MCPS Updates and Posts Procurement Manual

The MCPS Procurement Manual is back on the MCPS website.  

Years ago, the Procurement Manual was available on the MCPS website.  But then, too many people read the Procurement Manual and saw where it was not being followed.  It was removed from the MCPS website.

The Parents' Coalition posted our copy to this blog so that the Procurement Manual could still be read.

Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland: What MCPS deletes, we provide...

The Procurement Manual is now back on the MCPS website with a 2024 edition. 

Here's another copy of the 2024 Procurement Manual in case the MCPS link is removed again.  

2024 MCPS Procurement Manual by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd

"There is no contract" for $74,300 purchase.

On January 30, 2009, I testified in Annapolis about the urgent need for transparency in MCPS procurements via an online searchable website. I gave 4 examples of major procurements that did not appear in MCPS Board of Education minutes. One of the examples I gave was the purchase of the EasyLobby visitor management system.

Now we know why the EasyLobby procurement does not appear in MCPS Board of Education minutes. MCPS: "There is no contract".

Montgomery County Public Schools has a Procurement Manual which is based on Policy DJA, Procurement Practices and Regulation DJA-RA Procurement of Equipment, Supplies, and Contractual Services. The Procurement Manual details the procedure to be used in procuring items over $25,000 and details how those purchases require Board of Education approval. In short, the process has an RFP or IFB, followed by competitive bids, and then the selection of a bidder. The contract is then awarded by the Board of Education.

[UPDATE JULY 15, 2009: MCPS HAS REMOVED THE PROCUREMENT MANUAL FROM THEIR WEBSITE SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE LINK TO THE "PROCUREMENT MANUAL" ABOVE NO LONGER TAKES YOU TO THE MCPS PROCUREMENT MANUAL. HERE IS A NEW LINK PROVIDED BY THE PARENTS' COALITION.]

According to MCPS, there is no EasyLobby contract, and so apparently, there was no Board of Education approval of this August 18, 2008, $74,300 purchase. So who exactly authorized the spending of this money?

Please note that the letter from EasyLobby is dated August 12, 2008 and the Purchase Order is dated August 18, 2008. There was no Board of Education meeting between August 12th and August 18th of 2008, and so Board approval of this Purchase Order was impossible.

How often are purchases over $25,000 made without Board of Education approval? Annapolis, we can't wait for a searchable MCPS procurement database, we need it today!

UPDATE 3/10/09: MCPS COO Larry Bowers tells Board that MCPS will be putting out a RFP for a visitor management system soon due to questions from elementary principals.
Easy 1

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Things the Board of Education Doesn't Want the Public to See: MCPS Independent Activity Fund Manual @mocoboe @mcps

The Montgomery County Board of Education has a long history of removing information from the MCPS website when they didn't want parents and guardians to know what was going to go on in the organization.  

One example is the removal of the MCPS Procurement Manual. This document came up in the Montgomery County Inspector General's Report that was released yesterday.  The IG knew about the MCPS Procurement Manual, but did the public?  

The MCPS Procurement Manual used to be posted on the MCPS website until the Parents' Coalition started calling out the Board of Education for not following their procedures.  Then, the MCPS Procurement Manual disappeared from the MCPS website.  

Another example is the MCPS Independent Activity Fund (IAF) Manual.  That document is mentioned in numerous Board of Education policies.  But where is the IAF Manual available to the public? It isn't.  But we are going to make public the last copy of this Manual that we saw.  This is an important document now that the Board of Education has decided to start using student fees (IAF money) to fund the MCPS Operating Budget.  

2001 Montgomery County Publ... by Parents' Coalition of Montg...

What MCPS deletes, we provide...

In multiple posts on this blog we have directed readers to the MCPS Procurement Manual online link as we discussed the failure of MCPS to follow state law in procuring technology and equipment.

So what's a Tech-Savvy school system to do? Take the Procurement Manual link off the MCPS website, of course! So now when you go to the link for the MCPS Procurement Manual here is what you see...

