ADAMS TWP — A week after voting to spend more than $585,000 on new technology for the district, Mars School Board members on Tuesday rescinded a portion of that contract and re-awarded it due to compatibility issues.

Board members also spoke out during Tuesday’s meeting about conflicts of interest surrounding the bids.

Last week, members voted to spend $585,844 among three vendors for servers, storage and Chromebooks. The board was presented with a proposal in which Cisco US Servers and Jetstor Storage would be purchased from ITPS for $184,440; VMWare Licenses and 168 units of memory from Black Rock for $236,180; and 661 Chromebooks and cover cases from ePlus for $165,223.

The board voted 6-1, with member Christine Valenta voting no, William Pettigrew abstaining due to a conflict of interest, and Rebecca Brown absent. The vote was contingent upon the memory units and servers being compatible.

On Tuesday, Jill Swaney, district business manager, said she asked all parties to verify the compatibility, and found that Cisco could not deliver fully configured servers using another company for memory. While the memory could be added later, it would create more work and a longer installation time. Officials said they intend to have the entire project completed by the beginning of the school year.

Swaney said she also found that through the district’s existing technical services contract with ITPS, the company is limited to a 4 percent markup on any service offered, including any bids placed.

As a result, the board was asked to rescind a $93,912 contract for memory from Black Rock, and accept ITPS’s bid of $124,176 for the same product. The district saved about $48,000 through the move, Swaney said. She said the Chromebooks and VMWare Licenses were ordered last week.

Additionally, the board was asked to pay an additional $24,000 to ITPS for the installation and implementation of the project. The board voted unanimously to approve the move, with Pettigrew abstaining and Valenta absent.

Following the vote, some in attendance questioned the process for soliciting the bids, as well as Pettigrew’s and solicitor Thomas King’s relationship to ITPS.

King said only one bid was received. Swaney sought additional bids through the state’s COSTAR bid program, he said. Two requests were made for bid information, but no additional bids were returned.

King said he recused himself from working on the project, as he had provided legal advice to ITPS in the past. The district was instead represented by Joseph Kubit during the bid process.

Pettigrew, meanwhile, has served as a consultant to ITPS, which King said had been disclosed when the relationship began. King said both he and Pettigrew followed all rules and regulations when considering matters involving the company.

“Both of us, to my knowledge, followed to the ‘T’ the requirements that were provided,” King said, adding his firm no longer represents ITPS.

Pettigrew said before he began working for ITPS, he was contacted by King and Wes Shipley, superintendent, who told him he should have no input on matters involving the company and the board.

Others in attendance questioned the company’s stability and referenced leadership changes, though no details were provided. King pushed back at an assertion that ITPS is not a stable company.

“If you have information to give me ... that says they’re not going to comply with this bid, let me know. Do you have that information? Then I wouldn’t say that,” he said.

Shipley said he and other district officials have been pleased with the service provided by the company.

“Our service with ITPS has been outstanding,” Shipley said. “The change of leadership with them has nothing to do with us. ... Our contacts haven’t changed at all.”