Pittsfield Committee Recommends Scanlon for City Audit
PITTSFIELD, Mass.— After the bid for a new auditing company came back more than 30 percent higher, Pittsfield will stick with Scanlon and Associates.
On Tuesday, the Auditing Services Evaluation Committee voted, 4-2, to advance Scanlon to the City Council for an independent audit. CliftonLarsonAllen also responded to the bid, but came in costing $120,000 more.
“I have to go with saving money for the city. I mean, the discrepancy is too much of a difference,” committee member Karen Kalinowsky said.
“The city could have used for that difference over the next three years.”
This process was prompted by Rule 40 of the council rules and the City Charter, where in any year the City Council votes to hold a procurement process for an independent certified public accountant or firm to audit Pittsfield's books and accounts, the city must, through its Finance Committee with the assistance of the purchasing department, solicit requests for proposals or invitations for bids before June 1.
The council in March recommended that the purchasing agent draft a request for proposals and put it out to bid.
Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren, who has vocally supported the independent audit for years, said the city doesn’t have to follow a bidding process for the professional service, “We are doing this so the public knows that we're being professional and are looking for other options, looking at what the best options are, and comparing them based on what they can offer and what the cost is.”
Board member Kathy Amuso said both CLA and Scanlon have comparable reviews with high recommendations. Especially considering the budget crisis Pittsfield is in, she moved to recommend Scanlon to the full council.
She reported that a finance worker from a different municipality said they would never go back to a larger firm after working with Scanlon.
“I think sometimes yes, you do need change, but I don't think in this case,” Amuso said.
Similarly, committee member Pete White favored Scanlon. There were only two proposals received, he pointed out, and looking at the prices affirmed his pick.
“I kind of held out until we saw what the prices came in, and I think with the price proposals, it just cemented that being a Western Mass firm, Scanlon has been providing the service,” he said.
“I know in the past they've said that they do provide different sets of eyes through different employees of theirs working on it, and not always having the same team coming in.”
Chair Cameron Cunningham and Richard Backer voted against advancing Scanlon, as they believed CLA has a perspective that would benefit the city.
Cunningham said he doesn’t take the cost discrepancy lightly, “but I think a new, a truly new set of eyes would be something good. CLA operates on different municipalities who may do things differently.”
“CLA did speak to employing AI in portions of their assessment, which I don't necessarily say is a good thing to use on our audit, and I certainly don't want them using only it on our audit, but I think any of us who have tried it have found AI can give different point of views or catch things that a human eye may not see,” he added.
“Depending on their models, it could be looking for patterns that we would never see.”
Backer noted that both proposals were “excellent,” but that Pittsfield needs a new viewpoint, which CLA would offer.
Warren pointed out that there is a 33 percent difference between the two three-year bids, or over $100,000 more.
“It’s clear it's a big difference. A big, big difference,” he said.
Cunningham said people want to see a different auditor, and it is a tough situation because they also don’t want Pittsfield spending more money than it has to.
“So you're stuck weighing the difference of: Is that new set of eyes worth the price discrepancy? I think for the good of the order of the city, my opinion, it is worth it,” he said.
“I think for the three years that are bid on the contract, that is not locking us into that price forever.”
Tags: audit & evalu committee,
