Auditor receives call from vendor wondering why invoices A & B have not been paid.

Auditor says "we have not received those yet; please fax them to us."

Auditor looks at invoices A & B and notices that they are each for the same material. Invoice A is approximately $15,000.00. Invoice B is approximately $14,000.00. Both are for the same project, and they were apparently issued on the same date.

Assuming that no possible exception to the County Purchasing Act applies, what should the County Attorney advise the Auditor to do?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

I'd suggest the County Auditor turn the invoices over to the Sheriff's Office for an investigation as to whether any criminal offenses have occurred.

If I understand this correctly, your county (hypothetically) has been presented with two invoices for the same materials, one being higher than the other. Aside from any criminal implications, I would be inclined to advise the auditor that his/her duty to ensure the legality of any claim presented to the county requires, first, a comparison of the invoices to the underlying contract. The one which most closely matches the contract should be paid (assuming the materials received were compliant with the contract). The one that does not should be denied as an attempt to overcharge the county. The auditor may find it useful to remind the vendor that payment above and beyond the contract price, in the absence of additional consideration, is forbidden by article 3, section 53 of the Texas Constitution. It also may constitute a gift of public money, contrary to article 3, section 52(a).

Until I read Scott's post, I assumed that the multiple invoices were a device used to avoid bidding / purchasing act requirements, not so much a fraud involving multiple invoices for the same materials. So, HYPOTHETICALLY of course, which scenario are we talking about? (Not that either one is neccessarily any better than the other!).

Larry's reading may be correct, in which case I'm all washed up. If that is the case (both being true), the fact that the $29,000 purchase went straight to invoice without bidding would be problematic under the County Purchasing Act. That it came in two separate invoices doesn't resolve the CPA problem and, in fact, may implicate section 262.034 as Larry suggests.

The hypothetical invoices are for TWO shipments of the same product, which add up to $29,000.00 total, which would seem to violate the Purchasing Act.

The Auditor and I have found out that the material comes from a sole source supplier, so perhaps no one in this hypothetical needs to go to jail and be removed from office.

My question is, however, if a discretionary exemption (such as the product comes from a sole source supplier) applies, shouldn't the commissioners court still take up the matter and grant the exemption with a finding that the supplier in question is a sole source for the product?

Discretionary exemptions, such as "sole source" purchases, are available only "if the commissioners court by order grants the exemption[.}" Loc. Gov't Code sec. 262.024(a). Don't tell me that someone just ordered something up without running it through the proper channels. That just doesn't happen.