Labels and Tags

Accountability (71) Adequate documentation (7) ADR in procurement (4) Allocation of risks (6) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (14) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (3) Compliance (35) Conflict of interest (32) Contract administration (26) Contract disputes (4) Contract extension or modification (9) Contract formation (1) Contract interpretation (1) Contract terms (3) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (20) Conviction (4) Cooperative purchasing (3) Corrective action (1) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (37) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (10) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (5) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (12) Governmental functions (27) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (13) Integrity of system (31) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (33) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Offer & acceptance (1) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (34) Past performance (12) Planning policy (34) Politics of procurement (52) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (95) Principles of procurement (25) Private vs public contract (17) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (79) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (31) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (17) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (11) Recusal (1) Remedies (17) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (14) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (13) RFQ vs RFP (1) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (60) Sole source (48) Sovereign immunity (3) Staffing (8) Standard commercial products (3) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (23) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (33) Transparency (63) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (3)

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Sacramento buys local

In an era when many state and local governments are abandoning control and outsourcing the spending of taxpayer dollars to other states and localities, Sacramento, California is trying to funnel the money back home. Not all of it, nor blindly nor dogmatically, but purposefully, at the margin, with a mind to increasing the tax base and providing a return to local taxpayers.

Sacramento is a large city with a small town feel to it. I remember first going there over 50 years ago to visit relatives who had transplanted there from the farms of Tennessee. It is the center of gravity for a constellation of neighboring towns that spread out across the valley between the Sierras and the Pacific in north-central California.

According to this article, "the Sacramento region is ranked No. 26 on a list of the most populous metro areas in the nation. The official U.S. Census Bureau count as of April 2010 was 2,149,127, which instead would put the region at No. 24 for population."

Sacramento County considers strengthening local bid preference
The goal of enhancing its procurement and contracting program would be to spur the local economy and streamline the process for vendors. The program has been in place for a number of years — three years in its latest iteration.

“The county purchases more than $100 million each year in goods and services with about half of that expenditure directed to small and/or local businesses,” board chairman Don Nottoli said in a news release. “Expanding the opportunity for additional businesses to participate in the program will have a positive impact on our business climate and help create more jobs.”

Program changes the board will consider include:

... Increasing the contract limit for goods and non-professional services to $1 million from $250,000

... Increasing the local business preference percentage from 3 percent to 5 percent

... Continuing to give small businesses in Sacramento County a 2 percent bid preference, and allow local businesses in the county a 5 percent preference

... Allowing the 2 percent and 5 percent preferences to be combined for a total preference of 7 percent for local small businesses in the county, with a preference of $50,000 per vendor for any single solicitation

No comments: