AgdaPkt 2018-09-10 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.B. - Page 12 requirements. 48 They also expressed concern that the time necessary to train department - level employees to use piggyback contracts and, subsequently, the time spent selecting the best contract, would be costlier than potential savings. Those officials were also concerned that existing piggyback contracts would not reflect their city's purchasing policies, such as environmental and local purchasing preference requirements. 49 While these concerns are legitimate, approaches to piggyback contracting, such as the one illustrated below, are available: • The City's Finance Office identifies the most commonly purchased goods and services across all city departments. • The City Finance Office, in conjunction with city attorneys, searches piggyback contract databases for compatible contracts on the most common goods and services and evaluates whether such contracts would follow the city's purchase preference requirements. • Once compatible contracts have been identified and confirmed with vendors, the City Finance Office disseminates an internal list of preferred vendors for the specific goods and services covered by these contracts, in accordance with the municipality's preferred vendor requirements. • Individual city departments conduct normal purchasing activities, using the list of preferred vendors when applicable. 2. Utilize Cooperative Purchasing Agreements The Cities generally provide comparable services to residents using similar resources and procedures.50 Accordingly, they often purchase nearly identical goods and services. Yet, by purchasing common goods and services individually, each city can only leverage its own market power to negotiate lower prices. Were the Cities to collaborate with one another in their purchases of common goods and services, they would increase their purchasing power and facilitate the negotiation of lower prices. Cooperative purchasing agreements, in which multiple public entities collaborate in purchasing to increase their market power, are not new to the Cities. 51 They have successfully achieved significant cost savings in the past through cooperative purchasing agreements. Most notably, in 2015, all of the Cities, together with the County, jointly entered into a cooperative purchasing agreement with Turbo Data Systems Inc. for common parking ticket citation and adjudication services. In this arrangement, the Cities paid the County to hire a consultant, issue a request for proposal (an RFP), and evaluate the responses with a committee consisting of representatives from Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco. 52 This committee, on behalf of all member agencies, selected Turbo Data Systems as the best candidate. as Interviews with City Finance Officials. a9 Interviews with City Finance Officials. so Interviews with City Finance Officials. si Interviews with City Finance Officials. 52 Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury