By Morgan C. Mullings | Legacy South Florida

Jennifer Andreu says she is willing to take a polygraph test to prove her innocence. But as the Broward County School Board prepares to consider her termination Tuesday, Oct. 13, the longtime district employee is fighting to defend her reputation against allegations that she improperly influenced a multimillion-dollar technology contract.

Andreu, the district’s economic development opportunities compliance officer and former executive director of operations, is among two employees whom Superintendent Howard Hepburn has recommended for termination following an investigation by the Broward Office of the Inspector General. At the center of the dispute is a procurement process involving the purchase of 80,000 laptops for Broward County Public Schools students — a transaction Andreu maintains was conducted in the district’s best interests.

“And at a discount, might I add,” she told Legacy South Florida.

But investigators have presented a different account, alleging that Andreu attempted to steer business toward a particular vendor and misled school board members about the procurement process.

Andreu strongly disputes those findings.

She said she initially did not realize she was the subject of an investigation when questioned by the inspector general’s office. Now, facing the possible loss of her job, she says the allegations are based on misinterpretations of her professional communications and responsibilities. Former Broward School Board member Torey Alston, who participated in the board’s consideration of the contract, has publicly defended her integrity.

“I had no reason to question Jennifer’s integrity or believe that she was deliberately misleading me,” Alston said in a statement.

Questions Over Vendor Relationships

A central issue in the investigation involves Andreu’s communications with vendors competing for the district’s technology business. In a 623-page report released Sept. 30, investigators examined phone records, emails and decisions made during the procurement process. Among those identified in the report was Freddie Figgers, CEO of Figgers Communications and a member of the Florida Commission on Ethics appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Andreu acknowledged communicating with Figgers but rejected suggestions that those exchanges demonstrated improper conduct.

She said her communications were part of her professional responsibilities and that her supervisor was copied on relevant correspondence.

“If I was going to do something unethical … would I have emailed my supervisor? Does that sound logical?” she asked.

The investigation also examined allegations that Andreu told Figgers his company would not receive the contract unless it subcontracted with a business associated with Brian Farrell. Farrell, who previously conducted business with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, where Andreu once worked, was another figure scrutinized during the investigation. Andreu denied having a personal relationship with Farrell or coordinating efforts to direct district business to his company.

“The existence of that professional vendor relationship should not, by itself, be portrayed as evidence that Mr. Farrell and I had a personal relationship or were working together in connection with the BCPS procurement,” she said in a statement.

She maintained that her previous professional dealings with vendors should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

Disputing Claims of Influence

Andreu also challenged the suggestion that she possessed the authority to determine which vendors received district contracts. She said those decisions were made by an independent evaluation committee, not by her office.

“It is an independent evaluation committee that reviews proposals, and I do not sit on that committee,” she said. “[Investigators] never spoke with one person from the evaluation committee.”

According to Andreu, her concerns about the procurement process centered on compliance with state requirements. She said she recommended rejecting an earlier solicitation because the district had omitted a form she believed was required under state law.

“We were in the final step of a flawed process,” she said.

Andreu subsequently recommended revising the procurement process and issuing requests for proposals. The district ultimately issued two requests for proposals, awarding one contract to HP and another to Farrell’s company, Phone and Pad Warehouse. The school board approved the contracts in September 2025. Andreu argues that the revised process produced a better outcome for the district.

“Once we did go back and redo this process, it actually gave great results,” she said.

Yet, she added, the prevailing narrative has become, “Jennifer Andreu, you botched this computer bid.”

Inspector General Raises Additional Concerns

The inspector general’s report also raised questions about Farrell’s conduct during the bidding process. Investigators examined whether Farrell had submitted inaccurate information about the size of his warehouse, a qualification required under the solicitation.

“We determined that Mr. Farrell engaged in misconduct when he violated state criminal law in a later successful attempt to receive a portion of the business,” the report stated.

Farrell’s attorneys disputed that conclusion, arguing that the inspector general could not characterize the alleged falsification of a private document as criminal conduct.

Investigators also concluded that someone within the district improperly shared confidential pricing information with Farrell, potentially violating the district’s cone-of-silence policy, which restricts certain communications during competitive procurement. Andreu denied having access to the pricing information or participating in its disclosure.

“I personally had not seen the pricing,” she said. “I told them I would subject myself to a polygraph.”

Although the inspector general criticized Andreu’s conduct, the report did not accuse her of criminal wrongdoing. Instead, investigators concluded that she misled the school board and attempted to influence the procurement process in Farrell’s favor. Andreu maintains that those conclusions are unsupported by the evidence.

Superintendent’s Position Shifts

The controversy has also raised questions about the district administration’s handling of the procurement process. On July 24, 2025, Hepburn told the South Florida Sun Sentinel that his office had independently reviewed the procurement process while the inspector general’s investigation was underway and found no problems. He later told CBS News that the inspector general’s investigation was more comprehensive and that its findings warranted recommending termination. That recommendation is now scheduled for consideration at the School Board’s Oct. 13 meeting. Andreu said she remains puzzled by the district’s decision to pursue her dismissal, particularly because she sees no personal or financial benefit she could have gained by steering business toward any vendor.

She described herself as impartial when it comes to procurement decisions.

“I can guess. There’s something else here,” she said when asked why she believes the district is seeking her termination.

A Fight for Her Reputation

At an Oct. 6 due process meeting, Andreu presented documents she said contradicted the inspector general’s findings. Her evidence included emails and other communications intended to demonstrate that procurement decisions involved multiple district officials and that she had not acted independently to influence the outcome. Andreu said those records also supported her contention that she had consistently raised concerns about deficiencies in the bidding process.

The dispute now places the School Board in the position of weighing the inspector general’s findings against Andreu’s account of events and the documentation she has submitted in her defense. For Andreu, the consequences extend beyond the possible loss of her position. She says her professional integrity and reputation are at stake. With the board preparing to consider her termination, Andreu has made clear that she does not intend to leave quietly or accept the allegations against her.

“I am not resigning,” she said. “I stand firmly on my credibility and my honesty.”