See below:
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tonight's School Board Community Meeting
I would like to share my impressions from tonight's School Board Community meeting. First, I think it is wonderful that the School Board is taking the opportunity to listen to the Community. The question posed during the meeting was "Is your child engaged in learning?" From there, we broke into three groups with a School Board member represented at each group's table.
My group discussed what engagement means. Some of us felt that engagement is not necessarily the best barometer for learning and being challenged; often children may be engaged because it is fun or easy. Others felt strongly that children should "own their learning" and that their education should be customized as per the specific student's interests. We seemed to all agree that students do much better when class sizes are smaller. I believe this should be one of the top priorities of the District - - small class sizes for all grades (small class sizes will allow for more customized teaching and one-on-one instruction). Teachers, of course, make all the difference too. But, when a teacher is teaching a class of 23 students with a range of aptitudes and interests in learning, customization becomes overwhelming.
With this, I fail to see how heterogeneous classes effectively engage all learners, especially in the higher level grades. I believe that a tiered system is more effective at targeting the needs and abilities of individual students. Unfortunately, the meeting ended before we could delve into this issue.
I look forward to future debate on whether or not heterogeneous classes are most effective for engaging learners. Additionally, I would like to see debated some of the curriculum issues I have posed in earlier posts. I am optimistic that this is a first step in what I wish to see happen in our District, that is, open debate about academic priorities.
School Board March Elections
Below is an excerpt from a letter to the school board regarding the revised purchasing policy. It speaks to the level of divide that has manifested itself over the past few years. With an historic election behind us, there is one more that takes place in March. It is here that this community will make its voice heard where previously there was none.
Ultimately, the School Board’s responsibility is not just to the parents, students, and employees of the District, but rather to all the members of the community, including those who pay taxes to support public education. A vote for this policy is a vote to abdicate that responsibility and place power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable administrators—too much power. A vote for this policy is a vote to weaken accountability and hide the spending of the public’s money from view. A vote for this policy is a vote against the very principles you ought to uphold. And a vote for this policy will surely be remembered come Election Day in March.
Ultimately, the School Board’s responsibility is not just to the parents, students, and employees of the District, but rather to all the members of the community, including those who pay taxes to support public education. A vote for this policy is a vote to abdicate that responsibility and place power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable administrators—too much power. A vote for this policy is a vote to weaken accountability and hide the spending of the public’s money from view. A vote for this policy is a vote against the very principles you ought to uphold. And a vote for this policy will surely be remembered come Election Day in March.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Good Fiscal Policy Means Good Procurement Practices
First off...kudos to Jenna Roberts for taking the time and energy to educate the Community on the current and proposed ORCSD's procurement policies.
When every dollar counts, our District needs to implement even more rigorous fiscal policy. Part of strong fiscal policy is responsible procurement. Can you imagine not getting THREE quotes for work on your own home? Can you imagine signing a check for $20,000 to a contractor or vendor without getting competitive bids? This is what is being proposed for our District going forward.
Per the information I have, the new ORCSD procurement policy permits the District to procure WITHOUT competitive bids, for any amount UNDER $25,000. The current procurement policy is to secure competitive bids for bids over $5,000. Why is the District proposing even looser policy in these tough economic times?
This is my money. This is your money. This is unacceptable. Fiscal responsibility...now, please!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Response to Revised Bidding Policy
For School Board Members and Public Record
November 4, 2008
Dear Members of the School Board:
I am very disappointed to see that the policy committee did not recommend reviewing the extensive comments I submitted regarding the bidding policy before sending it to the full Board for review. Unfortunately I have no child care and cannot attend the meeting to outline my concerns. Please read my comments and consider these before discussing the bidding policy.
While I appreciate all the work the policy committee and business manager have put in to the revised bidding policy to date, the policy is not complete and outside reviewers should be utilized. As I said in my previous correspondence to the policy committee (see below), the revised policy is a good first step in flushing out more of the procedures that are lacking in the current policy but I feel that the overall policies have been dramatically weakened and that the revised policies and procedures need more thorough clarification as well as input from experts in the field (e.g. town officials, procurement officers from UNH, members of the community with expertise in procurement, etc).
