NPI is about education & networking for professionals associated with public sector procurement. NPI is proud to be the founding sponsor of the Achievement of Excellence in Procurement (AEP) Award, recognizing excellence in public purchasing.
Your opinion to? “GSA looks to expand business, open schedules to state & local government”s
March 27, 2010 at 8:01 pm #96059
During a keynote speech at FOSE, General Services
Administration head Martha Johnson spoke about the GSA’s ambition to
transform the way the way they do business. She said there was ample
opportunity to jump-start the transformation, including an expansion of
GSA schedules to state and local governments.Link to rest of article:http://civsourceonline.com/2010/03/26/gsa-looks-to-expand-business-possibly-open-schedules-to-state-local-governments/What is your reaction to this. Do you agree that it a good thing or do you sense there are problems associated with it? Why?
March 27, 2010 at 9:07 pm #96071
Donald L WoodsParticipant
While there may be some limited applications, the problem in Nevada is that Nevada state laws require that the contract be awarded to the “lowest Responsive and Responsible” bidder. Many GSA contracts do not meet these requirements. We do have a “Joinder provision” that allows us to “piggy back” onto other local government contracts that do meet these requirements, but finding them can sometimes be a pain. There is also a provision that allows us to utilize Cooperative bidding procedures where we can place our requirements onto a larger bid, by a sister entity, that allows us to have some say so in the resulting contract T & C’s, and results in the contract being awarded to the Lowest responsive and responisible bidder. Therefor Nevada state and local governments rely heavily on “Joinder Contracts” and “Cooperative Contracts” rather then utilizing the GSA Contracts for goods or commodities, if not issuing their own bid.
March 28, 2010 at 5:20 pm #96069
I think opportunities abound w/ the prospect of opening GSA contracts, though most states do have some sort of local requirement (or even protectionist policy). I’m interested in what regional purchasing agreements (multi-state, neighboring states, etc.) could do to assuage these kinds of concerns. Of course, a broad reassessment of how states procure goods and services, and whether their processes can be improved, would need to happen before GSA scheds would do much good. Perhaps the economic fortunes of most states could help provide political cover for those who need it.
Congressional permission for GSA to open up to states/locals would certainly make things interesting.
March 28, 2010 at 7:18 pm #96067
April 21, 2010 at 11:36 pm #96065
Comment by Daniel Covey, CPPB, Procurement Manager, SC Board of Budget and Control on NPI’s Linkedin group: “It is a fantastic idea and in this economy (not enough staff, etc.) the GSA schedule provide a way to achieve a heavy work load with less people. In SC, we have had to seek exemptions from the code to use these schedules and at this point, we have only been successful in getting exemptions for emergency supplies. A big problem is that local vendors lobby elected officials who are very sensitive to doing anything that might upset them. One way we are trying to move this forward is by educating local vendors on how to get added to GSA schedule to remove some of their objections.
April 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm #96063
Reply by Mark Little, State Purchasing Manager at State of Idaho on NPI’s Linkedin group: “There is a difference in the award of a schedule and the award of a competitively bid contract. The former is the result of a petition and a promise to ensure GSA gets the best price while the latter is based on good, solid competition. Idaho struggles with calling GSA Schedule awards competitively bid contracts; which is how they have been represented to us. We also struggle with the local economic presence issue in helping our in-state suppliers.”
April 22, 2010 at 1:46 am #96061
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.