But you may have heard the saying "You can't put the Genie back in the bottle?" And so readers of this blog, what MCPS deletes, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland provides.

Here for your procurement education is the MCPS Procurement Manual as it appeared on the MCPS website just a few months ago, with all of the important references to State procurement law.
MCPS Feb 2007 Procurement Manual

Promethean - Promises or Myth

With the emphasis for sunshine in the federal government, I was sorry to hear that Monday's Montgomery County Council Education Committee cancelled its meeting. I was interested in learning how how those lovely but expensive ($19 million) whiteboards with fancy egg clickers and a limited life span wound up in classrooms across Montgomery county.

While you are waiting for the County Council to weigh in, here is my analysis.

Who authorized the payments? Look at the lease dated June 16, 2008 (http://www.parentscoalitionmc.com/uploads/MPIAProm2600.pdf) - its MCPS Chief Operating Officer, Larry Bowers.

Can a Chief Operating Officer do that? Not according to the the MCPS procurement manual.

Procurement Authority

The superintendent of schools delegates' authority to the director of the Division of Procurement to enter into contracts for the procurement of goods and services as the centralized purchasing agency for MCPS. The Board shall award all contracts that exceed delegated dollar thresholds. The director of the Division of Procurement is authorized to delegate purchasing authority to procurement buyers for the purchase of specified goods and/or services.

The director of the Division of Procurement has the responsibility and authority to negotiate, place, and (when necessary) modify invitations to bids, purchase orders, or other awards granted or issued by the Board. Assigned buyers may assist the director of the Division of Procurement in discharging these responsibilities. Excepting the superintendent, no other county public school official or employee is authorized to order supplies, materials, or services; enter into purchase negotiations or contracts; or in any way obligate MCPS for any indebtedness. Any purchases ordered or contracts made that are contrary to these provisions and authorities shall be of no effect and void, and MCPS shall not be bound thereby. (Review MCPS Regulation DJA-RA, Procurement of Equipment, Supplies and Contractual Services).

Also from the Procurement manual:
20.0 Unauthorized Purchases
Whenever any officer or employee of MCPS purchases or contracts for any supplies or contractual services contrary to the provision of the MCPS Procurement Manual, such purchases or contracts shall be void and shall not be considered to be an obligation of the Montgomery County Board of Education (Review, MCPS Policy DJA, MCPS Procurement Practices).
**************
Did MCPS pull off one of the biggest freebies in educational procurement?

Here is the link to the County Council Packet: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2009/090202/20090202_ED01.pdf

I hope that doesn't disappear too.

MCPS Procurement Manual - Does anyone in @mcps or @mocoboe read this document?

FYI: MCPS Procurement Manual: Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

DISASTROUS CHURCHILL AUDIT FINDINGS UNDERSCORE MCPS FAILINGS

Civic Federation Online

by Wayne Goldstein

July 10, 2007

Last week, the results of the internal MCPS 2005-2006 audit of Churchill High School’s Independent Activity Funds (IAF) hit the media. The IAF for Churchill and all other MCPS schools are made up a number of accounts for activities to benefit students such as field trips, school improvements, and memorial funds. The procedures for collecting and spending monies in these various funds are detailed in the “Manual of Policies and Procedures for Administering Independent Activity Funds.” The MCPS Internal Audit Unit audits various IAFs to determine if there is compliance with the manual.

The Churchill HS audit reveals that not only is this school’s IAF in profound disarray, but it also underscores the inability of the Internal Audit unit or MCPS leadership to do anything about a severe problem that has existed for at least three years. In fact, the internal audit supervisor writes: “The corrective actions identified in each response [to the previous recommendations of the audit unit] were not implemented and the conditions remain unresolved. To promote resolution of these conditions, we recommend that your response to this report includes a detailed plan for corrective action to be implemented prior to the next audit.” Tough words?

