NIGP Accreditation Guide THE INSTITUTE for PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
NIGP Accredited Cooperative Accreditation Guide 1. Accreditation program vision and mission... 2 2. Quick-reference... 3 Why the program? Who should seek accreditation? Is my cooperative program eligible for accreditation? Quick self-assessment Alternative accreditations Application process Assessment and license pricing Assessment process Criteria summary high-level categorization & number per category Pass rate and rationale License to use mark 3. Criteria... 12 4. Criteria companion commentary... 29 5. Definitions... 43 6. References... 47 1
Vision A marketplace of quickly identifiable cooperative programs that consistently practice sound public procurement behaviors. Mission Preserve the integrity of cooperative practice as a long-term, viable procurement option. 2
2. Quick-reference 3
Why Accredit Cooperative Programs? Proliferation of cooperative programs and growth of spend volumes A 2014 Penton Media survey of public agency use of cooperative programs identified that, on average approximately 20% of procurement spend occurs through cooperatives. That volume of spending and the growing marketplace of cooperative program options demonstrate the viability of cooperative practices. Without a benchmark or guide to assess the field of cooperative options, it is increasingly difficult for procurement professionals to distinguish one program from another and the contracts they promote. Regulatory threat As the use of cooperative programs has increased in recent years, so too has the number of challenges to their use been brought to the attention of state legislators. These initiatives have been largely unsuccessful in changing agencies capacity to utilize cooperative practices. However, it is clear that issues related to cooperative program practices have drawn the attention of legislators. An inherent role of a professional association is to provide guidance on appropriate practices within a professional domain. Industry self-regulation through professional bodies is a generally accepted and preferred practice by industry stakeholders as well as legislators. That is, until such time as it becomes clear that outside, government regulation is necessary to ensure appropriate practice in the industry. Recognizing the growing possibility that legislative debate could drive the regulatory landscape for cooperative programs, NIGP developed this accreditation program as an important step toward minimizing a need for external regulatory acts. Ensuring integrity of practice and high standard A meaningful standard, one recognized as the benchmark for an industry, is based on a rigorous program of performance measures. Examples of benchmarking organizations and standards like ISO9001, LEED Certification and ANSI-IREC Certificate Accreditation (renewable energy) represent and reinforce professional ideals within their industries. Organizations that earn these accreditations, validate that their commitment to best practices are manifest in their processes and resulting products. In a similar way, NIGP s cooperative accreditation requires that cooperative programs, their contracting processes and those who manage them are doing so in a manner consistent with the ideals of professional practice. Recognizing high-achieving organizations in the cooperative marketplace preserves the integrity and value of cooperative practices over time. Good enough is not good enough when the integrity of a professional practice or its practitioners may be called into question and found lacking. As demonstrated by current procurement activity through cooperative programs, cooperative procurement is a sourcing option of great value to public entities. Defining the standard and monitoring practice through accreditation ensures that it will remain so. 4
Who should seek NIGP Accredited Cooperative status? While all cooperative programs can benefit from aligning their practices in a way that would qualify them for an NIGP Accredited Cooperative award, not all programs will have the same market-facing needs or interest in undertaking the formal, NIGP Consulting-based review necessary for this accreditation. If any one or more of the following qualifiers sounds like your cooperative program, it should consider pursuing the NIGP Accredited Cooperative accreditation. Seeks a meaningful way to distinguish the program through demonstrated achievement of rigorous professional standards Desires an expanded customer base of contract users Has the management commitment and capacity to sustain the continuous review program necessary to earn and maintain NIGP Accredited Cooperative status over time Answers yes to all Quick Self-Assessment questions below Quick Self-Assessment Can your cooperative program answer YES to all of the following questions? If so, it may qualify for NIGP Accredited Cooperative status. Are contracts established exclusively by a governmental or non-profit entity? Are contracts established exclusively through a competitive solicitation-evaluation-award process? Do contracts pricing and terms reflect the best value or lowest cost that will be enjoyed by the contracting entity and all other entities that may use the contract? No additional price negotiation by a user entity is expected or required. Multiple-award contracts are infrequent and, when made, there is a clear need or rationale defined by the contracting entity that substantiates the decision to award to more than one supplier. Does the program clearly articulate a commitment to ethical practice and public benefit outcomes? We encourage your program to review the complete body of nearly 150 criteria used to assess all cooperative programs. VIEW CRITERIA 5