I respectfully request that the Board motion to have an outside team of experts review and make further recommendations to strengthen the policy and tighten the overall language. I have over 10 years working on RFP's with State and non-profit organizations and from my professional background I urge you to get more input before discussing the revised policy--it is simply not ready. This revision not only weakens existing policies but much of the language is vague and many important policy and procedure elements are missing.
In addition to details needing clarification, there are 4 key areas in which the revised policy is weaker or inadequate.
1. Deleted from the new policy--a minimum of 3 bids must be received for all bids over $5,000
While obtaining 3 bids was deemed "arbitrary" by some members of the committee, it is in fact, an industry standard and a best practice. If 3 bids is unattainable then language can been added to the policy allowing the business manager to present the information to the Board and seek permission to proceed without 3 bids. This is a good check and balance. Please maintain the original policy.
2. Deleted from the new policy--anything over $5,000 be put out to bid.
The new policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. Again, this is an industry standard and a best practice. Please maintain the original policy.
3. There are many instances I have outlined below where the language is far too vague or inconsistent and as a result would infringe on any accountable. Words/pharases such as "may" or "in general" should not be part of a policy.
Also, some terms are not used properly--"formal bidding", RFQ and RFP are, in some cases, used inconsistently or incorrectly. A "definition of terms" section was supposed to be added to this document.
4. Since this has become a policies and procedures manual, there are key areas that must be addressed that are currently not part of this document:
1. Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
2. Contract Award Policy and Procedures
3. Policy Oversight
4. Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
5. Definition of Terms (this was discussed by the policy committee but has not been added to the manual being presented)
I feel strongly that if the Board is looking for support from the public on these new policies then more input is needed from the community and experts on these policies.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter!
Regards,
Jenna Roberts
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To: School Board Policy Committee
Cc: Members of the public present at the meeting
From: Jenna Roberts
Date: October 13, 2008
Re: Comments on the draft Bidding and Purchasing Requirements
Thank you for giving the members of the public an opportunity to participate in the policy committee meeting last week. I did not have the time to fully review the draft policy for Bidding and Purchasing Requirements before attending the meeting so I am not sure my comments at the meeting were very helpful.
Now that I have had time to digest what the committee has discussed and had the opportunity to review the draft policy in detail this weekend, I feel that I have more insight to offer the group. I am also willing to meet with any member of the administration or the committee to help flush out more of the policy/procedures.
I believe that these requirements have the potential to be used as a template for other schools across the State. Based on my research, the written procurement policies of many NH schools are inadequate. We have an opportunity to produce a model policy and procedures manual for other Districts statewide.
I agree with other members of the group that this is a great step forward and I am happy to offer my experience to tighten the language and add more content to the policy. Below, I have provided some feedback/suggestions on the draft policy and offer some thoughts on content for the actual purchasing/awarding portions. I hope you find my comments helpful because my intention is to assist in this process by providing suggestions beneficial to our administrators but with the needs of the public in mind, too.
Following my feedback is a copy of the policies used by the Town of Durham which have many features we are incorporating into the District policies. The chart they use is a great snapshot of the procurement policies. This chart might be helpful to incorporate into our document, too.
Thank you for all your work on this.
Comments on the current draft policy dated 8/27/08 :
After reviewing the entire draft it is clear to me from the language used that this is a policy and procedures manual. I think that is a great because it is difficult to review policy if the procedures for implementation are not obvious to those reviewing the policies. Implementation for a policy such as this one exists hand in hand with the policy itself. This policy was upgraded from 2 paragraphs to 5 pages. This is a much more comprehensive guide through there in need for more clarity and content in certain areas I will expand upon below.
Part B: The employees who are authorized to make purchases are not defined. Item #1 & #2 on page 2 notes who is authorized to make purchases under $25,000 but it is not clearly defined who can authorize over $25,000 or what the oversight process will be followed to ensure accountability.
Part B.2 This current policy in place mandates anything over $5,000 be put out to bid. This draft policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. I think the original policy should be maintained. Most policies I have reviewed have anything over $5,000 similar to our original guidelines. Please consider returning to the original standard.