Here is a list of some of the problems found in the audit:

“There were deficiencies in coding and recording IAF transactions. Transactions were recorded inconsistently and in accounts not prescribed by the IAF chart of accounts... We found receipts and disbursements for fund raising activities recorded in field trip accounts, and activity from several field trips that were commingled.

“Rebates and bonuses from [corporations] were recorded directly to benefiting accounts, rather than the accounts intended for such receipts. Activity for a school trip to South America was recorded in an account titled ‘Spain Trip.’ Transactions for a band field trip to London were recorded in the ‘Music Trip/Cruise’ account. The ‘Scotland Trip’ account included proceeds from several fund raisers and expenses for a trip to the Kennedy Center.

“...Several accounts continue to have large negative balances. The ‘Auditorium Pit Cover’ account was established in October 2004 and the school subsequently paid a total of $27,953 for the pit from this account. An additional $68,337 of general improvements to the school were charged to this account with the only revenues being a small donation...of $1,100 and the prohibited sale of equipment noted below.

“...Several accounts have been inactive since the prior audit. Five accounts appear to contain funds collected for scholarships or charities. Inactive accounts should be researched at year end, balances disbursed or transferred appropriately, and accounts closed if no longer needed.

“...We continue to find a serious deficiency in control over disbursements. In addition to our examination of expenditures we deemed large or unusual, we randomly selected 55 items to review for prior approval, compliance with MCPS procurement policies, appropriate supporting documentation, and timely payment.

“...Prior approval was not received for 50 percent of the disbursements reviewed. Four disbursements exceeding &6,500 did not have approval of the chief operating officer (COO) as required... Contracts for athletic field maintenance, yearbook, drama production videos, and stipends for the ‘Blast’ and drama production were not signed by the principal. In addition, the vendor for the videos is an employee of MCPS, and such purchases must be pre-approved by the COO. A payment for athletic field maintenance in the amount of $30,100 was disbursed without an invoice. A payment for athletic field maintenance expense totaling $44,999.97 was split into three contracts, with each contract being issued for $14,999.99. This contract should have been competitively bid and processed through MCPS procurement.

“...The school purchased $14,062 in staff clothing and promotional items and recorded the expense in ‘Churchill Leadership,’ but only $120 collected from staff was recorded in the account... Such purchases are prohibited unless funded from staff activities or donations specified for that purpose. A staff member was paid a stipend of more than $11,000 without documentation to show the reason for the disbursement or how the stipend was calculated. Another staff member was paid $3,500 for choreography for the musical production without supporting documentation.

“...The school store was transferred to the boosters club at year end. An inventory was not taken prior to the transfer and a Statement of Profit and Loss was not prepared. A statement should have been prepared and included in the school’s annual financial report. The booster club operated the school store and concession stand during athletic events. The receipts and disbursements for these activities are recorded in the school IAF. Sales tax has not been reported for either activity. Sales tax needs to be calculated and remitted to the state.

“...The school vending contract has an automatic renewal clause after the initial three-year period, and the vendor is an employee of the school. Contracts that have a performance period extending beyond 36 months and contracts with vendors who are school employees require prior written authorization from the COO. The school sold audio equipment used in the auditorium to Northwood High School for $7,000. Equipment purchased with IAF funds becomes the property of MCPS and cannot be sold or disposed of by the school. All dispositions or transfers of MCPS property must be processed through the Department of Materials Management... Accordingly, the $7,000 should be refunded to Northwood High School.”

While this seems like an exhaustive and outrageous list of failures to follow the manual that also violate the most basic principles of running any business, this is only the worst of them. There are a number of other smaller ones, such as individuals using personal credit cards to pay for very expensive school items and likely receiving rebates or other personal benefits that the card provides them. All in all, the vast majority of regulations in the manual were violated, which strongly suggests they may have been violated with impunity.

