Transcript PURCHASING DIRECTORS MEETING TAMPA, SEPT. 25, 2003

PURCHASING DIRECTORS’
MEETING
TAMPA, Florida
Sept. 25, 2003
TOPICS



STONE COLD, ETHICS & THE LAW
THE FUTURE OF
OTHER ISSUES
SNAPS
STONE COLD WEBSITE
www.stonecoldchem.com
“With this spirit in mind, a deep
rooted love of music, and a long
staring gaze at the moon rising
over Stone Mountain, a group of
friends banded together
contemplating their future….”
ARREST BY STATE POLICE




Thomas David Stone, Racketeering,
Conspiracy, Unlawful Compensation,
Telemarketing Without a License
Glynn “Barney” Barnard, ditto
Barnard’s wife Marilyn Meek,ditto
And seven others
STONE COLD CHEMICALS
FOX5ATLANTA SEPT 18, 2003:
VENDOR REPS CALLED GOVT
SUPERVISORS, AND OFFERED
“PREMIUMS”
Some govt. workers called
the company and solicited
“premiums”



Products cost 2-3 times competitors’ prices,
sometimes even more (Fox)
Products were sometimes inappropriate to
the intended use (Fox)
Nationwide, at least 2,000 public employees
in 48 states accepted kickbacks…(CNN)
STONE COLD WEBSITE
www.stonecoldchem.com
“They learned how to take care of
their customers better than any
other company around….Stone
Cold Chemicals was born and
customer care was elevated to
new heights.”
ARRESTS









(FDLE press release)
Sherell Lee Collins, Highlands County SO
Tammie Jean Sapp, Bradford County SO
James Floyd Hill, Punta Gorda Public Works
Glenn Richard Perry, Clearwater Parks & Beau
Glenn Nicholas Scott, Altamonte Springs
Jackson D. Chestnut, DOC, Gulf Correctional
Alice Fay White, DOT, Jacksonville
Glenn Carlton McAnelly, DOT, Defuniak Spr
Samuel Melvin Sheppard, Jr., DOT, Gainesville
BOTH THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF
GOVERNMENTAL
PURCHASING AND THE
INSTITUTE OF SUPPLY
MANAGEMENT HAVE CODES
OF ETHICS THAT FORBID
THESE CORRUPT PRACTICES
NIGP CODE OF ETHICS

“(A member) is governed by the
highest ideals of honor and
integrity in all public and
personal relationships in order to
merit the respect and inspire the
confidence of the organization
and the public being served.”
NIGP CODE OF ETHICS
(continued)

“(A member) believes that
personal aggrandizement or
personal profit obtained through
misuse of public or personal
relationships is dishonest and not
tolerable.”
NIGP CODE OF ETHICS
(continued)

“(A member) believes that members
of the Institute and its staff should at
no time, or under any circumstances,
accept directly or indirectly, gifts,
gratuities, or other things of value
from suppliers, which might influence
or appear to influence purchasing
decisions.”
ISM Principles & Standards of
Ethical Supply Management
Conduct

“Avoid any personal business or
professional activity that would
create a conflict between personal
interests and the interests of your
employer.”
ISM Principles & Standards
(continued)

“Avoid soliciting or accepting money,
loans, credits, or preferential discounts,
and the acceptance of flights,
entertainment, favors, or services from
present or potential suppliers that might
influence, or appear to influence, supply
management decisions.”
FLORIDA STATUTES
EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT THE
BEHAVIOR WE’VE SEEN IN THIS
CASE
S.112.313 Florida Statutes:
Standards of conduct for public officers,
employees of agencies, and local attorneys

.
“(2) SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF
GIFTS--No public officer, (or) employee of an
agency…shall solicit or accept anything of
value…including a gift, loan, (or)
reward…based upon any understanding that
the … official action, or judgment of the
public officer, (or) employee…would be
influenced thereby.”
S.112.313 Florida Statutes: Standards
of conduct for public officers,
employees of agencies, and local
attorneys (continued)

