The central topic of discussion was the selection process for accounting firms, which brought to light several procedural and compliance issues. A focus was placed on the verification of qualifications for the top-ranked firms: Pervis Gray and Company, Malden and Jenkins CPA, and Grow and Associates, Inc. A report confirmed that all firms were licensed to practice in Florida, with no complaints recorded against them. However, the conversation became more detailed when discrepancies were found in the corporate registration of some firms. Concerns were raised about Pervis Gray and Company’s registration status, particularly about discrepancies related to their 2026 registration filing and the use of the same EIN for different LLPs.

The commission discussed the implications of these discrepancies, with some participants questioning whether missing state deadlines could reflect on a firm’s ability to meet local deadlines. Despite these concerns, it was noted that the firm remained active and compliant with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. There was also a discussion on the peer review process for each firm, which occurs every three years and provides an independent assessment of qualifications and any potential complaints.

This prompted discussions about the importance of upfront information to maintain the integrity of the selection process. A commission member highlighted that the audit selection committee must approve evaluation criteria for scoring each proposer independently.

Another focal point was the ranking of the three firms, where Pervis Gray was listed as the top firm, followed by Malden and Jenkins, and Grow and Associates. Concerns about Malden and Jenkins arose due to their incomplete fee quote, leading to uncertainty about their overall pricing. Despite this, some participants supported their ranking based on other qualifications. The need for compliance with the Florida statute mandating independent scoring was reiterated.

There was some confusion about whether reference checks should occur before or after ranking the firms. A commissioner highlighted that delaying the ranking to await reference responses could hinder the timeline, especially with references potentially being unavailable due to their own audit commitments.

The discussion also touched on procedural concerns regarding the approval of meeting minutes and the evaluation criteria for selecting firms. A motion was conditionally accepted to amend the minutes to clarify that the process was subjective, emphasizing the need for accurate documentation of such critical points.