https://www.americancityandcounty.com/wp-content/themes/acc_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcast
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources & Events
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • Municipal Cost Index – Archive
    • Equipment Watch Page
    • American City & County Awards
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Service
American City and County
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcasts
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources/Events
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers/eBooks
    • IWCE Expo
    • Calendar of Events
    • How to Contribute
    • American City & County Awards
    • Municipal Cost Index
    • Equipment Watch Page
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Stament
    • Terms of Service
  • newsletter
  • Administration
  • Economy & Finance
  • Procurement
  • Public Safety
  • Public Works & Utilities
  • Smart Cities & Technology
  • Magazine
acc.com

Procurement


Cooperative purchasing today

Cooperative purchasing today

Go Pro research quantifies usefulness of coop agreements, projects usage to expand.
  • Written by Larry Anderson
  • 1st August 2011

Exclusive research by Government Procurement (Go Pro) magazine confirms the popularity of cooperative purchasing as a component of the procurement strategy for the vast majority of government entities of all types. Results of Go Pro‘s online survey indicates that 95.2 percent of respondents already use cooperative purchasing, and the outlook is bright for even greater expansion of cooperative contracts in the future. Half of the survey respondents project their entity’s use of cooperative contracts will increase in the next three years. (See the end of the article for demographics and other information on the survey).

The biggest benefits of cooperative purchasing listed by survey respondents are time savings (89.4 percent of respondents) and expense savings (79.5 percent), with program rebates listed next most commonly at 35.4 percent. Other listed benefits included well-written contracts, expanded pricing tiers and better quality of service from vendors. One respondent noted that cooperative contracts provide the ability to “concentrate on solicitations to which we can add value.”

“One of the main purposes I personally will look at a cooperative over conducting a solicitation is because of the time factor,” said Peggy Hayes, a Yuma, Ariz., buyer who responded to the survey. “The solicitation has already been conducted and finalized. All I have to do is a due diligence review of the processes to be sure it complies with our own requirements, and then proceed. Price is important certainly, but occasionally time is even more crucial.”

“Many times we choose cooperative contracts to save time and money by forgoing the bid process,” added Susan J. Hyatt, senior buyer and purchasing card administrator in Grand Junction, Colo., another of the survey respondents. “Lack of service or delivery problems can easily override or negate any ‘savings’ we may have anticipated, whether the perceived savings are time or money,” she said.

Limitations of cooperative purchasing

In fact, pricing was the main complaint of survey respondents about cooperative purchasing contracts – 47.1 percent of respondents see “pricing not aggressive enough” as a limitation of cooperative contracts they have used.

“When everyone gets a contract, pricing may not be as aggressive as it could be,” notes Paul R. Edwards, purchasing agent in Hillsboro, Ore., another of the survey respondents. “A large bulk purchase going to a single location will generally beat the pricing of the cooperative purchasing agreements, which are generally priced for the one- to two-quantity purchase.”

The first table on p.14 lists limitations included in the survey. Other complaints include operational/logistical problems, choices that are too narrow and a lack of service. Notably, 27.1 percent of respondents said a limitation is that cooperative contracts “do not meet competitive solicitation standards.”

“When you have to do more with less, you appreciate efficient, timely service,” commented Hayes. “It is difficult to use a cooperative contract if the vendor frequently leaves you waiting for an answer. If the service associated with the contract is lacking, it defeats the primary purpose of using it.”

Edwards commented: “When buying anything that requires some level of maintenance, it is critical for the vendor to have a service department that can take care of the equipment when things don’t go well.”

Other complaints listed by respondents include lack of transparency (pricing not publicly available) and lax logistical guidelines or scope of work. A couple of respondents pointed to the fact that cooperative purchasing does not address sustainability or minority-owned, women-owned or small business requirements.

One unidentified survey respondent offered this comment: “The cooperative organization reaps the most monetary benefits and is not always concerned with the members’ results. Related to that, cooperative sales people often oversell to vendors and members, making things appear better than they really are. Poor recordkeeping for tracking cooperative purchases is also a problem.”