Since this improper behavior has been going on for several years, with no action by MCPS officials to stop it, it is more of a MCPS failing than it is a Churchill HS failing, although it is that as well. In fact, this lack of inaction by MCPS officials is consistent with what the Baldrige judges found when they did their site visit last November and issued their list of criticisms in their “2006 Feedback Report”:

“...While policies are designed outlining the expectations of ethical behaviors for key stakeholders (employees, suppliers, board) the methods of monitoring those behaviors is informal. Without involving and monitoring these important stakeholder groups, MCPS may have difficulty overcoming strategic challenges and meeting goals.

“...Although the COO tracks and monitors more than 150 measures, there does not appear to be a systematic process for how MCPS ensures alignment and integration of data and information to track overall organizational performance for all support groups and at the district level beyond academic goals... There does not appear to be a systematic process for analyzing data beyond student performance to ensure non- academic goals are met for support groups. For example, some groups such as the print shop and transportation areas had no evidence of performance measures aligned with organizational objectives or how these data are systematically collected and aggregated to ensure alignment.

“...While MCPS shares some organizational knowledge within schools and clusters, there is not a well-deployed, systematic process for systematically identifying, sharing, and implementing best practices across the organization... In the support processes where there are measures, each instance or issue is handled as a separate and unique event, and results related to vendor and supplier performance are not aggregated or tracked.

“...No results have been available to indicate breaches of ethical behavior and organizational citizenship. Lack of results and comparisons for these measures of leadership and social responsibility could limit MCPS’ ability to address the core value of providing an ethical school system and could also impede its ability to create a positive work environment and strengthen productive community partnership.

The Internal Audit Office briefly published a newsletter called “In the Loupe,” a loupe being a small but powerful magnifying glass often used by jewelers. What started out as a monthly publication in May 2003 dropped to three issues in 2004, and two in 2005, with the last issue being published in August 2005. The premier addition, dated May 23, 2003, had an article titled “Ethics, Employees, and Endless Rules - Just a reminder that there is a code of ethics at MCPS. MCPS Board Regulation BBB, Ethics, contains specific criteria under which schools can enter into contractual agreements with employees. Make sure you are in compliance with this policy. Be certain that you are watching limitation amounts carefully. Some contracts may require prior written authorization of the Chief Operating Officer (COO). Maintain documentation of your efforts to receive competitive bids.”

Needless to say, Churchill does not appeared to have done any of that. This brings me to the question: Should MCPS employees also be allowed to provide services such as the school vending contract? While these employees’ bids have to be competitive, isn’t there a reason that we don’t want government employees also providing goods and services to the government they work for at a minimum because of the appearance of a conflict-of-interest? Does this policy also contribute to the atmosphere of a lax morality so evident with Churchill’s IAF? I don’t believe that county government employees can do what MCPS employees are now allowed to do.

If MCPS still thinks it will be in a better position to apply for and win a Baldrige National Quality Award in the next few years, spectacular failures like the secret decision to close Special Education Learning Centers and now the failure to control the behavior of certain Churchill groups are causing that goal to recede into the distance at a rapid rate. It is clear that MCPS has learned nothing from the Baldrige judges’ recommendations and continues to make and compound the mistakes that caused the Baldrige judges to downgrade their ratings in so many areas last fall. It is time for the rest of us to step in and start to teach MCPS leaders how to properly manage this institution.

Weast "I would caution against this...action"

At the March 23, 2009, MCPS Board of Education meeting, Board members asked for the information they had requested on March 10th on the schedule changes at Eastern Middle School. Board members were told that the memo had just been provided to them right before the Board meeting started. (13 days after their request.)

In the Eastern Middle School memo to Board members, Superintendent Weast cautions not to advocate for a solution that would address the needs of the teachers and the students. Superintendent Weast says that a proposed solution would be "significantly more costly".