“(4) Unauthorized Compensation.—No public
officer, (or) employee of an agency…shall, at
any time, accept any compensation, payment,
or thing of value when such public officer,
(or) employee…knows, or…should know, that
it was given to influence…action in which the
officer, (or) employee…was expected to
participate in his or her official capacity”
IN ALL ACTS



MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON THE LAW
AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE AGENCY
AND THE PUBLIC
DISREGARD PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND
PREFERENCES, AND AVOID PERSONAL GAIN
ACT IN WAYS YOU WOULD BE
COMFORTABLE SEEING IN THE PRESS,
DISCUSSING WITH YOUR FAMILY, AND
DEFENDING BEFORE A JUDGE
THE FUTURE OF SNAPS
(State Negotiated
Agreements and Price
Schedules)
HISTORY OF SNAPS


DEVELOPED IN 1996-97 TO FACILITATE
CONTRACTING WITH INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY VENDORS, AND FOR
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
COMMODITIES AND SERVICES
SEEN AS POSSIBLE INCUBATOR FOR
FUTURE STATE TERM CONTRACTS
HISTORY OF SNAPS
(continued)


LIMITED TO PURCHASES UP TO $25,000
(CATEGORY 2) PER TRANSACTION AND
$150,000 (CATEGORY 4) PER CONTRACT,
PER AGENCY, PER YEAR
AUTHORITY IN 287.042 and 287.056, Florida
Statutes, although the term “SNAPS” is not
used in either section, and 60A-1.008(2),
Florida Administrative Code.
HISTORY OF SNAPS
(continued)




SNAPS AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN
RELATIVELY EASY TO GET
STATE PURCHASING WORK LOAD IS
SUBSTANTIAL, WITH HUNDREDS OF SNAPS
AGREEMENTS PROCESSED
SAVINGS ARE QUESTIONABLE, AS SNAPS
AGREEMENTS ARE NEGOTIATED, NOT
COMPETED
AGENCIES FREQUENTLY BEAT SNAPS PRICES
THROUGH INFORMAL BIDS
HISTORY OF SNAPS
(continued)


HIGH USE AGREEMENTS NEVER SEEM
TO MAKE IT TO STATE TERM
CONTRACT STATUS
MANY SNAPS AGREEMENTS ARE NEVER
USED
PRINCIPAL CONCERNS WITH
SNAPS


MOST AGREEMENTS ARE VENDOR-DRIVEN,
THAT IS, RATHER THAN PROCEEDING FROM
AN IDENTIFIED GOVERNMENT
REQUIREMENT, THEY PROCEED FROM
VENDOR DESIRES FOR A MARKETING TOOL
EXAMPLE: OF 700 CURRENT SNAPS
AGREEMENTS, MORE THAN HALF REFLECT
NO REPORTED PURCHASES
PRINCIPAL CONCERNS WITH
SNAPS (continued)



PRICING FOR MANY PURCHASES IS
NOT COMPETITIVE
PROCESSING WORKLOAD IS HEAVY
MANY AGENCIES AND ELIGIBLE USERS
WILL NOT USE FOR SIGNIFICANT
PURCHASES
SNAPS POSSIBILITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONTINUE WITH SNAPS “AS IS”
DISCONTINUE SNAPS ALTOGETHER
ALLOW SNAPS TO CONTINUE, BUT
RESTRICT USE TO AGENCIES AND
ELIGIBLE USERS NOT ONLINE WITH
MYFLORIDAMARKETPLACE AND ITS
“EQUOTE” CAPABILITY
RE-ENGINEER TO MAKE SNAPS PRICECOMPETITIVE AND BUYER (NOT VENDOR)
DRIVEN
LEADING “SNAPS III”
CONCEPT
ISSUANCE OF A SNAPS AGREEMENT WILL BE
CONTINGENT UPON:
1. REQUEST FOR AN AGREEMENT BY A BUYER
(AN AGENCY OR OTHER ELIGIBLE USER),
WITH AN INTENTION TO MAKE A PURCHASE
OF A COMMODITY OR SERVICE NOT ON STATE
TERM CONTRACT
2. SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK
PROVIDED BY THE REQUESTING BUYER,
LEADING “SNAPS III”
CONCEPT (continued)
3. THE REQUESTING BUYER WILL BE
ENCOURAGED TO IDENTIFY ANY KNOWN
VENDORS WHO COULD MEET THE NEED
4. THE DMS SNAPS TEAM WILL ATTEMPT TO
REGISTER ANY NON-REGISTERED SOURCES
IDENTIFIED, AND WILL CONDUCT A
COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION USING THE
“EQUOTE” TOOL IN
MYFLORIDAMARKETPLACE
LEADING “SNAPS III”
CONCEPT (continued)

