San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

Cooperative Purchasing—a Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement Issue | Summary | Glossary | Background |

Published: July 11, 2018 96 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 13 findings

F1
All 20 of the cities in the County purchase goods and services through decentralized purchasing systems.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Decentralized purchasing systems successfully allow the Cities to procure goods and services at fair market prices while minimizing labor costs.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The creation of a centralized purchasing department to provide the organization with advanced procurement services and guidance can be cost prohibitive.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
While city employees receive training on municipal purchasing guidelines and policies, many employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility are not trained or instructed to negotiate optimum prices by leveraging market power.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
City employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility often do not identify commonly purchased goods that other departments also purchase and so miss the opportunity to negotiate lower costs which could be obtained by purchasing the items in bulk for multiple departments.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Cooperative purchasing practices allow multiple public entities to collaboratively purchase goods and services, thereby gaining economies of scale that they would otherwise not have.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Cooperative purchasing practices are compatible with decentralized purchasing systems and can allow the Cities to leverage their collective market power, without changing existing purchasing systems. Ibid. 27.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Adoption of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback agreements and cooperative purchasing agreements, can enable all Cities to obtain lower prices on goods and services.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Each city has limited communications with each other regarding procurement best practices, shared purchasing challenges, and purchasing solutions.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1
Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback contracts and joint procurement agreements.
R2
Share with other Cities and the County Procurement Division their procurement needs in order to identify opportunities for cooperative procurements between the Cities and the County. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo do the following by no later than February 1, 2019:
R3
Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including the development and insertion of piggyback language into County contracts, with the Cities.
R4
Share with the Cities the County’s procurement needs to identify opportunities for further cooperative purchasing.
F10
The County of San Mateo’s Procurement Division is the only remaining public centralized purchasing department at the City and County level within San Mateo County.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Collaboration between the Cities and the Procurement Division through cooperative purchasing practices could achieve significant cost savings for both the Cities and the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The Procurement Division presently lacks the operational capacity to fully collaborate with the Cities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
Relocate the County’s Procurement Division into an appropriate reporting structure, such that the Procurement Division shall report directly to the County Manager. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo do the following by no later than July 1, 2019.
R6
Develop and study a plan to achieve the Checkpoints on the Pathway towards City-County Procurement Cooperation within current plans to improve the Purchasing Division, including: a. Hire experienced buyers. b. Create and distribute to the Cities a register of open contracts. c. Ensure the County’s purchasing software can track key indicators. d. Ensure the County’s purchasing software can accommodate city purchases. e. Identify, in conjunction with the Cities, the goods and services with the highest potential savings. f. Negotiate discounted contracts for those goods and services. g. Distribute and report discounts to the Cities on a consistent basis.
F13
There are no formal channels for communication between the County and the Cities regarding procurement cooperation opportunities.
No recommendations for this finding

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office