made aware that the uniform was for Chief Few's personal use and not for department-wide use. When the Sheriff's Department properly followed the process, they received criticism, reversals and harassment. The Purchasing Director played favorites based on personal likes and dislikes. Reportedly, Sams threatened to slow down the purchasing process for the Magistrate Judge, when he fired a friend of the Purchasing Director. The purchasing process should be fair and open for all agencies, not just those in the Purchasing Director's good graces. Playing favorites is an abuse of power and damages the abilities of the discriminated agencies to do their jobs. The County and its citizens are not being served in such cases.

Commission Interference

The Purchasing Director courts the favor of several Commissioners and thereby circumvents the censure of her superiors. As stated in the Sheriff's Uniform Bid section, Commissioners were involved in the weighted average evaluation "to save face for Geri." The Purchasing Director and some of the Commissioners often meet together, thereby circumventing the chain of command to the Administrator. The previous administrator stated that the Purchasing Director was "untouchable." This is the view held by many other department directors. Because of her perceived protected status, the Purchasing Director is held to a different (lower) standard. This could explain why she still has her job while the former comptroller and housing director do not.

Reaction to Investigation

The Special Grand Jury, in conducting its business, routinely sent subpoenas to County departments gathering information for inquires. Purchasing was consistently obstructive to the legal requests of the Grand Jury. When the SGJ made very specific requests, huge volumes of extraneous paper was received from Purchasing. In response to the SGJ’s first subpoena, Purchasing sent 26 notebooks (containing tens of thousands of pages) full of information unrelated to the original request. When the SGJ finally went to the County Administrator to get the requested information, it amounted to a pre-existing report and approximately five additional pages of other material.

In another incident, the SGJ toured the Purchasing Department's offices and discovered the information requested in another subpoena was prominently displayed in a few notebooks on the filing cabinets in the conference room and catalogued by year. In her response to this subpoena, the Purchasing Director had delivered ten voluminous notebooks. It took an additional subpoena to finally get the information originally requested. This was clearly not a "misinterpretation" of our subpoena request, but an effort to stall the SGJ inquiry.

A later subpoena required the Purchasing Director's presence for questioning, but the Special Grand Jury's bailiff had to go get her from the department head meeting, which she frequently misses, and escorted her to the Grand Jury Room. On the other hand, the Purchasing Director has used "information only" subpoenas (subpoenas requiring just information not testimony) as an excuse to skip some of the weekly department head meetings. In one instance, she delivered the requested information a day early (on March 20, 2002, when the information was due on the 21st). (Appendix C) Yet, she told the Deputy Administrator that she had to appear before the SGJ and would not be at the Department Head Meeting on March 21, 2002. Since she had already produced and delivered the requested information, the SGJ informed her we had no further need of her. Yet, at 10:43 a.m. on March 21, 2002, she appeared in the Grand Jury Room to ask if she was to testify.

In still another instance, the SGJ had to subpoena records from Records Retention to get information that the Purchasing Director refused to deliver. All the Director had to do (per her duty to the citizens) was make a telephone call to get the necessary documents. This uncooperative attitude, including attempts to evade subpoenas, goes all the way back to the September 1999 Grand Jury, which called for the formation of the Special Grand Jury. The Purchasing Director has been consistent in her contempt and disregard for the SGJ.

Conclusions and Recommendations

After this lengthy inquiry, the Special Grand Jury strongly believes that the Purchasing Department is failing in its mission. It has not served the government, its user agencies and, therefore, the County as a whole. It has failed to provide timely, efficient service to the departments and, subsequently, the departments cannot focus their energy on providing service to the taxpayers. Purchasing, under its present leadership, has caused unnecessary problems. Due to favoritism, lack of attention, sloppiness, stubbornness and incompetence, the Purchasing Department, under Geri Sams, has become a block to efficient government. It has allowed wasteful spending and has itself wasted money. By selective enforcement, Purchasing has enabled favored people to abuse the purchasing system. Instead of encouraging responsible purchasing, it allowed cronies to play fast and loose with tax money. Instead of solving problems, more programs are shifted out of Purchasing and more red tape is added to an already bloated government.

The Purchasing Department has proven not to be business-friendly. Many businesses feel that there is not a level playing field due to the behavior of Purchasing. Business owners have found themselves treated with less than proper respect. Often, the Purchasing Department has ignored reasonable questions and requests from vendors. This gives the County government the image of being uncooperative. With the stagnating local economy, the Augusta-Richmond County Purchasing Department should be doing everything it can to encourage enterprise and make dealing with the County easier. Instead, it has made the County purchasing process a painful one for many that attempts to do business with Augusta-Richmond County.

