I’m Helen, a former county procurement analyst. I spent fourteen years in a county purchasing office in Raleigh, NC. I've seen a lot of local government interest in cooperative purchasing and piggybacking over the years, especially for common goods and services like office supplies or IT equipment. Our county used them sometimes, and it always seemed like a good idea on paper to save time and money. But in practice, it often felt more complicated than just running our own Invitation for Bid (IFB). There were often questions about whether the original contract’s terms and conditions truly fit our local needs, or if the pricing was still competitive for our specific volume. What common challenges do other local governments face when trying to use cooperative purchasing vehicles?
What are the common challenges of cooperative purchasing for local governments?
Ask a question1 answer
The common challenges for local governments using cooperative purchasing include ensuring the original contract's terms, conditions, and pricing align with local needs and budgets. Local governments often have specific requirements that a broader statewide term contract or federal contract vehicle might not address directly. For example, a contract for janitorial services might have a wage determination that doesn't match the local labor market, or the square footage listed in the original scope of work might be much larger or smaller than what a county building needs. My firm has bid on these types of contracts for counties and school districts in Ohio. We see that the original contract might not account for specific local regulations or the volume of services a smaller entity requires, which can impact the actual price and service quality. It often takes more work to adapt an existing cooperative contract than it does to run a new Invitation for Bid (IFB) with local specifications.