Suddenly, when it comes to educational services for students, Superintendent Weast is watching every penny? But he has stopped putting out Requests for Proposals (RFP), stopped taking competitive bids, stopped obtaining contracts, and stopped bringing procurements over $25,000 to the Board of Education table for approval on multi-million dollar purchases? He has not been bringing funds obtained from an outside source to the Board table or to the County Council for appropriation? The Board of Education is complicit in this lack of fiscal oversight as they no longer approve multi-million dollar purchases and do not ask for actual cost-benefit analysis on services for students. Who pays the price for this lack of fiscal oversight? The students.

"Significantly more costly" is not a number. In fact, nowhere in the March 23rd Eastern MS memo is any cost-benefit information on any of the possible configurations of the Eastern Middle School school schedule. Why did it take 13 days to prepare a memo that contains no financial analysis of the proposed change or proposed solutions?

Making one small schedule change, at one MCPS middle school would be, in Superintendent Weast's opinion,"significantly more costly". But failing to bring multi-million dollar purchases through the legally mandated procurement process has no fiscal impact?

What would be the savings if Superintendent Weast was following the MCPS Procurement Manual? What would then be the benefit that students could reap from those additional funds? We will never know as there is no Board oversight over the spending of the $2.1 billion MCPS budget, sorry kids.

The March 23rd Eastern Middle School memorandum was not made available on the MCPS website but has been obtained for the public to view here:
03-23-09EasternMSSchedule

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Pres. Navarro didn't sign lease

As reported here, Superintendent Weast is not going to be able to make the FY 10 lease payment on the 2,600 Promethean Boards ordered and delivered in June of 2008 as planned.

How was a lease executed without the funding needed to support the payments?

In Maryland, procurements by a state agency are governed by the State Procurement Regulations. Procurements over $25,000 are to be approved by the Board of Education according to MCPS Policy, MCPS Regulations and the MCPS Procurement Manual.

The Promethean lease(see page 4) called for a signature of the Board of Education as lessee. The Board President is responsible for signing contracts and other documents on behalf of the Board according to the Board of Education Handbook (page 6). The Board of Education President on June 16, 2008 was Nancy Navarro. However, the box that is labeled for the signature of the Board of Education on the lease does not show Board President Navarro's signature.

Why didn't Board of Education President Navarro sign the 4 year lease for $3.3 million per year, for 2,600 Promethean Boards in June of 2008?

How Did Tens of Millions of Dollars of Flat Panel Screens End Up in MCPS Classrooms This Fall?

 Montgomery County Joint House and Senate Priorities Hearing

November 15, 2021

Janis Zink Sartucci on behalf of

Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County, MD

parentscoalitionmc@outlook.com

Montgomery County Public School classroom November 2021

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Janis Zink Sartucci and I am a member of the Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County, MD. 

Formed in 2002, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland seeks to achieve the goals of coherent, content-rich curriculum standards; high expectations combined with timely remediation and acceleration; a wider range of educational options for parents and children; greater transparency and accountability; and meaningful community input.

Should Major Educational Technology Purchases Be A Surprise?

What happens when a public school system with an annual operating budget of $2.7 Billion dollars is allowed to spend education funding without a public process? The image above shows what happens. The image shows what Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) classrooms look like this fall, as sent to us by MCPS teachers.

MCPS has about 8,100 classrooms. This fall, those classrooms are receiving a new flat panel screen that is being installed in front of the existing Promethean Boards. The Promethean Boards were installed in front of the existing chalkboards and projector screens.

The new flat panel screens now render the existing Promethean Boards unusable. The projector screen is unusable, the chalkboard is unusable, and now the Promethean Board is unusable. Students now look up at the front of their classrooms and see unusable education resources piling up.

How did the flat panel screens arrive? Teachers, the public and even the Board of Education don’t know. BOXLIGHT Interactive Flat Panels are not mentioned anywhere in Montgomery County Board of Education minutes or agendas.

Montgomery County Board of Education search “BOXLIGHT”.

Yet, BOXLIGHT has been announcing their “selection” by MCPS since 2019. BOXLIGHT announced a deal and “pilot” with MCPS back in 2019, yet no mention of this deal or the “pilot” of this product has appeared in Board of Education minutes. (See Appendix A)

Currently, Maryland law allows public school administrators to spend tens of millions of dollars without Requests for Proposals, bids, public notice or even votes of our Boards of Education.

About $45 million dollars of functional, paid for education resources are now unusable because of the lack of a public process. Classroom floor space is also now diminished as each new piece of equipment is being installed in front of the previous equipment.  

This lack of a public process means that this fall MCPS teachers have had to re-tool their lesson plans overnight. One day they were teaching on Promethean Boards, the next day they had to learn how to use the BOXLIGHT screen. Is changing how a teacher presents curriculum to students overnight, mid-year an educational best practice?

Consider how it would be if I took each of your laptops right now, rendered them unusable and handed you a new laptop. Would you be able to continue this session immediately? That is what is being expected of MCPS teachers this fall.

Montgomery County Inspector General Confirmed Competitive Bids not Required under Maryland Law, Administrators Can Give Their Word They Picked Product, and Used Pricing of Other Agencies.

Back in 2008, I uncovered the purchase of about $20 million dollars of Promethean Boards made without Board of Education discussion or vote, without Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or competitive bids. My investigation was validated by a November 30, 2013, Report from the Montgomery County Inspector General, OIG Report Number: 14-002. (Appendix B)

The Montgomery County Inspector General confirmed that Maryland law permits MCPS administrators to spend tens of millions of dollars without competitive bids, Requests for Proposals or even a public vote of the Board of Education. All those administrators have to do is say they have selected one product and looked at the pricing others obtained. No actual documentation is required beyond their word.

The Promethean Boards were purchased one or two at a time with invoices, thus avoiding the triggering of §5-112(b). (Appendix C) From the 2013 Inspector General’s Report we know that Maryland law does not require documentation for the selection of a sole source supplier deemed the “technology standard.” Maryland law also does not require documentation of the use of other agencies’ deals.

MCPS administrators have found a legal way to keep the Board of Education from knowing about major purchases, or even from voting on these major purchases. The result is now seen in the front of every MCPS classroom. Unusable educational technology is piling up. When the Board of Education is excluded from education purchases, so are teachers, parents and the public.

We know in Maryland these types of surreptitious, no bid education purchases are perfectly legal, but are they the best and highest use of precious education dollars? Might it be time for the legislature to address these expenditures?

What do children that sit in these classrooms think when they look up and see the front of their classrooms piling up with unused technology and resources?

Minority Businesses left out of surreptitious procurements.

When the Maryland legislature passed Md. Code, Art. § 5-1129(d), the Minority businesses utilization program in Montgomery County, they limited that section to the competitive bid process. MCPS can easily skirt that law by buying without competitive bids and when they do that there is no requirement for consideration of minority businesses.

Minority business utilization program in Montgomery County

(d)(1) In this subsection, the term “minority business enterprise” has the meaning stated in § 14-301 of the State Finance and Procurement Article.

(2) In Montgomery County, by resolution and by implementing regulations, the Montgomery County Board of Education shall establish a minority business utilization program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified minority business enterprises in contracts awarded by the Montgomery County Board of Education in accordance with competitive bidding procedures.

Unusable educational technology is piling up.

It’s time for the Maryland legislature to close these loopholes and tighten up the public school procurement process. If the legislature doesn’t act soon, there may not be enough room for students in the classrooms amid all of the unusable tech junk.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix A

MIMIO BOXLIGHT announced deal with MCPS back in 2019, yet no mention of this deal or the “pilot” of this product in Board of Education minutes.