Part B.3 Please consider taking out this entire item #3. Item 5 specifies the exceptions to the bidding requirements. All items should be bid at all times unless items meet the exceptions outlined in the form of a Request for Quote (RFQ) or Request for Proposal (RFP). There should be no allowance for not bidding unless they meet item #5 exceptions.
Part B.4 The group agreed that the term “formal bidding” would be changed to RFQ which will tighten up the language. The language needs to be tightened further by changing “may seek” to “will be required unless an exception is made through items #5”. Again, this makes it more concrete that all purchases will be bid unless it clearly meets an exception. The current language provides a loop hole as also seen in item #3.
Part B.4 There is some confusion with the language here. A RFP does “identify the need the District intends to meet” but the rest of the sentence is not accurate. As we discussed at the committee meeting, there should be a glossary of terms. The rest of the sentence seems to mix RFP and a Request for Information (RFI). If the District does not know exactly what it wants then a RFI would be used. I think that if RFQ, RFP and RFI are defined then the last part of the sentence should be deleted because it is confusing: “permit the vendor to propose the manner in which the work will be performed and the materials used”.
In general a RFP is written with a scope of service and while the vendor may respond to specific questions requested in the RFP which refer to performance and materials the overall task for a RFP is known and should be adequately explained in the RFP. Generally RFP’s are used for more complex services (e.g. architects, networking, general contractors, advisory services, etc.) which require the vendor to explain what they do and how they would do it to meet the requirements of the District.
Part B.5.a Cooperative purchases should only be used if it is determined that these provide the best service at the best price. I think that instead of making this an exception it could be added as an item whereby other bids will be reviewed and compared to cooperative purchases, as well. Again, we are looking for the best value and we cannot be sure that a cooperative purchase is necessarily the best value unless there is a comparison. I think a RFQ should be utilized to compare against the cooperative purchase price and then the lowest bid that effectively meets the Districts requirements should be used. Presumably this will be the cooperative bid but in my experience, this is not always the case.
Part B.5.a I think that if any exceptions are being made, the Board should approve the exception. Item (a) does not require Board approval but item (b) does require the approval. If item (a) remains an exception then I think there should be Board approval to ensure that other quotes were reviewed before awarding a cooperative purchase contract.
Part B.7 While it is often a practices of agencies to bring in vendors for interviews, there must still be a RFP. This item states there may be an interview OR a RFP. There should be both. The RFP will inform the service providers what the District is seeking and the RFP serves as an application to apply for the job. In addition to the submission the District can also evaluate the vendors based on an interview or presentation. This is a common practice that I highly recommend but it must have a RFP for the service first. Please change the “or” to “in addition to”.
Part B.8 The Board may wish to consider another mechanism in the policy to be informed of emergency situations. In some cases the next business meeting may be 2 to 4 weeks away. The Board may wish to have an e-mail as soon as possible or within 24 hours of the emergency. The public can be made aware through the website or at the next public meeting .
Part C I recommend specifying 14 days for RFQ’s to be posted and 30 days for RFP’s to be posted. By the nature of RFP’s they are far more complex and require more time to craft. I think 14 days is adequate for RFQ’s since they are more straightforward and do not take much time to submit a response.
Part C Instead of incurring the cost of paper and postage, I recommend notices be sent to vendors by e-mail listserve or fax. It is easier, more cost effective and there is a paper trail to prove that vendors were notified. An electronic file can be maintained if there is any question about who was notified about the RFQ/RFP.
Part C To tighten the language, I think it should state that the notices “will” be sent to vendors instead of “may”. This is confusing and does not say why it would or would not be sent to vendors. This language should be clear and consistent.
Part C As discussed in the committee meeting, language should be added to this section to state that the notices will be posted on the District website.
Part D Please explain what a “bid alternative” is in this context. Also, I think it is fine for the District to reject some of all bids but there should be clear guidelines in this policy outlining some of the reasons a bid will not be accepted, in addition to a paper trial in the file in case it is questioned.
Part D.5 The phrase “in general” should be deleted. These reasons a higher price vendor was selected should be adequately documented in the procurement file.
