After 2 years, Beaufort County releases report on ‘flagrant’ purchasing violations
Two years after elected officials in Beaufort County hired a law firm to review the county’s spending practices under former administrator Eric Greenway, the firm’s findings are now available to the public.
The fully unredacted, 36-page report, previously kept from the public eye, reveals that county staff failed to follow their own procurement code, in some instances, willfully, as a result of “poor culture” that started from the very top of the organizational chart.
Why was the report released now?
Without a confirmed ending to the criminal probe, confusion remains about what actually triggered the report’s release.
In August 2024, in the same meeting where council made the decision to release the full report to law enforcement, Vice Chairman Larry McElynn said that the county would release the report to the public, through a public records request, if law enforcement found “no evidence of criminal activity.”
But the report has now been released as the criminal investigation remains ongoing with the state grand jury, according to Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner. He went on to say that the report serves as a guide, as opposed to hard evidence used in an investigation.
On Sept. 4, the South Carolina Attorney General’s office informed the county’s attorney that releasing the document “would not obstruct any potential, future or current investigative work by law enforcement,” according to county spokesperson Hannah Nichols.
The Island Packet and Beaufort Gazette made a public records request for the law firm’s report, in its entirety, on June 30. The newspapers received the report on Sept. 5.
When asked if, hypothetically, the county needed the green light from the Attorney General’s Office to release the report, the office’s Communications Director Robert Kittle said that it is possible the county did not know if there was a restriction on releasing the document, like an exception to the Freedom of Information Act.
What has already been released and what does it say?
In March 2024, when the law firm gave an oral report of their findings to the council, they described a “laxity within Beaufort County government” that resulted in “flagrant violations” of the procurement code.
They also described county employees’ spending card purchases from 2019 to 2023 as “excessive, personal, frivolous, not business driven and often in violation of the county’s P-card manual.”
The report does not name employees, list their purchases or specify the dollar amounts spent by each employee. Instead, it outlines broader issues with competitive and non-competitive procurements, including missing documentation, lack of fair pricing reviews and “erroneous justifications” for bypassing competitive bids.
Civil lawyers say no criminal conduct
These deficiencies were not the result of criminal activity, the report says. The spending problems, it says, were a result of misfeasance — wrongdoing caused by neglect or misunderstanding of the law — not malfeasance or intentional misconduct.
Last August, the county council unanimously decided to release the report to state and county law enforcement. The vote came after Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office officials asked for the report on three separate occasions. This meant that law enforcement was granted access to the documents to thoroughly assess if any laws were broken.
Report specifics
The firm reviewed nearly $100 million in documented contracts from 2023 throughout their seven month probe. They reviewed both competitive purchases — when the county openly sought out bids from multiple vendors to compare offers — and non-competitive purchases.
The firm reviewed 80 different competitive procurements, valued at more than $85 million. More than 70% of these purchases were recommended for further review by the firm. The report then broke down these purchases by a series of deficiencies: insufficient documentation, no determination of fair and reasonable pricing, missing budget authority and other observations.
Insufficient documentation
None of the documented competitive purchases had complete contract files, the report says.
A contract file, which is the official record for everything related to a purchase or contract, is “essential to evidence compliance and preparedness for public review,” the report says. In some cases, invitation for bids were not properly advertised. In others, emergency, non-competitive bid procedures were used without any justifying documents. In others, a statewide contracting mechanism was used, not a local invitation for bid, without the proper documentation.
The report gave specific examples of purchases made without sufficient documentation for purchase.
- May 15, 2023: The county awarded a $4.6 million contract for construction services.
- July 21, 2023: The county awarded a $1.9 million contract for construction services.
- August 23, 2023: The county awarded a $2.3 million contract for design, permitting and construction services.
No determination of fair and reasonable pricing
In the contract files with only one bid or proposal, none were accompanied with the proper documents that determined the price was fair and reasonable.
County code requires that when only one offer is received, the award can be made only if the Procurement Director finds the offer is fair and reasonable. The director also needs to confirm that bidders had a reasonable time to respond. In some of the examples provided, the director did neither of these things. In others, the single bid and contract price were the same, showing a lack of negotiation.
The report gave specific examples of purchases made without determination of fair and reasonable pricing.
- July 13, 2023: The county awarded a $6.7 million contract for construction services.
- February 14, 2024: The county awarded a $3.1 million contract for construction services.
- October 24, 2023: The county awarded a $445K contract for construction services.
No affirmative determination of responsiveness or responsibility
On several occasions, county employees did not officially confirm that the winning bid met all requirements, or that the vendor was capable of handling the contract. The Procurement Director is responsible for determining whether the offeror is responsible and eligible, the report says, but the documentation that would confirm this could not be found in specific contract files.
- April 26, 2023: The county awarded a $36K contract for flooring services.
- September 13, 2023: The county awarded a $30 million for an unspecified contract.
Missing budget authority
More than 60% of contract files did not include a budget confirmation, which verifies that the county has the money to make the purchase. The code states that a Procurement Director should not award a contract unless funds are available and verified through a confirmation form, completed by department heads and signed by the county’s Chief Financial Officer.
The report gave specific examples of purchases made without the confirmation form.
- Sometime in 2023 the county awarded, or intended to award, a $58K contract for demolition services.
- June 29, 2023: The county awarded a $38K contract for roofing services.
On some occasions, the award exceeded the amount listed in confirmation forms without any documented approval.
- July 13, 2023: The county awarded a $6.7 million contract for construction services when the project cost was only listed as $5.7 million on the confirmation form.
The report says the lack of competition and negotiations and uneven encouragement of small or disadvantaged businesses were also observed in their review. For example, more than half of contracts greater than $1 million had only one bid or proposal on file.
Non-competitive procedures
The firm reviewed 312 non-competitive procurements, valued at over $12 million.
More than half of the contracts lacked proof that the chosen supplier was the only available option, a step meant to show the Procurement Director made a “good faith review of available sources.” In other cases, contracts included statements that competition was impossible but offered no explanation why. Some files were also missing verification that the bid prices were fair and reasonable.
The report gave specific examples of non-competitive procurements made with these deficiencies.
- September 9, 2020: The county awarded a $1.7 million contract for information technology services.
- March 10, 2023: The county awarded a $799K contract for park lighting services.
- July 5, 2023: The county awarded a $475K contract for Microsoft products.
- July 27, 2023: The county awarded a $15K contract for embroidery services.
- April 4, 2023: The county awarded a $83K contract for aerial photography services.
- September 1, 2023: The county awarded a $12K contract for football uniforms.
Recommendations
The report provides two pages worth of recommendations for the Beaufort County procurement system, from establishing a single location for all contract files to adding training for proper documentation.
In Sept. 2024, the county council replaced its purchasing ordinance to delegate purchasing authority to the county’s Purchasing Director and to establish a new purchasing procedure. The most significant amendment to the ordinance before that took place in 1996.
This story was originally published September 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM.
