Transcript SENATE BILL 07-228 - Colorado State University

Procurement and Contracting Services
Robert Schur, J.D., Director
Frank Krappes, Associate Director
•Administrative Assistants :
•Sue Butler and Frances Maizland
Construction Contracts Manager, Carol Guy
Procurement Contracts Manager, Elizabeth Kelly, J.D.
Purchasing Agents-Academic Team:
•Farrah Bustamante
•Bob Hendon
•Kathi LaFollette
Purchasing Agents-Administrative Team
•Linda Meserve
•Stan Oakland
•Rick Tensley
SciQuest and ACard:
•John Swaro, Program Administrator
•Patty Cashen, SciQuest Help Desk
•Lu Ann Herin, Administrative Assistant, ACard
Presented by Bob Schur, J.D.

CSU opted out of State of Colorado Procurement
Code
 Effective January 1, 2008
What does this mean for CSU?

Dollar thresholds for solicitations remain the same
Protests are now handled internally by CSU
Can participate in Group Purchasing Organizations
(GPO’s)





E & I, US Communities, National IPA etc.
At the discretion of the Procurement office
The use of Colorado Correctional Industries for office
furniture remains mandated by State Statute
 Fiscal Rule requirements are not affected by opt out
 View the Colorado State Procurement Code and State
Fiscal Rules at:
http://www.purchasing.colostate.edu/pages/manuals.asp

Presented by Bob Schur, J.D.
and Elizabeth Kelly, J.D.
Effective January 1, 2009

Fiscal Rule 2-2 Commitment Vouchers

Fiscal Rule 3-1 State Contracts

Related Policies

Definition: A State approved form

Exclusion: Procurement card (ACARD)

Unauthorized Purchases
 Purchase order
 Contract
 Travel Authorization
 Most CSU cards have a $3K limit with some up to $5K
 Commitment Voucher may be used, but is not required
for purchases of $5K or less
 Supporting documentation may include invoice, receipt
or other appropriate document
 Failure of a person or department to have an approved
commitment voucher prior to the purchase of goods or
services = Statutory Violation
 Unauthorized Purchase Process
New FR to comply with the Centralized Contract
Management System, Personal Services Contracts
>$100,000 must include:
Performance measures and standards (objective test)
 Vendor accountability standards specified in the
contract; can withhold payment until successful
completion /achievement of performance standards.
 Monitoring requirements to measure both CSU and
vendor performance (monitoring must be done by
designated contract monitor)
 Processes to resolve situations in which CSU
determines noncompliance, including termination of
the contract





Intergovernmental Agreements may “go
silent” on choice of governing law without
legal approval
All other changes to Special Provisions still
require legal approval (and usually OSC
waiver)
Specific prohibition on indemnity by CSU
Monitoring of State Contracts for Personal
Services (Sponsored Projects are exempt)
 Review
and Approval – Institutions
Of Higher Education with
Delegation
 Sponsored Projects
 Statutory violations/ late contracts
 Vendor Agreements
Presented by Frank Krappes
and Farrah Bustamante

Legislation that requires formation of Centralized
Contract Management System
 Personal services contracts in excess of $100,000
 Construction contracts in excess of $500,000
 Centralized Contract Management System will be
available to the public via a website maintained by the
state


Some sections already in effect; CMS effective
date is June 30, 2009
Establishes policy of fair and open competition,
mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and
reporting contractor performance and location of
contract performance

Sole Source Contracts for Personal Services:
 All must be posted on the BIDS system
 Minimum of three (3) business days
 If other acceptable contractors are identified, a
competitive solicitation must be issued
 All sole source contracts for personal services will be
reported annually to the Legislative Council of the
General Assembly
 The justification provided in support of the sole source
and all steps taken in the determination of the sole source
will be included in the report

Monitoring Contractor Performance:
 Requires performance measures and standards
developed specifically for the contract
 Performance measures and standards must be negotiated
with the contractor prior to contract execution
 Specifies how CSU and contractor will evaluate each
others’ performance, including:




Progress reports
Site visits
Inspections
Review of performance data
 Monitoring ensures the results, objectives and
obligations of the contract are met

Contractor Evaluation and Reporting:
 Evaluating personal services contracts
 A standardized form to be completed by the Designated Contract
Monitor, including the following:




Name of the Designated Contract Monitor completing the evaluation form
Numerical rating relating to quality
Numerical rating relating to cost
Numerical rating relating to deadlines
 Evaluating construction contracts
 A standardized form to be completed by the Designated Contract
Monitor, including the following:





Name of the Designated Contract Monitor completing the evaluation form
Initial amount budgeted in the contract vs. the actual amount paid
Completion date specified in the contract vs. the actual completion date
Numerical rating that assesses the overall qualitative performance
Numerical rating that assesses the overall safety performance

Contractor Evaluation and Reporting:
(continued)
 Evaluation submitted to contactor for review and
comment in response to the rating
 Contractor has dispute rights concerning the
evaluation
 Evaluation and any response from the contractor is
submitted centrally at CSU for recording to the
Centralized Contract Management System database
 The evaluation must be made public via website
 Within thirty days after completion of the contract

