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

Browse Search

6.1.B. - Page 13 By utilizing a collaborative purchase agreement when selecting Turbo Data systems, Cities realized an estimated savings approaching 35 to 40 percent of original costs. 53 Before negotiations, Turbo Data charged processing fees of $1.28 for electronic citations and $1.35 for hand-written citations. These rates were lowered to $0.50 and $0.80 for electronic and hand- written citations, respectively. 54 Based on the number of citations issued, the County saved approximately $17,000 per year under the new agreement. A city's approximate savings varied with the number of citations but were consistent with the County's rates. For smaller cities which lacked the market power to achieve the pre -contract rates achieved by the County, savings exceeded 45 percent.ss Moreover, by paying a nominal sum to San Mateo County to conduct the RFP process, cities were able to produce a superior RFP at a significantly lower cost than had each city issued its own request.56 The Turbo Data Systems cooperative purchasing agreement serves as model of what these agreements can achieve. When asked why they did not make greater use of cooperative purchasing agreements, City officials responded that they had difficulty identifying goods and services to collaboratively purchase. They attributed this difficulty to the limited communication channels among city finance officers and the deprioritization of the purchasing function in finance departments.57 For instance, while the San Mateo County Finance Officer Group (SAMFOG), which consists of all City finance officials, meets on a bimonthly basis, procurement is rarely discussed. Despite these difficulties, city officials recognized that cooperative purchasing agreements have earned Cities significant savings. To help expand the use of cooperative purchasing agreements, the Grand Jury asked city officials to identify commonalities between goods and services that could be purchased cooperatively. Finance officials reported that goods and services best suited for cooperative purchase are: • Common: products which are purchased by multiple or all Cities • Homogeneous Products that are substantially similar • Discrete: Products that are measurable in individual units such that they can be individually purchased • Foreseeable: Products whose purchase can be predicted, allowing the Cities time to negotiate and prepare a cooperative purchasing agreement 3. Collaborate with the County's Purchasing Division The highest potential for cost savings, while maintaining the Cities' decentralized purchasing systems, can be achieved through collaboration with the County of San Mateo (City -County " Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents. 14 Ibid. ss Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents. s6 Interviews with City Finance Officials. s� Interviews with City Finance Officials. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10