Alternative accreditations* Cooperative programs not answering yes to all of the Quick Self-Assessment questions may find these public agency-specific accreditation options valuable as alternative paths to demonstrating a professional approach to procurement practice. Self Assessments Achievement of Excellence in Procurement (AEP) The AEP is awarded annually by the National Procurement Institute (NPI). Organizations selfassess against standardized criteria designed to measure innovation, professionalism, productivity, e-procurement, and leadership attributes of the procurement organization. More information at www.npiconnection.org or aep@npiconnection.org. Outstanding Agency Accreditation Achievement Award (OA 4 ) NIGP s OA 4 is a three-year accreditation awarded to agencies that self-assess against standardized criteria across 13 areas of agency practice and achieve a passing score. More information at www.nigp.org or accreditation@nigp.org. Third-Party Review Pareto Accreditation Agencies that have earned the OA 4 are eligible for the five-year Pareto Accreditation, an achievement of similar stature to the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award. The Pareto award is earned by agencies that successfully pass a third-party, onsite assessment that includes document reviews and interviews with personnel across the agency. More information at www.nigp.org or accreditation@nigp.org. *A cooperative program undertaking an NIGP Accredited Cooperative initiative will receive a 10% reduction of the assessment fees for each of the cooperative program s contracting agencies that has earned any one of the above agency-specific accreditations AND is identified for review against the Contracting Agency Management criteria. Application, Assessment and Award Announcement Before applying for accreditation, cooperative programs are strongly encouraged to review the NIGP Accredited Cooperative Criteria contained in this brochure and on the NIGP website. Application Each calendar year there are two Accreditation Qualification Periods (AQPs) during which time NIGP receives applications for accreditation assessment, conducts assessment and related activities, and announces cooperative programs that successfully achieved accreditation during that qualification period. Each AQP consists of a six-week application period, followed by an eight-week assessment period, and a subsequent six-week award determination and announcement period. NIGP may modify the length of each period at its own discretion. Specific dates associated with each AQP are posted on the NIGP website. 6
There will be two application periods each year. The application periods for 2015 are: n May 11 June 1 n August 17 September 30 Future application periods will be noted on the NIGP website. During the two application periods, programs should contact NIGP at coopaccreditation@nigp.org to indicate your interest in cooperative accreditation, your program s name, website address and primary contact for the accreditation initiative. NIGP staff will: n n n review your program s website for familiarization and general background information; follow-up with the program s point of contact to confirm eligibility, assessment timelines and scheduling, business terms, and answer any other questions about the criteria and review process; and forward the accreditation agreement and procedures documents for review and execution by the cooperative program. After receipt of executed documents, NIGP will invoice for an initial assessment fee equal to 25% of the total accreditation assessment fee. (Assessment fees are based upon the number of contracts and contracting agencies to be reviewed.) Assessment Assessments will be conducted during the six weeks following each application period. Assessments are primarily conducted by independent consultants who are or have been senior public procurement practitioners without affiliation to any cooperative program. Following conclusion of all program assessments during a given period, NIGP staff will compile the assessment reports for review by the NIGP Accredited Cooperative Award Panel. The Panel is a volunteer committee of public procurement practitioners charged with reviewing the assessment documentation and affirming or denying a recommendation for accreditation reward. Award Announcement Cooperative programs that have been awarded NIGP Accredited Cooperative status by the Award Panel will be notified by NIGP. Shortly thereafter, NIGP will issue a press release announcing the accredited programs and publish all newly accredited programs in its member newsletter, Nform. Accredited programs will also be published on the NIGP website for ongoing public reference. Once the NIGP press release has been distributed, NIGP Accredited Cooperative programs may promote their achievement through their independent communication activities. Assessment and license pricing There are two fees associated with accreditation: Assessment fee and License fee. ASSESSMENT FEES Assessment fees are based on the number of contracts and contracting agencies that will be reviewed, as well as assessment of the cooperative program. An Initial Assessment requires that 25% of all contracts, up to 20, and 25% of all contracting agencies, up to 10, are assessed. A Maintenance Assessment, conducted at 18-month intervals, reviews is based on assessment of 10% of agency contracts, up to 10. 7
Assessment fees are calculated consistent with fees charged for consulting engagements. EXAMPLES A. Cooperative ABC is a self-managed cooperative program, which means it is both the contracting agency and manager of its cooperative program. Thus, the number of contracting agencies to be reviewed is one (1). Let s say that ABC offers 88 contracts. The assessment fees for ABC would be calculated as follows: INITIAL ASSESSMENT Cooperative Program assessment = 1 Contracting Agency assessment(s) = 1 Contract assessments = 88 * 25% = 22. However, the maximum number of contracts to be assessed is 20. Therefore, assessment fee will be based on a review of 20 contracts. Fee for Initial Assessment = $73,465 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT Contract assessments = 88 * 10% = 8.8 = 8 Fee for Maintenance Assessment = $33,200 B. Cooperative XYZ relies on contracting agencies to establish the contracts available through the program. Let s say that XYZ offers 47 contracts established by 30 different contracting agencies. The assessment fees for XYZ would be calculated as follows: Cooperative Program assessment = 1 Contracting Agency assessment(s) = 30 *25% = 7.5 = 7 Contract assessments = 47 * 25% = 11.75 = 11 Fee for Initial Assessment = $85,015 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT Contract assessments = 47 * 10% = 4.7 = 4 Fee for Maintenance Assessment = $21,475 LICENSE FEES Cooperative programs successfully achieving assessment requirements will additionally be required to pay an annual license fee to use the NIGP Accredited Cooperative mark. Programs cannot undergo an assessment and then choose not to license use of the mark. Assessment and licensing are co-dependent and inseparable. 8
