Cooperative Purchasing and the Questionnaire Larry Weeks Director

Cooperative Purchasing and the Questionnaire Larry Weeks, Director – YEMMC Yvonne Volpe, Procurement Specialist-TUSD

Why Procure Cooperatively? The Good, The Bad, The Reality • Good • Bad • Reality – – Joint-bidders and piggybackers can save time in procurement Cooperative members can receive volume discounts Lead district can justify multiple award Individuals gain better understanding of value added procurements and compliance issues – Small group of districts routinely act as lead district – Lead district does not comply with rules – Awarded vendors may not be most advantageous to all members – Good outweighs the bad – Cooperative purchasing is not a luxury but rather a necessity – Demonstrates that education is doing what it can to be good custodians of the tax dollar

Purchasing Cooperatives • The YEPA story – Began in 2000 to offset increasing trend in compliance requirements – Started with three school districts using IGA – Used GPPCS and SAVE as models – Set rules early and agreed to agree – Developed consorted website – www. yepa. us as “technoglue” – Focus is on standardization of practice, communication and developing strong procurement base – 2006 YEPA includes School Districts, local Cities and County Government – Nearly 100% of solicitations are cooperatives

Other Cooperative Purchasing Groups • Arizona Cooperatives: – SAVE, Mohave, GPPCS, Enterprise Procurement Services (State), SAPC • Due Diligence requirements can vary from very little research to extensive research • National Cooperatives: – GSA, US Communities, TCPN, WSCA • Due Diligence needs to be thorough and well documented • Some WSCA contracts have been adopted by Enterprise Procurement Services

Cooperative Purchasing Terms • IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement – More formal agreement • CPA – Cooperative Purchasing Agreement – Less formal agreement • Joint Bidding – More formal type of cooperative solicitation – Agencies agree on specifications and contract terms for given items of common usage – Each agency administers its own PO’s

Cooperative Purchasing Terms • Piggybacking – Less formal type of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing – Larger purchaser solicits bid/RFP – Arranges, through language the ability for other agencies to buy from the selected vendor. Also known as “hitchhiking” or a “Permissive” cooperative

Cooperative Purchasing Ingredients • Solicitation Development – Statutes and school rules • ARS 11 -952 • R 7 -2 -1191 through R 7 -2 -1195 • USFR Compliance Questionnaire • Cooperative language – Cooperative language to include joint bidders and potential piggybackers – Reference Statutes and School Rules

Cooperative Purchasing Ingredients • Evaluation – Committees, if applicable – Communication – Best interests of joint bidders first over piggybackers • Award – Document Process • Bid tabulation • Award of item • Due Diligence – Award to the least number of vendors

Responsibilities of Lead District • Is the lead district a member of a purchasing cooperative? • Does the solicitation include the name(s) of the cooperative(s), agencies who may participate, and cooperative purchasing language? • Does the procurement follow all of the required statues and rules of a normal solicitation? • Did the lead district solicit a survey of member agencies to determine estimated volume? Was there a separation of joint-bidders and piggybackers? • Did the lead district communicate well to the vendors the cooperative nature of the solicitation and potential volume?

Responsibilities of Lead District • Was there language in the solicitation allowing vendors to “opt-out” of contracting with piggybackers? • Were the joint-bidders represented in the evaluation as necessary? • Were the award results justified and communicated well to both the jointbidders and the vendors? • Are solicitation documents complete, organized and made available to all parties who may request them?

Responsibilities of Joint. Bidder • Did the joint-bidder read the lead district’s solicitation for compliance and value? • Was data submitted to the lead district, either anticipated dollar expenditures or physical volume of items to be purchased under the resultant contract? • Did the joint-bidder participate in the evaluation as necessary? • Did the joint-bidder receive all of the due diligence documents from the lead district? • If necessary, was a due diligence checklist completed?

Responsibilities of Joint. Bidder • If the expenditures exceeded the bid threshold, was an action item sent to the governing board? • Was the terms of the contract followed to include pricing and scope of work? • Did the joint-bidder track the contract and receive renewal documentation each year the contract was renewed?

Responsibilities of the Piggybacker • Did the piggybacker read the lead district’s solicitation for compliance and value? • If potential interest in solicitation, was data submitted to the lead district, either anticipated dollar expenditures or physical volume of items to be purchased under the resultant contract? • Did the piggybacker receive all of the due diligence documents from the lead district? • Was a due diligence checklist completed?

Responsibilities of Piggybacker • If the expenditures exceeded the bid threshold, was an action item sent to the governing board? • Was the terms of the contract followed to include pricing and scope of work? • Did the piggybacker track the contract and receive renewal documentation each year the contract was renewed?

Responsibilities of the Vendor • Did the vendor read the solicitation and understand both the terms and conditions, and the scope of work? • Were all of the solicitation requirements met to include any pre-bid meetings, responses to addenda, and the solicitation format followed? • Did the vendor receive all of the required documents from the lead district to include, bid tabulation, award letter, any supplemental contracts and purchase orders before beginning billable work?

Responsibilities of the Vendor • Did the vendor setup each participant under the cooperative contract independently by defining separate accounts, billing and shipping addresses? • Did the vendor follow up with the lead district annually to insure the contract was going to be renewed? • Did the vendor act as a responsible partner during the contract term by not selling off contract products/services to agencies using the contract number? • Was the vendor portion of the contract managed well?

Questionnaire and the Lead District • Did the lead district follow normal procurement procedures? – Written determinations • Use of RFP method • Multi-year • Multiple vendors • Was there a survey of other cooperative members

Summary • Cooperative purchasing reduces duplication of effort regionally and statewide • Better for the buyers who use them and the vendors who respond to them • Requires greater attention to detail for all participants • Not going away

Questions • Larry Weeks, Purchasing Director – Yuma Educational Materials Management Consortium • 1250 W. 11 th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 • 928. 502. 4440 • lweeks@yumaed. org • Yvonne Volpe, Procurement Specialist – Tucson Unified School District • 1010 E. 10 th Street, Tucson, AZ 85719 • 520. 225. 6093 • Yvonne. volpe@tusd 1. org

Resources Arizona Revised Statues(ARS) www. azleg. state. az. us/Arizona. Revised. Statues. asp Arizona Dept. of Education School District Procurement Rules www. azsos/gov/rules. htm Uniform System of Financial Records (USFR) www. auditorgen. state. az. us Enterprise Procurement Services (State) www. azeps. az. gov and www. spirit. az. gov GSA www. gsa. gov Mohave www. mesc. org SAVE www. maricopa. gov/materials/SAVE. asp TCPN www. tcpn. org US Communitie s www. uscommunities. org WSCA www. aboutwsca. org Yuma Educational Purchasing www. yepa. us