Streamlining public procurement through cooperative purchasing

This piece was originally written for the Thomson Reuters Institute. You can read the original here.

Cooperative purchasing is helping state and local governments buy faster, smarter, and more equitably by shortening solicitation timelines, standardizing contracts, and leveraging aggregated demand.

As of 2019, $4.45 trillion was spent across all levels of government, 50% of that spent by state and local entities, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. These agencies have a fiscal responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that they receive competitive pricing on the goods and services they purchase.

Larger government agencies may have sophisticated procurement divisions with professional buyers and individuals responsible for soliciting and negotiating contracts in the best interest of the municipality. Meanwhile, smaller municipalities, which are less likely to have standalone procurement divisions, often receive less competitive pricing and haven’t had the staff capacity or expertise to negotiate the best terms for their purchasing needs.

Fortunately, new cooperative purchasing models are on the rise, and that could level the playing field between local governments no matter their size, while they also streamline procurement processes and save taxpayers money.

Cooperative procurement basics

Cooperative procurement takes two main forms: joint solicitation or piggybacking.

Piggybacking, the more common form of cooperative procurement, is when one agency utilizes another agency’s contract (even though they were not part of the original solicitation process.) This piggybacking allows for one agency to receive competitive pricing based on another agency’s solicitation efforts; and because suppliers are not guaranteed volume of purchase, discounts are not the most aggressive in this format.

Joint solicitation is less frequently used and occurs when two or more agencies combine their purchasing needs into a single solicitation — the equivalent of buying in bulk. Each agency is bound by the contract, but one entity is typically the lead agency. This offers suppliers an opportunity to guarantee larger purchase minimums and command more aggressive pricing discounts.

There are also membership-based entities that are helping to make government procurement easier and quicker, especially for smaller entities.

For example, Civic Marketplace is a Texas-based technology engine that connects government agencies and suppliers to facilitate peer engagement for public sector entities. Their leadership described a traditional local government solicitation process as lengthy, taking anywhere from 6 to 9 months for agencies to identify a need, solicit bids from suppliers, evaluate, and then execute a contract. The timeframe is streamlined up to 60% for Civic Marketplace users by accessing templates for solicitations, cooperative contracts, shortcuts to connect with pre-vetted vendors, and centralized vendor data. This platform also works to address another barrier of local government purchasing — the inequity between agencies of different sizes and sophistication.

While Civic Marketplace is membership-based, it is not tied to a regional geography. Members can access volume-based pricing by aggregate demand across cooperative members as well as accessing shared contract language. States including Michigan and Minnesota have created special government entities to provide access to cooperative purchasing mechanisms.

Overall, these methods offer government agencies, especially smaller ones, a way to remain compliant with regulations, award contracts impartially, and remain transparent, all while engaging with peer communities with similar needs that can help agency procurement professionals foster a better understanding of pricing, scope of work, and vendor relationships compared to a wholly decentralized approach to purchasing.

Further, several state legislation and executive actions have also driven cooperative development. In Minnesota, for example, Sourcewell is a membership-free cooperative enacted by the state legislature, and public sector entities in the United States and Canada can access shared contracts and piggyback off them at no charge. Suppliers are also able to access the network at no fee, although a percentage of the contract fee is paid back to Sourcewell when a contract is utilized.

In Michigan, the Michigan Municipal Services Authority (MMSA) was created as a virtual city by the governor’s office in 2012. The entity provides a small number of local municipalities within Michigan with procurement for very specific services including managed IT, cybersecurity, electronic payments, and more. MMSA has received positive feedback from vendors, noting that the streamlining of this process connects them with more prospective clients and allows them to flatten their pricing.

What are public procurement’s future needs?

The need for automation and streamlining in public procurement is evident, as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the size of the public sector’s purchasing manager workforce will lag behind private sector growth over the next decade by 1.3%. Fortunately, cooperative purchasing will enable smaller government agencies to be more agile with limited resources, and using pre-vetted, competitively solicited contracts will save them time and money.

Yet, the evolving space of cooperative procurement is not without criticism. Some argue that cooperative procurement is more about convenience than it is about realizing cost savings, and others argue that public procurement is a space that will likely be dominated by private sector players that are compensated off the top of executed contracts, costing taxpayers more than they might have paid otherwise. So far, there is limited data to speak to whether cooperative procurement opens opportunities for small, diverse, or local vendors — but anecdotally, it appears that broad online process benefits larger vendors who can deliver at scale.

As government agency leaders evaluate cooperative procurement for their own internal processes, they must weigh what is more important for them: convenience and time savings, realizing true cost savings, or directing more procurement dollars toward local and diverse-owned public suppliers.