Part D.5 I suggest adding language that states the District will award contracts to local vendors with the lowest price who also meet all the minimum requirements.
Part D.5 I would recommend a sentence at the end that allows the District to select a higher priced vendor only after the reasons have been explained to the Board at a meeting and voted by the Board.
Part E I see this section as questionable. I do not see why section D should not apply to both RFQ’s as well as RFP’s. Section D provides much more oversight and more transparency.
Part E.3 Why would these bids be hidden from the public? These are the same public documents as those in Part D.
Part E.4 This item is too vague. The language should be tightened up similar to D.5 addressed above. Again, I think that the procedures should be exactly the same and both RFQ’s and RFP’s should be held to the same rigorous standards to assure the best quality at the best price.
Part F This item should include a formal process for vendors to make appointments for feedback or dispute an award. In addition, for those vendors who choose not to schedule an appointment, a form should be provided to give feedback or complaints to the District. A form could be created and posted in the website for vendors to utilize.
Part F This section should identify the process for award notices to vendors. I recommend that award notices be posted on the District website which is common practice for many schools and government agencies.
Other items to be incorporated into this document before finalization and presentation to the Board:
(Again, I would be happy to work with Blaine or any other committee member to flush out these policies)
Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
What is the policy for reviewing the RFQ’s/RFP’s
Establish a evaluation protocol—who will evaluate RFP’s, general guidelines for scoring, documentation procedures
Establish documentation requirements for procurement processes outlined above so that it is clear that all protocols outlined in this comprehensive document have been followed
Conflict of interest guidelines
Contract Award Policy and Procedures
Who has authority to award a contract and what is the process
Where will the award notice be posted—suggest using the District website
Local vendors will be given priority assuming there is no compromise on quality or price
Lowest vendor will be selected so long as minimum guidelines are met and there is no compromise on quality
Contracts can be issued to higher priced contracts so long as the reasoning is justified to the Board and agreed by members of the Board through a vote
Policy Oversight
Provide some oversight standards from the Board
System set up to verify that procurement standards are being followed—audit committee or other internal audit committee
Presentations to the Board when there are any exceptions
Presentation to the Board when awards exceed $xxxx (Town of Durham designates all awards over $35,000 go to the Council for approval. Given the number of contracts in the District perhaps this should be higher--$50,000 or $100,000). Durham policy attached.
Board guidelines if policies are not adequately followed—recourse or penalties
Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
The primary file for all contracts should be maintained and easily accessed at the business office—contract managers should maintain a copy of files but not the original file. These files should be easily accessible to District staff or members of the public.
Files should contain all relevant bidding and contract award documentation, including, but not limited to:
Documentation demonstrating how RFP was advertised, including electronic file containing e-mails sent to listserve.
Copy of RFP.
All bidder applications and attachments or other materials submitted.
Documentation of the method of evaluation, scoring tools used, individuals involved in the application review and any other evaluation documentation.
Award notice and method of posting including copies of e-mails sent to listserve.
Complete contract package with vendor including, signed contract, scope of service, deliverables, project workplans, budget, budget amendments, etc.
Any contract oversight/performance documentation.
All billing documentation submitted by the contractor over the course of the contract to date.
Any other documentation related to performance or any other aspect of these contracts.
Overview of 3 Bid Requirement:
I think that having a policy to obtain a minimum of 3 bids is a good practice. Many businesses use this standard and 3 is not an arbitrary number but the minimum needed to make the best comparison of prices. If adequate advertising has been used then 3 bids should not be difficult to obtain.
An exception could be made in the policy that if 3 bids were not received then the Superintendent can request an exception from the Board. Making every attempt to ensure 3 bids is a good way of demonstrating due diligence and a commitment to obtaining full value from our vendors.
November 4, 2008
Dear Members of the School Board:
I am very disappointed to see that the policy committee did not recommend reviewing the extensive comments I submitted regarding the bidding policy before sending it to the full Board for review. Unfortunately I have no child care and cannot attend the meeting to outline my concerns. Please read my comments and consider these before discussing the bidding policy.