To establish our approach to calculating licensing fees, NIGP engaged CONSOR Intellectual Asset Management, an independent third-party firm that provides valuation and legal defense services associated with valuation of intellectual properties. An underlying philosophy of the percentagebased approach to license fees is that there is a shared risk-shared reward aspect to use of the accreditation mark. With greater exposure comes greater value to use of the mark as well as a commensurate degree of risk that an accredited program may later draw negative attention in some manner that could impact on the accreditation mark. Annual licensing fees are based on the geographic scope of the cooperative, aggregate contract volumes, fee structure or revenue model, and actual program revenue. EXAMPLES A. National and regional programs collecting fees from suppliers and/or contract users based on contract volumes will be charged a license fee calculated as a fraction of a percentage against the cooperative s administrative fees (or similar term describing the program s volume-based revenues). The actual fractional percentage will change based on the program s geographic scope, contract volumes, fee structure, and actual program revenue. For example purposes below, we ve assumed a national program with $500,000,000 in total contract volume and contract volumebased administrative fees totaling $10,000,000. Program aggregated contract volume = $500,000,000 Administrative fees collected = $10,000,000 Annual license fee = $10,000,000 *.35% = $35,000 B. An intra-state, joint solicitation-based cooperative program collects agency participation fees and does not collect any contract volume-based fees would be charged a nominal license fee of $2,500. Assessment process Accreditation assessment is conducted primarily by NIGP consultants who will review cooperative programs against 148 criteria across three domains of practice: Cooperative Program Management Contracting Agency Management Procurement and Contracting Process Assessments are conducted virtually, with no requirement for onsite interviews or document reviews unless specifically requested by the cooperative program or contracting agency management. Initial Review The Initial Review consists of a two-step review. STEP ONE: Assessment of cooperative against 77 mandatory criteria across the three domains. The program must demonstrate compliance with 100% of these mandatory criteria before the second stage of assessment will be undertaken. STEP TWO: Upon successful conclusion of Step One, assessment of the program will continue against all scored criteria across the three domains. To qualify for accreditation, programs must achieve at least 90% of the possible score in each of the three domains. A score less than 90% in any one 9
of the three categories will disqualify the program from an award of accreditation recommendation during the current application period. Criteria related to the Procurement & Contracting Process and the Contracting Agency will be applied against a sampling of 25% of cooperative program contracts and 25% of contracting agencies (if the cooperative utilizes a lead public entity contracting model). All contracts and contracting agencies assessed must individually meet the passing requirements for the cooperative program to earn accreditation. Self-managed programs, those that both establish the contracts available from the program as well as manage the cooperative, will be assessed against both the Program Management Criteria and Contracting Agency Management criteria. Self-managed programs will also have 25% of contracts assessed. All programs successfully achieving accreditation requirements will be recommended for NIGP Accredited Cooperative status to the NIGP Accredited Cooperative Award Panel. Maintenance Review After successfully earning accreditation, a program is required to undergo a Maintenance Review every 18-months in order to sustain their accreditation. A Maintenance Review assesses 10% of the cooperative program s contracts against all mandatory and scored criteria from the Procurement & Contracting Process domain. All contracts reviewed must individually meet the passing requirements for the cooperative program to maintain an active accreditation. Should one or more contracts fail to pass and an immediate remedy is not an option, the program may be placed on probation pending review by the NIGP Accredited Cooperative Award Panel and a possible revocation of accreditation. In such an instance, a program wishing to re-establish accreditation would need to re-apply and be assessed as though it was applying for the first time. NIGP Accredited Cooperative is a three-year award, with ongoing annual renewal dependent upon sustained compliance with accreditation requirements or until the program chooses not to renew. CRITERIA SUMMARY by Category & Type Cooperative Program Management 38 CRITERIA 14 MANDATORY 14 scored 10 informational 106 / 118 Contracting Agency Management 48 CRITERIA 16 MANDATORY 29 scored 3 informational 150 / 167 Procurement Process 76 CRITERIA 47 MANDATORY 27 scored 2 informational 174 / 193 Eff. 04/15/2015 NIGP 2015 10
Pass rate and rationale 77 MANDATORY + PASSING SCORE 431 Why the rigorous mandatory requirement? Why a 90% minimum passing score in each of the three domains? Trust and confidence. The decision to apply a cooperative solution to a procurement need reflects the consideration of many options and weighing many risks. Frequently cited potential benefits of improved pricing and a more strategic use of procurement s time and attention are motivators for agencies evaluating possible approaches to a given procurement. However, choosing a cooperative contracting approach requires that a procurement officer give up control of many prerequisite activities that are fundamental to their professional role as a risk mitigator for their agency. The procurement officer must know and trust that the contract they would use was established through a process that meets or exceeds the same due diligence requirements they would have to perform. Each time a procurement officer opts to use a cooperative contract, they make a leap of faith and put a little bit of their professional credibility in the hands of the cooperative program and its contracting agent. License to use mark The NIGP Accredited Cooperative mark is the signal to procurement professionals that the cooperative program and its contracts have committed to and achieved a high standard of professional practice. NIGP Accredited Cooperative programs are licensed and encouraged to display the NIGP AC icon on all websites, communication and promotional materials.* Accreditation is a tremendous achievement worthy of recognition and a bit of horn blowing! * Specific terms of use are included in the Accreditation Assessment Agreement document. 11
3. Criteria 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Criteria Companion Commentary 29
The following commentary is provided as background information into the context and rationale that influenced development of the criteria as they are currently expressed. During the formal assessment criteria review and public comment period during November- December 2014, NIGP received feedback from 26 individuals and 7 cooperative programs who provided more than 260 comments that affirmed or influenced change in the wording of criteria language and how the criteria would be assessed. The comments and questions received and the responses they prompted - contribute greatly to the commentary that follows. The Institute extends its thanks to all who took the time to review the criteria and share your observations and recommendations. The NIGP Accredited Cooperative program is stronger because of your contributions. DOMAIN I: Cooperative Program Management Cumulatively, these attributes give a sense of the relative formality of the program as a business enterprise and whether its values and practices align with public procurement principles and practices. Criteria in this domain seek to affirm that the program maintains a customer-centric approach, ensuring that contracts are established and supported in a manner that meets the needs of entities that would use the program s contracts. NOTE: The NIGP Accredited Cooperative program recognizes that Cooperative Program Management and Contracting Agency Management may, in some cases, be one-and-the-same organization. Regardless of who is doing the management functions associated with each, the criteria apply (unless otherwise identified). A. PROFILE Criteria A1-A10. Informational. These criteria are for informational purposes and offer a foundation of understanding about a cooperative program, its longevity, intended geographic reach, industry focus, number of contracts and supporting resources. Validated through: website, marketing literature, interview Criteria A11. Scored. Affirming the capacity for the contracting entity to engage with legal counsel to provide guidance on appropriate contract language that would appropriately and adequately allow for cooperative use. Validated through: website, marketing literature Criteria A12. Scored. Affirming awareness that procurement practices can support sustainable behaviors that positively impact social, environmental and economic conditions, and an organizational commitment to support such practices. Validated through: website, marketing literature, policy manual, governance documents B. GOVERNANCE Criteria B1-B3. Mandatory (B1); Scored (B2-B3). Affirming that the program has an inherent orientation toward supporting public procurement entities in a manner consistent with the Values and Guiding Principles of Procurement. 30
The Values & Guiding Principles, downloadable from a number of websites including www.globalpublicprocurement.org and www.nigp.org, are recognized and supported by over 100 organizations worldwide. Validated through: website, marketing literature, governance documents Criteria B4. Scored. While it is recognized that cooperative programs operated by a nongovernmental entity may not have the same requirements for public visibility into the financial state of the program as would a governmental entity, public procurement practitioners desire the capacity to review at a high level the financial practices of the program. In part, this is to reassure that the financial practices align with an orientation toward public good. There has been legislative attention paid to how cooperative program revenues are utilized and whether or not they inure back to public entities who support the program. Demonstrating such practice maintains the integrity of a fundamental value associated with cooperative approaches to procurement and helps mitigate the demand for external regulation or restricting use of programs not providing this level of visibility. Validated through: website Criteria B5. Scored. A cooperative program serving the needs of public procurement should have the benefit of certified professionals either as a standing body of go-to subject matter experts or, if a self-managed public entity cooperative program, on staff. Ideally, certification would be from a public-procurement-related certifying body serving a national or international constituency of professionals. However, partial points are awarded for state-specific certification. Validated through: website; organization chart C. PROCESS & PRACTICES The accreditation program seeks to recognize and reinforce program practices that reflect an assumption of responsibility for the proper establishment and ongoing support of the contracts it offers. Not all contract initiation or management, or supplier management responsibilities, may fall to the program. However, the program should maximize the opportunity for potential contract users to readily understand the program s role in each stage of the procurement lifecycle and what responsibilities may fall to contract users. Criteria C1. Mandatory. Affirming that the cooperative program is clearly articulating the rules associated with utilizing a contract available through the program. Validated through: website; marketing literature Criteria C2-C7. Mandatory (except C3, scored until 2018). While some cooperative programs are not themselves the contracting body, they should have awareness of the procurement practices specifically used to develop each contract offered through the program. Every contract should reflect the best solution that meets the contracting entity s specific needs. However, a cooperative program may be able to suggest practices or language that will make the resulting contract additionally strong for piggyback use. 31