Boxlight Reports Second Quarter 2019 Results

...Key Business Highlights for Q2 2019

• Selected for and commenced new implementations in San Diego Unified School District, CA, Montgomery County School District, MD, Guilford County School District, NC, Chesapeake School District, VA, Provo Schools, UT, West Orange Cove Independent School District, TX, Anacortes Schools, WA, Aurora School District, CO, Stonehenge Schools, UK and Owosso Schools, MI…

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190813005709/en/Boxlight-Reports-Second-Quarter-2019-Results

Boxlight Reports Third Quarter 2019 Results

...Key Business Highlights for Q3 2019

...Continued roll-out implementations with Beaufort County School District, SC; Montgomery County Public Schools, MD; Clayton County Public Schools, GA; San Diego Unified School District, CA; Huntington Beach City School District, CA; Anacortes School District, WA; Aurora Public Schools, CO; and Tangipahoa Parish School System, LA…

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191112005870/en/Boxlight-Reports-Third-Quarter-2019-Results

...We also had Montgomery County that ordered a significant number after an extensive pilot. This is a second round of a purchase that they've done with us...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4285370-boxlight-corporation-boxl-ceo-mark-elliott-on-q2-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript

BOXLIGHT Investor Presentation May 2020

Reference Contract Wins • June 2019 - Montgomery County School District, Maryland, 14th largest school district in U.S. with over 160,000 students

https://s27.q4cdn.com/567304918/files/doc_presentations/2020/05/1/Investor-Presentation-May-2020.pdf

BOXLIGHT Investor Presentation February 2021

June 2019 | Montgomery County School District | 160,000 students | 14th largest district in U.S

https://s27.q4cdn.com/567304918/files/doc_presentations/2021/Boxlight-Feb-2021.pdf

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549

 SCHEDULE 14A

June 2021

...To date, our solutions have been sold into over 1.2 million classrooms globally including New York City Public Schools, Broward County Public Schools, San Diego Unified School District, Montgomery County Public Schools, Atlanta Public Schools, Academies Enterprise Trust in England and the Ministry of Education in Jalisco, Mexico, among others….

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001624512/118569da-4e94-4342-b969-1893ef0e9b4e.html

Appendix B

Montgomery County Inspector General

Montgomery County Public Schools’ Acquisition of Promethean Interactive Classroom Technology OIG Report Number: 14-002 November 30, 2013

What We Recommended We conducted this review while the Promethean procurement process was ongoing and we were prepared to alert MCPS of any potential problems or concerns. Based on our review, no recommendations were made. However, we did notify MCPS that lack of documentation supporting a standard may be subject to challenges by stakeholders and competing vendors, and could even present appearances of improper financial relationships

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2014/mcps_promethean_acq_final_report_30_nov_2013.pdf

Appendix C

Effective: June 1, 2018

MD Code, Education, § 5-112

§ 5-112. Contracts for school buildings, improvements, or supplies

Currentness

Application of section

(a) This section does not apply to:

(1) Contracts for the purchase of books and other materials of instruction as defined in the State Department of Education Financial Reporting Manual;

(2) Emergency repairs; and

(3) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, a county board's participation in contracts for goods or commodities that are awarded by other public agencies or by intergovernmental purchasing organizations if the lead agency for the contract follows public bidding procedures.

Bids required if costs of school building, improvement, supplies, or equipment more than $25,000

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, if the cost of any school building, improvement, supplies, or equipment is more than $25,000, the county board, at least 2 weeks before bids are to be filed, shall advertise for bids in a medium accessible to the general public, which includes:

(i) A newspaper of general circulation in the region;

(ii) The Maryland Contract Weekly or comparable State publication; or

(iii) An electronic posting on a bid board and physical posting on the local school system bid board.

(2) If the amount specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection differs from the amount in § 13-109(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article, the amount in § 13-109(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article shall apply under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3)(i) The county board shall draft specifications that provide a clear and accurate description of the functional characteristics or the nature of an item to be procured, without modifying the county board's requirements.

(ii) The specifications may:

1. Include a statement of any of the county board's requirements; and

2. Provide for the submission of samples, inspection, or testing of the item before procurement.

(4)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, specifications that use one or more manufacturer's product to describe the standard of quality, performance, or other characteristics needed to meet the county board's requirements, must allow for the submission of equivalent products.