While I appreciate all the work the policy committee and business manager have put in to the revised bidding policy to date, the policy is not complete and outside reviewers should be utilized. As I said in my previous correspondence to the policy committee (see below), the revised policy is a good first step in flushing out more of the procedures that are lacking in the current policy but I feel that the overall policies have been dramatically weakened and that the revised policies and procedures need more thorough clarification as well as input from experts in the field (e.g. town officials, procurement officers from UNH, members of the community with expertise in procurement, etc).
I respectfully request that the Board motion to have an outside team of experts review and make further recommendations to strengthen the policy and tighten the overall language. I have over 10 years working on RFP's with State and non-profit organizations and from my professional background I urge you to get more input before discussing the revised policy--it is simply not ready. This revision not only weakens existing policies but much of the language is vague and many important policy and procedure elements are missing.
In addition to details needing clarification, there are 4 key areas in which the revised policy is weaker or inadequate.
1. Deleted from the new policy--a minimum of 3 bids must be received for all bids over $5,000
While obtaining 3 bids was deemed "arbitrary" by some members of the committee, it is in fact, an industry standard and a best practice. If 3 bids is unattainable then language can been added to the policy allowing the business manager to present the information to the Board and seek permission to proceed without 3 bids. This is a good check and balance. Please maintain the original policy.
2. Deleted from the new policy--anything over $5,000 be put out to bid.
The new policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. Again, this is an industry standard and a best practice. Please maintain the original policy.
3. There are many instances I have outlined below where the language is far too vague or inconsistent and as a result would infringe on any accountable. Words/pharases such as "may" or "in general" should not be part of a policy.
Also, some terms are not used properly--"formal bidding", RFQ and RFP are, in some cases, used inconsistently or incorrectly. A "definition of terms" section was supposed to be added to this document.
4. Since this has become a policies and procedures manual, there are key areas that must be addressed that are currently not part of this document:
1. Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
2. Contract Award Policy and Procedures
3. Policy Oversight
4. Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
5. Definition of Terms (this was discussed by the policy committee but has not been added to the manual being presented)
I feel strongly that if the Board is looking for support from the public on these new policies then more input is needed from the community and experts on these policies.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter!
Regards,
Jenna Roberts
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To: School Board Policy Committee
Cc: Members of the public present at the meeting
From: Jenna Roberts
Date: October 13, 2008
Re: Comments on the draft Bidding and Purchasing Requirements
Thank you for giving the members of the public an opportunity to participate in the policy committee meeting last week. I did not have the time to fully review the draft policy for Bidding and Purchasing Requirements before attending the meeting so I am not sure my comments at the meeting were very helpful.
Now that I have had time to digest what the committee has discussed and had the opportunity to review the draft policy in detail this weekend, I feel that I have more insight to offer the group. I am also willing to meet with any member of the administration or the committee to help flush out more of the policy/procedures.
I believe that these requirements have the potential to be used as a template for other schools across the State. Based on my research, the written procurement policies of many NH schools are inadequate. We have an opportunity to produce a model policy and procedures manual for other Districts statewide.
I agree with other members of the group that this is a great step forward and I am happy to offer my experience to tighten the language and add more content to the policy. Below, I have provided some feedback/suggestions on the draft policy and offer some thoughts on content for the actual purchasing/awarding portions. I hope you find my comments helpful because my intention is to assist in this process by providing suggestions beneficial to our administrators but with the needs of the public in mind, too.
Following my feedback is a copy of the policies used by the Town of Durham which have many features we are incorporating into the District policies. The chart they use is a great snapshot of the procurement policies. This chart might be helpful to incorporate into our document, too.
Thank you for all your work on this.
Comments on the current draft policy dated 8/27/08 :
After reviewing the entire draft it is clear to me from the language used that this is a policy and procedures manual. I think that is a great because it is difficult to review policy if the procedures for implementation are not obvious to those reviewing the policies. Implementation for a policy such as this one exists hand in hand with the policy itself. This policy was upgraded from 2 paragraphs to 5 pages. This is a much more comprehensive guide through there in need for more clarity and content in certain areas I will expand upon below.
Part B: The employees who are authorized to make purchases are not defined. Item #1 & #2 on page 2 notes who is authorized to make purchases under $25,000 but it is not clearly defined who can authorize over $25,000 or what the oversight process will be followed to ensure accountability.
Part B.2 This current policy in place mandates anything over $5,000 be put out to bid. This draft policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. I think the original policy should be maintained. Most policies I have reviewed have anything over $5,000 similar to our original guidelines. Please consider returning to the original standard.
Part B.3 Please consider taking out this entire item #3. Item 5 specifies the exceptions to the bidding requirements. All items should be bid at all times unless items meet the exceptions outlined in the form of a Request for Quote (RFQ) or Request for Proposal (RFP). There should be no allowance for not bidding unless they meet item #5 exceptions.
Part B.4 The group agreed that the term “formal bidding” would be changed to RFQ which will tighten up the language. The language needs to be tightened further by changing “may seek” to “will be required unless an exception is made through items #5”. Again, this makes it more concrete that all purchases will be bid unless it clearly meets an exception. The current language provides a loop hole as also seen in item #3.
Part B.4 There is some confusion with the language here. A RFP does “identify the need the District intends to meet” but the rest of the sentence is not accurate. As we discussed at the committee meeting, there should be a glossary of terms. The rest of the sentence seems to mix RFP and a Request for Information (RFI). If the District does not know exactly what it wants then a RFI would be used. I think that if RFQ, RFP and RFI are defined then the last part of the sentence should be deleted because it is confusing: “permit the vendor to propose the manner in which the work will be performed and the materials used”.
In general a RFP is written with a scope of service and while the vendor may respond to specific questions requested in the RFP which refer to performance and materials the overall task for a RFP is known and should be adequately explained in the RFP. Generally RFP’s are used for more complex services (e.g. architects, networking, general contractors, advisory services, etc.) which require the vendor to explain what they do and how they would do it to meet the requirements of the District.
Part B.5.a Cooperative purchases should only be used if it is determined that these provide the best service at the best price. I think that instead of making this an exception it could be added as an item whereby other bids will be reviewed and compared to cooperative purchases, as well. Again, we are looking for the best value and we cannot be sure that a cooperative purchase is necessarily the best value unless there is a comparison. I think a RFQ should be utilized to compare against the cooperative purchase price and then the lowest bid that effectively meets the Districts requirements should be used. Presumably this will be the cooperative bid but in my experience, this is not always the case.
Part B.5.a I think that if any exceptions are being made, the Board should approve the exception. Item (a) does not require Board approval but item (b) does require the approval. If item (a) remains an exception then I think there should be Board approval to ensure that other quotes were reviewed before awarding a cooperative purchase contract.
Part B.7 While it is often a practices of agencies to bring in vendors for interviews, there must still be a RFP. This item states there may be an interview OR a RFP. There should be both. The RFP will inform the service providers what the District is seeking and the RFP serves as an application to apply for the job. In addition to the submission the District can also evaluate the vendors based on an interview or presentation. This is a common practice that I highly recommend but it must have a RFP for the service first. Please change the “or” to “in addition to”.
Part B.8 The Board may wish to consider another mechanism in the policy to be informed of emergency situations. In some cases the next business meeting may be 2 to 4 weeks away. The Board may wish to have an e-mail as soon as possible or within 24 hours of the emergency. The public can be made aware through the website or at the next public meeting .
Part C I recommend specifying 14 days for RFQ’s to be posted and 30 days for RFP’s to be posted. By the nature of RFP’s they are far more complex and require more time to craft. I think 14 days is adequate for RFQ’s since they are more straightforward and do not take much time to submit a response.
Part C Instead of incurring the cost of paper and postage, I recommend notices be sent to vendors by e-mail listserve or fax. It is easier, more cost effective and there is a paper trail to prove that vendors were notified. An electronic file can be maintained if there is any question about who was notified about the RFQ/RFP.
Part C To tighten the language, I think it should state that the notices “will” be sent to vendors instead of “may”. This is confusing and does not say why it would or would not be sent to vendors. This language should be clear and consistent.
Part C As discussed in the committee meeting, language should be added to this section to state that the notices will be posted on the District website.