C2 & C4. For most public entities to piggyback on another agency s contract, they must confirm that the contract they would use was established through a competitive solicitation and award process. Requiring that the terms of the agreement clearly express the final negotiated pricing and terms that contract users can expect minimizes surprises, misunderstandings and potential misuse of contracts. Validated through: website, marketing literature, policy manual, solicitation, contract C3. Certification reflects that an individual s understanding of a profession s practice and his or her related experience has been assessed against a standardized body of knowledge for the given profession. Certification is not a guarantee of perfect performance by any one individual over time, but it is an indicator that there is greater likelihood that the professional will perform at high level of practice consistent with professional standards. It is reasonable to expect that non-certified procurement practitioners (including those whose primary roles and responsibilities may not be specifically procurement) may also demonstrate practices consistent with professional norms. However, the nature of a profession requires that an individual s knowledge and practical ability has been validated by an appropriate certifying body. Absent that formality, there is no indicator of the relative level of practice that can be expected to be reflected in a contract being offered for cooperative use. Due diligence conducted by a potential user agency may identify contract(s) that are appropriate to the needs of their agency whether or not that contract was established by a certified professional. NIGP encourages such due diligence by practitioners and will continue to advocate that behavior independent of a given program s accreditation status. However, as one benefit of an accreditation stamp of approval is to quickly identify organizations achieving a defined standard, we rely on the value of certification as a standard unto itself that is reference-able and therefore a reasonable measure of likely professional practice. As a final note on certification, NIGP does not itself certify individuals, and recognizes a number of national and international certifying bodies. However, since 1978, NIGP has aligned its curriculum directly to the body of knowledge identified by the Universal Public Procurement Certification Council (UPPCC) and supported its two professional designations, CPPO and CPPB. Validated through: solicitation, contract, organization charts C5. Affirming upfront communication about roles and responsibilities of the cooperative program is helpful to all parties program/agency management, user agencies, and contractor. Validated through: three randomly identified contracts C6. Communicating the contracting opportunity is a fundamental step in the procurement process. This should be standard practice for all self-managed cooperative programs. For programs relying on a lead contracting entity, the program s communication efforts would support and extend announcement communications by the contracting entity. Validated through: website, notification e-mails, marketing literature 32
C7. Regardless of whether or not the cooperative program is the contracting entity, it should be aware of the guiding statutes for each contract it promotes and ensure that the contracts are established consistently with those statutes. Validated through: interviews, program legal counsel, protested awards Criteria C8-C11. Mandatory (except C10-C11; scored until 2018). Cooperative programs may take the lead on contract management practices as the contracting entity or provide more of a supporting role to the contracting agency. In either case, the program should support their customers and potential customers (contract-using entities) by providing access to all relevant contract-related documents and maintaining regular engagement with contracted suppliers. C8. These eight contract-related documents are the principle documents practitioners should be readily able to review when considering use of a contract and throughout the life of the contract. For reference, see the Global Best Practice, Developing Evaluation Criteria. www.globalpublicprocurement.org or www.nigp.org. Validated through: website C9. Whether as the primary communicator or as an extension of a contracting agency, the cooperative program should have the capacity to directly notify current contract users of any contract update(s). Similar notice(s) of update should be posted to the program website to enable potential new customers to have immediate access to the contract documents (as noted in Criteria I.C8) upon viewing. Validated through: website, notification e-mails C10. (Scored until 2018.) While a third-party audit of supplier performance against contract terms is the ideal, the cooperative program has discretion as to how that audit assessment is carried out. Evidence of an audit should reasonably reflect assessment of those areas of focus noted in this criteria. Validated through: audit reports C11-C12. (Scored until 2018.) As any organization makes efforts to self-evaluate and improve performance, supplier management and customer feedback initiatives should be undertaken by cooperative program management to identify opportunities for contract or program improvements. Validated through: e-mails, meeting minutes; survey or request for feedback e-mails, feedback reports C13. Mandatory. Validated through: website, e-mails, interviews 33
C14. Scored. Cooperative programs promoting contracts established by lead contracting entities should be mindful that the quality of the program is founded on the contracts it offers. Identifying agencies that meet meaningful minimum requirements strengthens the program s foundation of quality as well as provides the program a compelling message to the marketplace. NOTE: THIS CRITERIA DOES NOT APPLY TO SELF-MANAGED, SELF-CONTRACTING COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS. Validated through: website, marketing literature, MOU/agreement between program and agency DOMAIN II. Contracting Agency Management Criteria in this domain focus on contracting agency practices related to governance and procurement authority, strategic procurement management, and overarching organizational management behaviors and capacities. As with criteria in the other two accreditation domains, any single criterion may not seem immediately relevant to validating cooperative programs or practices. Yet each criterion serves as a contributing indicator to the overall level of professional practice employed by the contracting agency. NOTE: The NIGP Accredited Cooperative program recognizes that Cooperative Program Management and Contracting Agency Management may, in some cases, be one-and-the-same organization. Regardless of who is doing the management functions associated with each, the criteria apply (unless otherwise identified). A. GOVERNANCE & AUTHORITY Criteria A1. Mandatory. While some public agencies are able to utilize contracts from for-profit enterprises, the vast majority can only use contracts established by other governmental entities or non-profit organizations. Validated through: Federal or state business registration, Articles of Incorporation Criteria A2-A6. Mandatory. These criteria seek to affirm substantial institutionalization of a professionally mature approach to procurement. Key attributes of maturity are reflected in a centralized approach to procurement authority for purposes of coordination, appropriate delegation and practices, and organizational discipline. Helpful reference: See NIGP s position paper, Procurement Authority in Public Entities. http://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/nigppositions/procurementauthorityinpublicagencies_final.pdf A2. Assessment of this criteria is to confirm that procurement authority is derived from a legal foundation. In contrast would be agencies that perform procurement activities in an ad hoc or otherwise unstructured manner with no guiding framework provided by statute or policy. Assessment does not endeavor to dissect or qualify the specifics of legal authority expressed in any of the agency s guiding references. Validated through: statute, ordinance, legislation 34
A3-A6, A9-A11. These criteria relate to procurement authority and practice as reflected in the contracting agency s policies and procedures manual. Validated through: agency policies and procedures manual A7-A8. Affirming that the contracting agency has formalized a values statement and ethical behaviors with defined disciplinary measures for breaches of ethical conduct. Helpful reference: See Values and Guiding Principles of Public Procurement, page 39. To download, www.globalpublicprocurement.org and www.nigp.org. https://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/research/valuesguidprin.pdf Validated through: agency policies and procedures manual A12-13. Informational. Ideally, Procurement has a strategic orientation in its approach to supporting and contributing to the agency s planning and operations. Though the criteria are neither mandatory nor scored, they are included as indicators that these practices are viewed as positive contributors to the overall value of Procurement in an entity. Validated through: website, procurement plan, agency strategic plan B. STRATEGIC PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT Criteria in this section affirm that the procurement department maintains an awareness of external environmental conditions, plans accordingly and aligns with the overall strategic planning of their agency. These practices reflect a procurement approach that tends toward strategic and professional, in contrast to a more restricted focus on ad hoc-reactive or transactional activities. B1-B3. Scored. Validated through: agency policies and procedures manual B4. Informational. Validated through: procurement plan, agency website, agency strategic plan C. PERSONNEL & OGANIZATION MANAGEMENT The focus of these criteria is discovery of management s general approach to developing professional capacities, individually and departmentally. Agencies inviting use of their contracts should be well positioned to support the increasing demands on agency resources as the number of contract users grows. C1-C2. Scored. Validated through: agency policies and procedures manual 35
C3. Scored. See Certification rationale provided in Domain I, Criteria C3. Validated through: agency policies and procedures manual C4-C8. Scored. The knowledge gained through professional development improves the likelihood of efficient and effective procurement practices. Agencies promoting their contracts for cooperative should ensure that they have honed their knowledge, skills, abilities and systems to a level that can support the added responsibilities of servicing an external customer base of contract users. Validated through: e-mail, interview C9-C11. Scored. Affirming an institutionalized management philosophy and practice of continuing improvement and demonstration of value-add to the organization. Validated through: reports; meeting invitations, agendas, advertisements/notices C12-13. Use of technology to expand departmental capacities is essential to establish and maintain an appropriate level of service to a broad external customer base of contract users. Validated through: policies and procedures manual, agency website, screen shots, interviews DOMAIN III: Procurement & Contracting Processes Of the three accreditation domains, Procurement & Contracting Processes is perhaps the most important from the perspective of risk-management and product/contract quality. All activities leading up to a solicitation, the bid/proposal review and award practices, and ongoing contract and supplier management reflect in the cooperative contract and on the cooperative program. Contract users rely on the contracting agency to follow professional best practices throughout the procurement lifecycle. Failure to do so exposes customers to added risk that the contract may not meet their local requirements for solicitation/award practices and active contract management behaviors. As the reputation of a cooperative program and contracting agency is built on the quality of their contracts, this third domain contains the greatest number of criteria. PRE-SOLICITATION A1. Mandatory. Affirming that the contract is the result of an internal need, not originated for purposes of general market convenience and potential revenue generation. Validated through: agency requisition, budget document 36
A2-A4. Mandatory. Affirming that agency requirements/desired outcomes were expressed in the solicitation documents. Further, that the procurement department worked with stakeholders and subject matter experts, as needed, to develop solicitation requirements. And that all contributors to the requirements/desired outcomes were held to the same behavior requirements (noted in criteria A4) of a public employee. Helpful reference: Specifications Global Best Practice, page 39. To download, visit www.globalpublicprocurement.org or www.nigp.org. (http://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/practices/sopspecifications.pdf) Validated through: Specifications Global Best Practice, meeting minutes, list of approvers/approvals, policies and procedures manual, evaluator behavior, conflict of interest statement/document, evaluation report. A5a-g. Mandatory. Affirming that specifications and/or desired outcomes provided in solicitations materials communicate what the purchaser seeks to buy and what a bidder must respond to in order to be considered for contract award. Should an agency indicate no substitutions for a specific product or specification attribute, supporting documentation must be provided. Helpful references: Specifications Global Best Practice, page 39. To download, visit www.globalpublicprocurement.org or www.nigp.org. (http://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/practices/sopspecifications.pdf) FTA Circular 4220.1F, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 4220.1F, Rev. 4, March 8, 2013 (http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/c_4220_1f.pdf) Validated through: Specifications Global Best Practice, solicitation documents A6. Mandatory. Affirms that contracting agency identified a sufficient field of potential suppliers that would enable a competitively solicited contract process. Validated through: Procurement plan A7. Scored. See Certification rationale provided in Domain I, Criteria C3. Validated through: agency policies and procedures manual 37
A8. Mandatory. Affirms that evaluation criteria, at minimum, assess the general financial stability and relevant experience/ability of submitters (A8a-d), value for tax dollar (A8e, A8g) and service fulfillment (A8f). Helpful reference: Global Best Practice, Developing Evaluation Criteria. To download, visit www.globalpublicprocurement.org or www.nigp.org. (http://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/practices/developingevaluationcriteria.pdf) Validated through: compare against Global Best Practice, Developing Evaluation Criteria A9-A10. Scored. Performing these activities reflects the strategic orientation of the procurement department and an understanding of external factors that contribute to an overall best value procurement. Validated through: policies and procedures manual, analysis reports, procurement plan, solicitation file A11. Scored. The underlying philosophy of this criterion is that in the context of a piggybackingcentric cooperative practice, a multiple-award approach should reflect the internal operating need of the contracting agency or the reality of a supplier base unable to support the agency s need. Validated through: procurement plan A12. Informational (Scored, effective 2018). For agencies establishing contracts that will be promoted by a third-party (a.k.a. cooperative program ), why and how was that program chosen? Does the agency use a criteria-based approach to selecting the cooperative program(s) it will partner with? With many cooperative program options, how does the agency distinguish one from another? Recognizing that there is a business relationship between a contracting agency and third-party cooperative program, is there a formalized approach to establishing that business relationship? As a public entity, was that relationship established in a manner consistent practices the entity is otherwise required to comply with and documented appropriately. Validated through: policies and procedure manual, procurement plan. A13-14. Scored. These criteria are affirming transparency and consistency of criteria-vs.-evaluation. Validation through: solicitation documents 38
A15-16. Informational. While some agencies specifically provide for or require SWMBE or local supplier preference, other agencies by legislation are specifically prohibited from establishing or utilizing contracts established with preferences to SWMBE or local suppliers. Thus, specifically identifying whether preference considerations were part of the solicitation/award process is important to all agencies who might utilize a contract. Validated through: solicitation documents; ordinance B. SOLICITATION B1-B4. Mandatory. Affirms that suppliers have been provided an ample opportunity to learn of an opportunity, have clear guidance on response requirements and opportunity needs/outcomes, and how respondents will be assessed. Validated through: ordinance, announcement notices, website, policies and procedures manual B5. Mandatory. Helpful reference: Global Best Practice, Developing Evaluation Criteria (http://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/practices/developingevaluationcriteria.pdf) Validated through: comparison with Global Best Practice, Developing Evaluation Criteria B6. Mandatory. Affirms that a proactive assessment of need or potential for multiple-award scenarios have been considered and communicated in solicitation materials. Validated through: solicitation documents B7. Mandatory. Affirms that suppliers will know how they will be notified of award or how they will know the agency s award decision. Validated through: solicitation documents B8. Mandatory. Affirms clear communication of opportunity for appeal and related processes. Validated through: solicitation documents B9. Mandatory. Affirming clear communication of how post-award debriefing(s) may be handled. This is not to say that an agency has to provide a debriefing session for all respondents. Rather, that the agency is stating how it may or may not support such an activity. Validated through: solicitation documents 39