A popular procurement tool

Typically, cooperative contracts make up less than half of an entity’s entire spend, and the largest percentage of respondents (31.4 percent) in Go Pro’s survey estimated the percentage of spend related to cooperative contracts between 11 to 25 percent. The second largest group (23.9 percent) estimated that 5 to 10 percent of spend is related to cooperative purchasing, and another 15.7 percent estimated the share at 1 to 4 percent. On the higher end, 12.6 percent of respondents estimated the cooperative purchasing share at 26 to 35 percent, and another 10.1 percent estimated 36-50 percent.

Multiple reasons are listed for not using cooperative contracts in some circumstances, the major one being that respondents expect a better result through direct solicitation. There is also a handful of responses that cooperative purchasing is prevented by statute. “Other” reasons include the difficulty of coordinating with other government entities, the quantities needed to make a purchase, a desire to be in complete control of a contract and process terms, and “politics” (i.e., local vendors are often excluded from cooperative contracts). One response summarized a common approach: “We limit cooperative contract use to purchases below $50,000. We have found that we obtain better prices for higher-dollar purchases by issuing a competitive solicitation.”

The desire to purchase locally is often cited as a reason not to use cooperative purchasing. “We try very hard to purchase locally to support our community,” noted Hayes of Yuma. “That said, we also encourage our local vendors to participate in cooperatives. In these tough economic times, with short staff and less money, it is very helpful to have cooperatives to utilize when in a time crunch; but even better if your local vendors are an option on the cooperative.”

One survey question asked what type(s) of cooperative contracts the government entity has used in the past three years. Unfortunately, because of a programming error in the survey, multiple answers were not allowed (as pointed out by several respondents). For what it’s worth, the results show 34.4 percent of respondents use national contracts, 40.6 percent use state contracts, 8.1 percent use regional contracts and 16.9 percent use local contracts (based on joint solicitation with neighboring jurisdictions). If multiple responses had been allowed, the results would have been different.

“We actually use all of the above, depending on the project or items being purchased,” said Hyatt of Grand Junction. “It does us a great service by having many to choose from. That way we can find the best fit for our needs.”

“I think most agencies will use any qualifying cooperative contract that will meet their immediate need,” said Hayes of Yuma. “If they qualify to use ‘all of the above,’ I believe most of them do. State contracts are generally a safe bet since you know they are meeting your state’s statutory and regulatory requirements. Other cooperatives require more careful scrutiny to be assured of compliance.”

Common cooperative categories

There is a long list of products and services for which cooperative purchasing agreements are used, with the largest being office supplies, which applies to 67.9 percent of respondents. Other big areas are electronics equipment (64.2 percent), transportation equipment (63.6 percent) and furniture (53.7 percent). The table at left lists the various products and services included in the survey. Among the “other” categories, respondents listed food products and janitorial supplies. Also mentioned were drugs and pharmaceuticals, “scientific products” and classroom supplies.

Construction is a category where cooperative purchasing lags. Notes Edwards of Hillsboro, Ore.: “Since a large part of our spend is for construction (streets/water/sewer/structures) I do not expect cooperative purchasing to exceed the 25 to 30 percent range.”

The survey also asked what additional functions/features cooperative contracts should provide. Survey respondents favored more information on green compliance and sustainability (62.4 percent) and also involvement of small, women-owned and/or minority-owned businesses (52.5 percent). Other ideas mentioned by respondents include more emphasis on regional contracts, more payment options, simplified methods of evaluation and cost comparisons, addition of local vendors into the mix and industry-specific categories (i.e., water/wastewater chemicals, equipment, supplies and services).

“It would be awesome if we could rate our overall satisfaction for delivery, customer service, product quality, and so forth,” said Hyatt of Grand Junction. “Then have that rating from all the customers used as a negotiating tool for renewal of the contract or to determine if the rating warrants contract continuation. Many times, an inferior product or vendor is our only choice, and I feel it would improve overall satisfaction if the vendors knew they had to perform or lose the contract.”