Location of Contract Performance:
 Prior to contract execution, the contractor must
disclose where the work will be performed,
including any subcontracts
 If any of the work is to be performed outside of the
State of Colorado or the United States, including
subcontracts
 Contractor must provide a statement setting forth why
it is necessary or advantageous to go outside of
Colorado or the U.S. to perform the work









Formation of Publicly Accessible Centralized Contract Management System


Personal services contracts in excess of $100,000
Construction contracts in excess of $500,000


Minimum of three (3) business days
Competitive solicitation must be done if other vendors are identified

Four (4) items to complete evaluation

Five (5) items to complete evaluation

Contractor has dispute rights

Must be posted within 30 days

If any work to be performed outside Colorado or United States, vendor must provide statement indicating
why it is advantageous to have the work performed outside Colorado or the country
Including subcontractors
June 30, 2009 Effective Date
All Sole Sources must be posted on BIDS
Specifics on how CSU and Contractor will evaluate each other’s performance
Standardized form to evaluate Personal Services contracts
Standardized form to evaluate Construction contracts
Evaluation submitted to contractor for review
Evaluation and Contractor comments submitted to CSU for input into Centralized Contract
Management System
Prior to contract execution, contractor must disclose where work will be performed

Presented by Farrah Bustamante
and Stan Oakland

A.K.A “green” purchasing
What is environmentally preferable?

CSU Purchasing Power of $250M+

CRS 24-103-207.5:

 “Products or services that have a lesser or reduced effect
on human health and the environment when compared
with competing products or services that serve the same
purpose.”
 We can make a big impact with everyday purchases
 Can apply up to a 5% preference for “green” or
environmentally friendly products
 Preference may exceed 5%
 If cost of ownership life cycle analysis establishes long term
savings

What is greenwashing?

What can you do on campus to be “green”?
 When a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be
“green” through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business
practices that minimize environmental impact.
 Look for “Eco-labels” or Certifications
 Energy Star, Forest Stewardship Council, EPEAT, GreenSeal etc.
 Use office paper with a minimum 30% PCW
 CSU uses approx. 278,352 pounds of paper per year


77.5 % (or about 215,641 pounds) of the paper has NO recycled content
Want to know how our paper choices impact the environment?


Paper Calculator shows the environmental impacts of different papers (virgin vs. various PCW)
across their full lifecycle
http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/
 Use flat screen monitors
 Set office copier to “sleep” when not in use
 Saves up to 40% on energy costs
 Require all office copiers/printers duplex
 Buy Energy Star or EPEAT rated electronics
 Use computer/electronics exchange programs
 Dell Disposal Service, HP Trade-In Program, Apple Recycling Program
 Use “green” cleaning products
 And a lot more……

What are some other ways to be green?
 Planet Partners Program
 Toner/ink cartridge recycling program directly with HP
 Ensures cartridges do not end up in landfill
 Will allow CSU to receive over $50K worth of Energy Star
compliant printers/copiers
 For more information visit:
http://www.purchasing.colostate.edu/pages/planet_partners.
asp
 Revised delivery schedules for high volume vendors
 MWF deliveries for toner/ink cartridges and office supplies
 Green products are indicated on SciQuest
 Plan ahead and consolidate purchases
Presented by Procurement and
Contracting Services Staff

How can you maximize your solicitation?
 Get PCS involved at the onset of procurements which will
require source selection
 Planning/Funding Meetings
 Funding Review/Recommendation Boards/Committees
 Plan ahead and try to consolidate your purchases
 Consult with Purchasing Agent to discuss best source
selection method (DQ, IFB, RFP, ISS) for your project
 Requisition

Dollar Thresholds
 Departmental Discretion
 Up to $5K for goods or services
 Purchasing Agent discretion
 Up to $10K for goods and $25k for services

What are the differences between source
selection methods?
 Documented Quote
 DQ
 Dollar thresholds
 For goods
 $10,000 to $150,000
 For Services
 $25,000 to $150,000
 More flexible than other source selection method




Generally, short turnaround time
Minimum of three (3) business days
Can evaluate on more than price
Vendor negotiations

Differences between source selection methods
(continued):
 Invitation for Bid
 IFB
 For procurements over $150,000 for both goods and
services
 Not as flexible as DQ
 Formal, sealed response
 Must be posted for at least 14 calendar days
 Evaluate responses on lowest price which meets objective
specifications only
 Cannot have lock out specifications (proprietary, patented,
etc.)
 Two Step Invitation for Bid
 Explanation

Differences between source selection methods
(continued):
 Request for Proposal
 RFP
 Generally for procurements over $150,000
 More complex than DQ or IFB’s
 Formal, sealed response
 Must be posted for at least 30 calendar days
 Must have a committee of at least three (3) evaluators
 Cannot include Purchasing Agent
 RFP process can take at least 90 days after posting
 Can evaluate on other criteria besides price
 Objective and subjective criteria
 Cannot have lock out specifications (proprietary etc.)




Forms for Reporting SB228 Compliance
Web-accessible database for all CSU
Contracts
Implementation of a single Contract Request
Form in place of many standard contract
forms
Small Business Supplier Showcase
 February 24, 2009
 Will highlight Small, Minority and Disadvantaged
Businesses

SQ/Kuali Integration