B10-B11. Mandatory. Prospective suppliers must have an awareness of intended cooperative contract use. Potential contract users must have assurance that the contracting agency has legal authority to provide for cooperative contract use. Validated through: solicitation documents B12. Scored. Affirms that the contracting agency is communicating opportunities to the supplier community through active communication practices, rather than relying on passive practices (e.g. check the agency website for potential opportunities ). Validated through: E-mails, agency website (e.g., language indicating use of bid notification service) B13. Scored. Documentation that reflects contracting practices throughout the solicitation should be available for review by prospective contract users. Validated through: E-mails, agency website (e.g., language indicating use of bid notification service), solicitation C. AWARD & POST-SOLICITATION C1. Scored. Affirms evaluation assessment is consistent with the published award criteria and takes into account the cooperative nature of the content relative to the supplier s, contracting agency s and/or cooperative program s capacity to support expanded use of the contract. Validated through: solicitation documents, evaluation documents, contract C2. Mandatory. Affirms that the award is substantiated by documentation reflecting alignment of offeror s response with published evaluation criteria. Validated through: solicitation documents, evaluation documents C3. Mandatory. Validated through: copy of announcement, copy of notification letter C4. Mandatory. Contracting agencies and cooperative programs should readily provide access to the solicitation, evaluation, award, contract and contract-related documents that would give opportunity for a prospective contract user agency to have full visibility into the requirements that prompted the solicitation and subsequent contract-related activities. 40
Contract user agencies should be able to readily access the information necessary to validate that the processes used to establish the contract, the contract itself and the contract/supplier management responsibilities are clearly defined and consistent with the user agency s requirements. Validated through: agency or cooperative programs website(s) C5-C8. Mandatory. Contract user agencies must have an awareness of all changes to contract documents that may occur during the contract term. Communication of contract changes to contract user agencies should be pushed out from the cooperative program or contracting agency directly to their contract users. For agencies that are registered with the cooperative program and for others that may find the contract through online search or reference, it is acceptable for the cooperative program or contracting agency to maintain a passive communication approach and simply provide the change notice(s) or revised documents on their website(s). All agencies must have ready access all of the contracting documents and language that would contribute to a due diligence and contract use decision making process. Validated through: contract, post-award amendments or changes, e-mail notifications, website language C9-C10. Mandatory. Amendments or other modifications to contract terms and conditions should not be so substantial as to change the basis for the original award. Any such cardinal changes should, at minimum, provide adequate justification to substantiate the need for making this type of a change. A supplier merger/acquisition or the discontinuation and substitution of a product may require a cardinal change. Cardinal changes could otherwise indicate a need to repeat the solicitation-contracting process. As such, they should be exceptional and well documented for existing and prospective contract users. Validated through: contract documents, confirmation of awardee(s), notification e-mails, website C11. Mandatory. Indicates active contract management practices. Validated through: contract administration files, e-mails, website language, pricing/performance exception notices, contract extension notices C12. Mandatory. State and local ordinances typically recognize only those contracts that specifically allow for cooperative / piggybacking use as eligible for use by their agencies. Validated through: contract documents 41
C13-14. Mandatory. A clear expression of the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders to a cooperatively used contract sets expectations and provides guidance to contract users. Validated through: MOU, solicitation documents, contract documents, website language, marketing literature C15-17. Mandatory. Affirms ongoing, active supplier management practices by the contracting agency. Though annual audits of contract terms versus supplier performance may uncover discrepancies, ongoing performance management makes incremental process adjustments easier, demonstrates a commitment to customer service and further protects the integrity and value of the contract. Validated through: policies and procedures manual, contract file, e-mails, exception reports, meeting agendas/minutes C18. Mandatory. Validated through: Governing regulation or statute C19-20. Scored. Affirms the capacity to support contract management activities in support of a broad contract-user customer base. Validated through: reports or other evidence from documentation system, e-mails C21. Scored. Affirms that the CPO has the authority and takes action as necessary delegated or directly to ensure ongoing, effective contract management practices. (Though noted under Procurement & Contracting Processes, this criterion also relates to agency management practices.) Validated through: policies and procedures manual, ordinance, e-mails and other communication documents, interviews C22. Scored. Affirms continuous improvement management practices. Validated through: policies and procedures manual, meeting minutes, interviews 42