5. AGREEMENTS WILL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR A TWELVE MONTH
PERIOD WITH NO RENEWAL. IF A
SPECIFIC NEED JUSTIFYING A SNAPS
AGREEMENT IS IDENTIFIED AFTER
THAT TIME, ANOTHER EQUOTE
COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION WILL BE
CONDUCTED
LEADING “SNAPS III”
CONCEPT (continued)

6. SNAPS PURCHASES PER CONTRACT
WILL BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY, WITH
A VIEW TO ESTABLISHING A STATE
TERM CONTRACT WHERE $1 MILLION
SNAPS PURCHASES COMBINED WITH
OTHER NON-STATE-TERM-CONTRACT
PURCHASES OF LIKE ITEMS COULD
YIELD SAVINGS >$100K ANNUALLY
BUYERS WILL PROVIDE STATE
PURCHASING SNAPS TEAM
A REQUEST FOR SNAPS AGREEMENT FORM
SHOWING:
AGENCY OR SUBDIVISION NAME AND
CONTACT INFO
SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK
LOCATION, SCHEDULE, BUDGETARY
LIMITATIONS, ENTITY PAYMENT PROCESS
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT IN THE
INFORMAL BID EVALUATION PROCESS AS
REQUESTED
VENDORS RESPONDING TO
THE EQUOTE WILL PROVIDE

AGREEMENT THAT THE NEW SNAPS
AGREEMENT WILL SUPERSEDE ANY
AND ALL EXISTING AGREEMENTS
WITH ANY RESPONDING VENDOR,
COVERING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
COMMODITIES/SERVICES, AND
AGREEING TO THE CANCELLATION OF
ANY SUCH AGREEMENTS
VENDORS RESPONDING TO THE EQUOTE
WILL PROVIDE (continued)
A LIST OF ALL SNAPS AGREEMENTS
HELD BY THE RESPONDING FIRM, WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT FAILURE TO
SUBMIT A COMPLETE LIST WILL RESULT
IN REJECTION OF THEIR EQUOTE AS
NON-RESPONSIVE
MEASURING SUCCESS:
TARGET OUTCOMES
% OF SNAPS AGREEMENTS PUT IN PLACE
AND CONTINUING WITHOUT A BUYER:
~0% (FROM CURRENT >50%)
2.% OF SNAPS PRICES DECREASED EACH
TIME A CURRENT SNAPS II AGREEMENT IS
REPLACED BY AN “EQUOTED” SNAPS
AGREEMENT: ~100%
3.% OF SNAPS AGREEMENTS WITH SPEND
> $1 MILLION ANNUALLY REPLACED BY A
STATE TERM CONTRACT: ~100%
1.
OTHER ISSUES





STATUS OF CURRENT STRATEGIC SOURCING
INITIATIVES (OFFICE SUPPLIES, MRO,
PRINTING, FURNITURE, FACILITIES
SERVICES)
PURCHASING REORGANIZATION
UPCOMING EVENTS (NIGP WORKSHOPS,
FAPPO CONFERENCE)
NEXT PURCHASING DIRECTORS’ MEETING
ANY NEW BUSINESS