Part D Please explain what a “bid alternative” is in this context. Also, I think it is fine for the District to reject some of all bids but there should be clear guidelines in this policy outlining some of the reasons a bid will not be accepted, in addition to a paper trial in the file in case it is questioned.
Part D.5 The phrase “in general” should be deleted. These reasons a higher price vendor was selected should be adequately documented in the procurement file.
Part D.5 I suggest adding language that states the District will award contracts to local vendors with the lowest price who also meet all the minimum requirements.
Part D.5 I would recommend a sentence at the end that allows the District to select a higher priced vendor only after the reasons have been explained to the Board at a meeting and voted by the Board.
Part E I see this section as questionable. I do not see why section D should not apply to both RFQ’s as well as RFP’s. Section D provides much more oversight and more transparency.
Part E.3 Why would these bids be hidden from the public? These are the same public documents as those in Part D.
Part E.4 This item is too vague. The language should be tightened up similar to D.5 addressed above. Again, I think that the procedures should be exactly the same and both RFQ’s and RFP’s should be held to the same rigorous standards to assure the best quality at the best price.
Part F This item should include a formal process for vendors to make appointments for feedback or dispute an award. In addition, for those vendors who choose not to schedule an appointment, a form should be provided to give feedback or complaints to the District. A form could be created and posted in the website for vendors to utilize.
Part F This section should identify the process for award notices to vendors. I recommend that award notices be posted on the District website which is common practice for many schools and government agencies.
Other items to be incorporated into this document before finalization and presentation to the Board:
(Again, I would be happy to work with Blaine or any other committee member to flush out these policies)
Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
What is the policy for reviewing the RFQ’s/RFP’s
Establish a evaluation protocol—who will evaluate RFP’s, general guidelines for scoring, documentation procedures
Establish documentation requirements for procurement processes outlined above so that it is clear that all protocols outlined in this comprehensive document have been followed
Conflict of interest guidelines
Contract Award Policy and Procedures
Who has authority to award a contract and what is the process
Where will the award notice be posted—suggest using the District website
Local vendors will be given priority assuming there is no compromise on quality or price
Lowest vendor will be selected so long as minimum guidelines are met and there is no compromise on quality
Contracts can be issued to higher priced contracts so long as the reasoning is justified to the Board and agreed by members of the Board through a vote
Policy Oversight
Provide some oversight standards from the Board
System set up to verify that procurement standards are being followed—audit committee or other internal audit committee
Presentations to the Board when there are any exceptions
Presentation to the Board when awards exceed $xxxx (Town of Durham designates all awards over $35,000 go to the Council for approval. Given the number of contracts in the District perhaps this should be higher--$50,000 or $100,000). Durham policy attached.
Board guidelines if policies are not adequately followed—recourse or penalties
Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
The primary file for all contracts should be maintained and easily accessed at the business office—contract managers should maintain a copy of files but not the original file. These files should be easily accessible to District staff or members of the public.
Files should contain all relevant bidding and contract award documentation, including, but not limited to:
Documentation demonstrating how RFP was advertised, including electronic file containing e-mails sent to listserve.
Copy of RFP.
All bidder applications and attachments or other materials submitted.
Documentation of the method of evaluation, scoring tools used, individuals involved in the application review and any other evaluation documentation.
Award notice and method of posting including copies of e-mails sent to listserve.
Complete contract package with vendor including, signed contract, scope of service, deliverables, project workplans, budget, budget amendments, etc.
Any contract oversight/performance documentation.
All billing documentation submitted by the contractor over the course of the contract to date.
Any other documentation related to performance or any other aspect of these contracts.
Overview of 3 Bid Requirement:
I think that having a policy to obtain a minimum of 3 bids is a good practice. Many businesses use this standard and 3 is not an arbitrary number but the minimum needed to make the best comparison of prices. If adequate advertising has been used then 3 bids should not be difficult to obtain.
An exception could be made in the policy that if 3 bids were not received then the Superintendent can request an exception from the Board. Making every attempt to ensure 3 bids is a good way of demonstrating due diligence and a commitment to obtaining full value from our vendors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)