(ii) Subparagraph (i) of this paragraph does not apply if the county board determines in the written specification that:

1. A particular manufacturer's product is required to maintain compatibility of service or equipment;

2. A particular manufacturer's product is required to meet the health needs of students;

3. Replacement parts or maintenance are a paramount consideration; or

4. A product is purchased for resale.

Contracts for school building, improvements, or supplies awarded to lowest bidder

(c)(1) A contract for the school building, improvements, supplies, or other equipment shall be awarded to the responsible bidder who provides the best value and conforms to specifications with consideration given to:

(i) The quantities involved;

(ii) The time required for delivery;

(iii) The purpose for which required;

(iv) The competency and responsibility of the bidder;

(v) The ability of the bidder to perform satisfactory service;

(vi) The plan for utilization of minority contractors; and

(vii) The price offered by the bidder.

(2) The county board may reject any and all bids and readvertise for other bids.

Minority business utilization program in Montgomery County

(d)(1) In this subsection, the term “minority business enterprise” has the meaning stated in § 14-301 of the State Finance and Procurement Article.

(2) In Montgomery County, by resolution and by implementing regulations, the Montgomery County Board of Education shall establish a minority business utilization program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified minority business enterprises in contracts awarded by the Montgomery County Board of Education in accordance with competitive bidding procedures.

...

Bulk purchasing, bundling, and intergovernmental purchasing

(h)(1) A county board is encouraged, consistent with competitive bidding, to use bulk purchasing, bundling, and intergovernmental purchasing.

(2) A county board may bundle, for approval and procurement purposes:

(i) Similar systemic renovation projects at different schools; and

(ii) Interrelated systemic projects at a single school.

Contracts void if made in violation of section

(i) A contract entered into or purchase made in violation of this section is void.

Credits

Added as Education § 5-110 by Acts 1978, c. 22, § 2, eff. July 1, 1978. Amended by Acts 1980, c. 720; Acts 1984, c. 114; Acts 1987, c. 502, 682; Acts 1988, c. 6, § 1; Acts 1989, c. 5, § 1; Acts 1993, c. 5, § 1; Acts 1993, c. 391; Acts 1994, c. 4, § 1, eff. Feb. 28, 1994; Acts 1994, c. 88, § 2, eff. April 12, 1994; Acts 1994, c. 661, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1994. Renumbered as Education § 5-112 by Acts 1996, c. 10, § 16, eff. April 9, 1996. Amended by Acts 1996, c. 46, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1996; Acts 1997, c. 105, § 1, eff. June 1, 1997; Acts 2000, c. 208, § 1, eff. July 1, 2000; Acts 2001, c. 545, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2001; Acts 2002, c. 170, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002; Acts 2002, c. 171, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002; Acts 2006, c. 95, § 1, eff. July 1, 2006; Acts 2009, c. 454, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2009; Acts 2012, c. 566, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2012, c. 567, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2018, c. 14, § 1, eff. June 1, 2018.

Formerly Art. 77, § 123.

MD Code, Education, § 5-112, MD EDUC § 5-112

Current with all legislation from the 2021 Regular Session of the General Assembly. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

FYI: MCPS Procurement Manual

Montgomery County Public Sc... by Parents' Coalition of Montg... on Scribd

Maryland Open Meetings Act: "discussions about sole-source contracts and modifications of a contract that has already been awarded seldom fall within the exception."

The Montgomery County Board of Education has claimed that the Maryland Open Meetings Act allowed them to discuss the purchase of 70 diesel school buses from a single vendor in a Closed Session.  

Here's what the actual Maryland Open Meetings Act Manual has to say about that discussion:

The Montgomery County Board of Education had not put out a RFP for this procurement, was not evaluating competitive offers, and has purchased from the local dealer for the last few years and from the distributor for decades.