“In this age of electronic information, it is crucial that these cooperatives and all of their associated documents and contact information be made available online for download,” added Hayes. “That way it is transparent and anyone wishing to use the cooperative can do a thorough examination of it before determining the appropriateness of use.”

Getting the word out

Spreading the word about cooperative purchasing is an important element in its continued growth. When asked how they receive information or do research on cooperative purchasing, 77.3 percent of survey respondents report they depend on the Internet and Web sites. A more old-fashioned sharing of business information, through word of mouth and networking, was the second most common method, used by 73 percent of respondents. Additional common techniques included print advertising (19.6 percent) and attending trade shows (45.4 percent). “Other” methods listed include purchasing listservs and communications through professional associations. Respondents also reported working systematically with other state governments and depending on state-sponsored procurement training and events. Vendors were also listed several times as a source of information about cooperative agreements.

Limitations To Cooperative Contracts
(respondents check all that apply) Percentage response
Pricing not aggressive enough 47.1%
Too narrow – not enough choices 27.9%
Operational/logistical problems 27.1%
Does not meet competitive solicitation standards 27.1%
Lack of service 16.4%
Too cumbersome – too many choices 11.4%
Source: Go Pro online survey
Products and Services Acquired Through Cooperative Contracts
(respondents check all that apply) Percentage response
Office supplies 67.9%
Information technology/electronics equipment 64.2%
Automobiles/trucks/transportation equipment 63.6%
Furniture 53.7%
Telecommunications 46.9%
Electrical components 34.6%
Gasoline/diesel 30.2%
Mowers/grounds maintenance equipment 29.6%
Floor coverings 28.4%
Heavy equipment 27.8%
Building/construction supplies 25.9%
Plumbing products 18.5%
Natural gas 11.1%
Electricity 9.9%
Source: Go Pro online survey
  • Read the “Secrets to Using Cooperative Purchasing Agreements Successfully” sidebar to learn secrets from the survey respondents.

About the author

Larry Anderson is the editor of Go Pro.

About the survey

The online survey was conducted using SurveyMonkey, and two invitations to participate were sent to names on Go Pro’s email list. A total of 168 responses were received, including a breakdown of government unit types as follows: 30.5 percent city/municipality; 18 percent county/region; 16.2 percent school district (K-12); 10.8 percent college/university; 12 percent state agencies, divided equally between central procurement agencies (6 percent) and other state agencies (6 percent); 9 percent special district/authority (such as health, utility, housing, transit or airport), 0.6 percent federal agencies, and 4.8 respondents chose “other” (not specified). The survey also asked each respondent about their entire organization’s total expenditures: 21.1 percent reported less than $25 million; 11.2 percent said $26-50 million; 16.1 percent estimated $51-100 million; 13 percent responded $101-250 million; 11.2 percent said $251-500 million; 5.6 percent answered $501 million to $1 billion; and 7.5 percent estimated $1 billion-plus. “Don’t know” responses were 14.3 percent.

Related Stories

  • Cooperative purchasing plays useful role in economy
  • Is cooperative purchasing too successful?