The Purchasing Department also has internal problems. The Department has shown a lack of knowledge of its own rules and has often broken them with its own actions. Employees are not encouraged to be helpful. Instead problems and inquiries are passed around. User agencies and citizens have difficulty getting the most basic help and information. There is little to no cross training, meaning no institutional memory. The countywide departmental perception of the Purchasing Department is that only one employee (not the Purchasing Director) truly understood and knew what she was doing and how to help the user departments in their dilemmas. They chose to go straight to this individual instead of dealing with the runaround, the lack of information and the non-response that they usually experienced at other times. This perception continued when departments were told, "wait until Mary gets back." This employee has now transferred to another county agency. In the process, the County and its government suffer. This is critical; the loss of the only employee with comprehensive knowledge cripples the Department. With a manager who uses (and causes) confusion, fear and divisiveness as a management style, there is no sense of teamwork. Productivity is low, mistakes are made and Augusta-Richmond County pays the price.

The Purchasing Department has problems interacting with other departments. It has bristled when proper checks and balances are exercised by Accounting. Accounting and Finance are often forced to shoulder more than their share of the process. They clean up many of the Purchasing Department's mistakes. The Purchasing Department will often blame Accounting and other departments for their own mistakes. Intergovernmental morale suffers, confusion reigns and contact with the Purchasing Department is dreaded. The Purchasing Director shifts blame and responsibility to others whenever she encounters a problem. With the year-end purchase order problem, she blamed the Finance Department. With the jail food fiasco, she falsely blamed the Purchasing Agent. With the K-9 Renovation, she blamed the Sheriff's Department and cost the County more money. With the delay in awarding bids in a timely manner, she blamed the Commissioners. With the problems in voiding the Sheriff's Department's April 5th uniform order, she blamed the Finance Department for placing a block on her system. As stated earlier, when faced with a problem, the Purchasing Director throws paper, personnel or a program (as with the countywide retraining sessions) as a solution instead of correcting the problems within the Purchasing Department. There is no accepting responsibility, admitting lack of knowledge or letting "the buck stop here." Problems are not solved. They are shifted or hidden. This causes them to fester and infect the whole governmental structure. This is NOT the way an efficient government works.

This leads to the Commission. By protecting the Purchasing Director, they have enabled, rewarded and politicized incompetence. By allowing the Director to subvert the chain of command and meet with a few of them in private, they have hijacked the system. Her point of view reigns and the system clogs up. By meeting privately in her office, the impression of shady dealings and favoritism is inevitable. The past Administrator felt that he could not do anything about her. Certain commissioners overruled his one attempt at discipline. Under the present administrative scheme, the Purchasing Director still does what she wants. Her direct supervisor, a Deputy Administrator, admitted in testimony that she goes over his head. No one has control over her. She does what she wants.

The Special Grand Jury makes the following recommendations to alleviate the situation.

Recommendations

1. A compliance audit needs to be done by the internal auditors to verify purchasing code procedures and the proper following of the purchase order request procedures. There is a need to find the holes in the system and fix them before they get even bigger.
2. Vendors who are not in good financial standing with the County (delinquent taxes/ water bills, etc.) should not be allowed to participate in any bid with the County. Any vendor, who incurs a debt to the County during the duration of a contract with the County, should have the amount owed charged as a lien against the contract.
3. Cross train all employees in Purchasing to be able to handle all aspects of the Department's responsibilities.
4. Do not fill the open position in Purchasing so as to save money. Since the department is decentralizing, as duties are shifted to the user departments, they do not need this position.
5. Sheriff's Department needs to create its own Purchasing Department (which by law it has the right to do). Remove a Purchasing Department position and salary and reassign it to the Sheriff's Department to fund their own purchasing agent. It already takes a full week to do the necessary work generated by the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department needs its own purchasing department. Due to the slowing down of the process by the Purchasing Director and the personality conflict, this key Homeland Security agency must have an in-house purchasing department to provide itself with efficient service. With the moving of an employee from the Purchasing Department and the shifting of many detailed purchasing responsibilities to the user departments, this is the perfect time do this. The Sheriff's Office will be more efficient.
6. Standardize the Uniform Contract Bids. For example, time length of contracts, process for evaluation, per unit bidding, timely awarding of contracts.
7. Replace Geri Sams. There is a great need for a new director due to the failure of the present one to fulfill the most basic criteria for good management. This director is too politicized. Commissioners involved her in areas outside her purview. (For example: Chief Few's cell phone bills). A new Director would jumpstart a new commitment to customer service and fit into the new management scheme.
8. Place the Purchasing Department under the Finance Director. As more and more work gets parceled out to the user departments (the weekly food and monthly janitorial orders), the valid question becomes, just what DOES the Purchasing Department do and is it really necessary as an independent department? By making it a sub-department, and placing it under a lead Purchasing Agent with an adjusted salary. Purchasing will receive the needed extra supervision and improve performance while maintaining the necessary checks and balances. This is how both Athens/Clarke County and Columbus/Muskogee County have organized their Finance/Purchasing Departments. This will help fulfill one of the promises of consolidation, to streamline the government.

The preceding recommendations should remedy the problems that are present. It should be noted that in any other business (and in other governments), the types of bad practices exhibited by the Purchasing Department would not be tolerated. Changes would be made and people would be fired. Why this Director is allowed to continually bumble around is the fault of our Commissioners. Other department heads (again, the former directors of Housing and Finance) were fired for less.