Due Dillegence - November 10, 2025 - DCSD Board Meeting Archive

OMNIA Partners, Public Sector Cooperative

Procurement Compliance Questionnaire

for fiscal year ended June 30, 20___ 1

1
This questionnaire must be used for fiscal year (FY) 2024 audits and thereafter.

Arizona Auditor General revised 7/24
Procurement Compliance Questionnaire
Instructions
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §15-213(F) requires school purchasing cooperatives to have a systematic review of their
purchasing practices performed in conjunction with their annual audit, using guidelines that the Arizona Auditor General
established. The review’s purpose is to determine whether the cooperative complied with the procurement laws and
applicable rules when awarding contracts that Arizona school districts use. Auditor completion of this procurement compliance
questionnaire constitutes the required systematic review.
The audit firms must obtain and document sufficient, appropriate evidence annually to support each response. These
instructions and questions constitute the minimum audit standards for completing the procurement questionnaire. The
Arizona Auditor General may reject those Procurement Compliance Questionnaires that are not prepared in compliance with
the minimum audit standards.

• Audit documentation must describe the procedures performed, items reviewed, and the results of such procedures and
reviews to support the auditor’s responses and related comments.

• Evidence may be obtained through test work, observation, examination, and client assertion. However, client assertion
alone is not adequate evidence to support “Yes” responses on the questionnaire.

• The audit firm must determine the cooperative reviewed documents and transactions and provided sufficient evidence of
approval including manual or electronic signatures or initials and date of review.

• For questions related to the establishment of policies and procedures, the audit firm must gain an understanding of the
cooperative’s internal controls and perform sufficient test work to determine that the procedures were implemented,
followed, and systematically communicated to employees and member districts, as applicable.

• The minimum number of items to test has been specified for each question. The items selected should be representative
of the population. Population and samples sizes used for test work should be documented in the comment box of the
related question.

• A “Yes” response indicates that the audit firm has determined that the cooperative complied with the State’s
procurement laws and applicable rules for that question based on auditor obtained evidence. However, the Arizona
Auditor General makes the final determination of compliance based on the evidence presented in the questionnaire, audit
reports, audit documentation, and any other sources of information available.

• A “No” response indicates the cooperative did not comply with the State’s procurement laws and applicable rules for that
question. Audit firms must explain the cooperative’s deficiency noted for all “No” responses in the comment box below
the question. Deficiencies must be described in sufficient detail to enable the Arizona Auditor General to determine the
nature and significance of the deficiency for:
(a) assessing compliance with the State’s procurement laws and applicable rules,
(b) describing the deficiency in a letter, and
(c) testing compliance during a review. The description should include the number of items tested and the number of
exceptions noted, and any other relevant information that would provide context for the deficiency.
• An “N/A” response indicates the cooperative did not have activity related to the State’s procurement laws and applicable
rules for that question. The audit firm must explain all “N/A” responses in the comment box below the question unless
the reason for the N/A is obvious.

• The questions in the questionnaire do not address all requirements of the State’s procurement rules and applicable laws.
If the audit firm is aware of noncompliance with a requirement that is not addressed in this questionnaire, the audit firm
should include those deficiencies on a separate page attached to the questionnaire, as applicable.
The audit firm must make the resulting audit documentation supporting the audit firm’s questionnaire responses and
comments available on request for the Arizona Auditor General to review. To facilitate this review, the audit firm should
include in the audit documentation a copy of the questionnaire with references to the audit procedures performed for each
question.

Arizona Auditor General revised 7/24 Page 1 of 5
Procurement Compliance Questionnaire
Once the audit firm has completed, reviewed, and signed the procurement questionnaire, it must submit it to the Arizona
Auditor General by email to asd@azauditor.gov.