Tags: Procurement

Most Recent


  • solutions
    Public sector administrative software solutions provider rebrands as Euna Solutions
    Bringing together critical administration technology solutions for the public sector, GTY Technology has rebranded itself into Euna Solutions, which will merge its current companies into a more integrated suite of offerings. GTY Technology started as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in 2016 and researched several markets before deciding government technology was the field for […]
  • metal buildings
    Metal buildings: Their versatility and durability suit them for public sector infrastructure
    Some cities and counties are looking at one structure type to help them meet their infrastructure needs, says Phil Skellorn, senior structural engineer at Buro Happold, an engineering and consulting services firm. “Some public owners are looking at metal buildings as an economical option.” Skellorn says metal buildings can offer advantages if the off-the-shelf product […]
  • sustainability
    To achieve their sustainability goals, cities and counties must engage with key stakeholders
    Local government leaders need to cast a wide net, says Laura Kroeger, technical director, leadership and management for the American Public Works Association (APWA). She also serves on the APWA Board of Directors, as chair of APWA’s strategic planning committee, and as executive director for the Mile High Flood District (Lakewood, Colo.). Kroeger urges agencies […]
  • green
    The future of carbon emissions and cities lies in green buildings
    When you envision the future, what do you see? For me, it’s a place where people of all generations live, work and thrive. And it’s a place where green, efficient buildings are integrated with nature and resilient infrastructure ties our healthy and productive places together into communities. However, in the face of climate change, that […]

One comment

  1. Avatar Anonymous 9th April 2013 @ 8:48 pm
    Reply

    This is a helpful article. My
    This is a helpful article. My own experience is that Cooperative Agreements are convenient, and may save time, but they are NOT a good substitute for doing the hard work it takes to actually know you are getting the best value available in the marketplace at a given point in time. Using them to compare to your own competitive process results is the best way to know for sure!

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your American City and County account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Public procurement can be transformative for stakeholders in a community
  • The pandemic has led to big adjustments in procurement staffing in governments
  • Adapting procurement priorities for a post-COVID environment
  • IT infrastructure in government is getting a post-pandemic makeover

White papers


5 reasons why Plan Examiners need Objective Trapeze

30th May 2023

7 Permitting & Licensing Fails Slowing Community Growth

24th May 2023

The Secret Ingredient to Local Government Employee Retention

23rd May 2023
view all

Webinars


How to Centralize and Build a Grants Management Process at your Organization

24th May 2023

Making Permitting Easier: What We’ve Learned Helping America’s Largest Cities Improve Their Permitting Process

16th May 2023

Digital Property Tax Collection: Tales from the Trenches of Modernization

16th May 2023
view all

PODCAST


Young Leaders Episode 4 – Cyril Jefferson – City Councilman, High Point, North Carolina

13th October 2020

Young Leaders Episode 3 – Shannon Hardin – City Council President, Columbus, Ohio

27th July 2020

Young Leaders Episode 2 – Christian Williams – Development Services Planner, Goodyear, Ariz.

1st July 2020
view all

GALLERIES


Gallery: Annual index ranks America’s top performing cities; most are in the West

30th May 2023

Gallery: Top 10 American cities for seasonal and summer jobs

25th May 2023

Gallery: 10 of America’s most affordable cities

9th May 2023
view all

Twitter


AmerCityCounty

5 reasons why Plan Examiners need Objective Trapeze dlvr.it/Sptl5z

30th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

Navigating crises with confidence: Five ways strategic plans support crisis response dlvr.it/SptVKN

30th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

Gallery: Annual index ranks America’s top performing cities; most are in the West dlvr.it/SpszdK

30th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

2022 Crown Communities Award winner: Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts’ jury selection system dlvr.it/SphCBk

26th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

Gallery: Top 10 American cities for seasonal and summer jobs dlvr.it/SpdFWy

25th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

How to leverage digital tools to drive innovation in government dlvr.it/Spcktb

25th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

With many cities facing a fiscal cliff as ARPA funding ends, debt ceiling debate continues on Capitol Hill dlvr.it/SpZLph

24th May 2023
AmerCityCounty

7 Permitting & Licensing Fails Slowing Community Growth dlvr.it/SpYqBS

24th May 2023

Newsletters

Sign up for American City & County’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about local governments.

Resale Insights Dashboard

The Resale Insights Dashboard provides model-level data for the entire used equipment market to help you save time and money.

Municipal Cost Index

Updated monthly since 1978, our exclusive Municipal Cost Index shows the effects of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital audience? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • IWCE’s Urgent Communications
  • IWCE Expo

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us

FOLLOW American City and County ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2023 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.