Arizona Auditor General revised 7/24 Page 2 of 5
Procurement Compliance Questionnaire
24-S850 HVAC & BUILDING CONTROL SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT, INSTALLATION, & RELATED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Objective: To determine whether the cooperative has followed the State of Arizona procurement laws and the Arizona School
District Procurement Rules, as adopted by the State Board of Education in the Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R7-1-1001
et seq., to promote fair and open competition among vendors to help ensure the cooperative’s members are receiving the best
value for the public monies they spend.
The audit firm must select and test the lesser of 50 percent or 15 of the cooperative’s solicitations completed during the fiscal
year to be used by Arizona school districts, but no fewer than 5 solicitations. These sample sizes represent the minimum level
of required test work. Audit firms should use their professional judgment in determining whether a larger sample is needed.
In the parentheses provided below, indicate the population size and actual number of solicitations tested and total number of
solicitations completed. If all solicitations are tested, indicate such in the comments. Of the total solicitations selected for
testing, at least 40 percent must be competitive sealed bids and at least 40 percent must be competitive sealed proposals. If
the 40 percent thresholds cannot be met because of an inadequate population size, the audit firm must test all solicitations
completed through competitive sealed bids or proposals, as applicable. Of the solicitations selected, at least 1 should be for
traditional construction (design-bid-build) and specified professional services, and at least 1 for construction-manager-at-risk,
design-build, job-order-contracting, or qualified select bidders list, as applicable.

YES/NO
Based upon review of ( ) solicitations, (___) competitive sealed bids and (___) competitive sealed proposals from the (____)
total solicitations completed during the fiscal year for the procurement of construction, materials, and services, did the
cooperative follow the School District Procurement Rules (A.A.C. R7-2-1001 et seq) and do the following:
1. Compile and maintain a list of persons who requested to be added to a list of prospective bidders, if any, and
furnish those bidders with notice of available bids? A.A.C. R7-2-1023 Yes
Comment: See notifications list.
2. Publish and provide other adequate notice, as applicable, of the issuance of solicitations? A.A.C. R7-2-1022,
R7-2-1024(C), or R7-2-1042(C) Yes
Comment:
3. Issue the solicitation at least 14 days before the due date and time set for bid or proposals, as applicable,
unless a shorter time was documented as necessary? A.A.C. R7-2-1024(A) or R7-2-1042(B)
Yes
Comment:
4. Include all required content in the solicitation, as required by A.A.C. R7-2-1024(B) or R7-2-1042(A), including
the requirement that bidders/offerors have taken steps to ensure no violation of A.R.S.
§15-213(O) has occurred? (Note: If the response is “No,” the comment should specifically indicate which Yes
requirements were not complied with.)
Comment:
5. Record the time and date that sealed bids or proposals were received and store bids or proposals unopened
until the time and date set for opening? A.A.C. R7-2-1029 or R7-2-1045 Yes
Comment: Region 14 ESC utilizes eProcurement system – Bonfire.
If a multiple award was made for a solicitation, did the cooperative: (Questions 6 through 9)
6. Include in the solicitation(s) notification that multiple contracts may be awarded, the cooperative’s basis for
determining whether to award multiple contracts, and the criteria for selecting vendors for the multiple
contracts? A.A.C. R7-2-1031(C) and R7-2-1050(B) Yes
Comment: See Multiple Awards section.
7. Documented the specific reason(s), that a single award was not advantageous to the cooperative’s members
and retained documentation that supported the basis for a multiple award? A.A.C.
R7-2-1031(D) and R7-2-1050(C) N/A
Comment:
8. Establish and communicate to the cooperative’s members the procedures for the use of multiple award
contracts? A.A.C. R7-2-1031(D) and R7-2-1050(C) Yes
Comment:
9. Limit contract awards to the least number of suppliers necessary to meet the requirements of the members?
A.A.C. R7-2-1031(D) and R7-2-1050(C) Yes
Comment:

Arizona Auditor General revised 7/24 Page 3 of 5
Procurement Compliance Questionnaire
YES/NO
10. For solicitations where only 1 responsive bid or proposal was received, did the cooperative determine that
the price submitted was fair and reasonable, and that either other prospective offerors had reasonable
opportunity to respond or there was not adequate time for resolicitation, and retain documentation that N/A
supported the basis for the determination? A.A.C. R7-2-1032 or R7-2-1046(A)(1)
Comment:
11. For ( ) solicitations issued through competitive sealed bidding, did the cooperative award the contracts to
the lowest responsible and responsive bidder whose bid conformed, in all material respects, to the
requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation for bid (IFB)? (Note: If the response is “No,”
the comment should specifically indicate which requirements were not N/A
complied with.) A.A.C. R7-2-1031
Comment: RFP
12. For ( ) solicitations issued through competitive sealed proposals, did the cooperative award the contract
to the offeror whose proposal was determined, with the specific reason(s) in writing, to be most
advantageous to the cooperative’s members based on the factors set forth in the request for proposal (RFP)
and retain documentation that supported the determination? (Note: If the response is “No,” the comment Yes
should specifically indicate which requirements were not complied with.) A.A.C. R7-2-1050
Comment: See evaluation Bid Tab.
13. If the cooperative issued solicitations for construction contracts that used construction-manager-at-risk,
design-build, job-order-contracting, or qualified select bidders list to procure those services, did the
cooperative comply with the requirements of A.A.C. R7-2-1100 through R7-2-1115? (Note: If the response is N/A
“No,” the comment should specifically indicate which requirements were not complied with.)
Comment:
14. If the cooperative issued solicitations for goods and information services using reverse auctions or
electronic bidding, did the cooperative comply with the requirements of A.A.C. R7-2-1018 and
R7-2-1021? (Note: If the response is “No,” the comment should specifically indicate which requirements N/A
were not complied with.)
Comment:
15. Did the cooperative obtain signed procurement disclosure statements for all procurement consultants,
members of a procurement advisory group, or evaluation committee involved in each specific procurement
process? A.A.C. R-7-2-1008 Yes
Comment:
16. Based on type of procurement tested, did the cooperative prepare the applicable written determinations as
required by the specific procurement rule(s), including specifying the reasons and how the determination was
made, and maintain the written determination in the procurement file? A.A.C. Yes
R7-2-1004.
Comment:
17. If the cooperative used multi-term contracts for any of the solicitations tested:
a. Were the terms and conditions of renewal or extension, if any, included in the IFB or RFP? A.R.S. §15-
213(L) and A.A.C. R7-2-1093 Yes
Comment:
b. For materials or services and contracts for job-order-contracting construction services that were
entered into for more than 5 years, did the cooperative determine in writing that a contract of longer
duration would be advantageous to its members before the solicitation was issued? A.R.S. §15-213(L) N/A
and A.A.C. R7-2-1093
Comment:

Arizona Auditor General revised 7/24 Page 4 of 5
Procurement Compliance Questionnaire
YES/NO
18. If the cooperative issued solicitations for specified professional services, consistent with A.A.C.
R7-2-1117 through R7-2-1123 did it provide guidance for use of those contracts to cooperative member
districts? N/A
Comment:
19. The cooperative's procurement files included the information required by A.A.C. R7-2-1001(97), as
applicable, and were the files available to cooperative members for due diligence purposes? A.A.C. R7-2-
1191(D) If the response is “No,” specifically indicate which document listed in A.A.C. Yes
R7-2-1001(97) was not included in the file. Do not include items already cited on another question.
Comment:
20. Did the cooperative provide training and guidance related to restrictions on soliciting, accepting, or
agreeing to accept any personal gift or benefit with a value of $300 or more to employees and vendors?
A.R.S. §15-213 (N) and A.A.C.R7-2-1003 Yes

Comment:
21. Did the cooperative have a procedure to prevent additional purchases by new members that would
materially increase the volume of goods or services estimated in the original solicitation? A.A.C.
R7-2-1011 No
Comment:
22. Did the cooperative have a procedure to verify districts using the cooperative’s contracts had an active
cooperative purchasing agreement on file? A.A.C. R7-2-1191 through R7-2-1195 Yes
Comment:

This questionnaire was completed in accordance with guidelines established by the Arizona Auditor General and as set forth in
the instructions on page 1.

Audit Firm: Date:

Preparer (audit firm representative): Title:

Arizona Auditor General revised 7/24 Page 5 of 5

Agenda Item