Ins and Outs of Consortium

1. Ins and Outs of Consortium April 23-25, 2019 Lindle Hatton, CEO of NASPO and NASPO ValuePoint Dana Harris, DOAS Travis Horsley, DOAS

2. About the Presenters Dana Harris is the Group Lead of the Agency Sourcing Team, supporting Georgia’s enterprise agencies, colleges and universities with compliance support and complex procurement guidance. She is a “seasoned” procurement professional (since 1999),and holds a MPA, CPPO and is working to obtain Project Management Institute certification as a PMP. Dr. Lindle Hatton, oversees Executive leadership of strategies and initiatives at NASPO, including oversight of the CLO's professional development program management, oversight of the CAO and DO's administration and operational management. He is the primary spokesperson to advance awareness of and support for NASPO and the public procurement profession. Travis Horsley supports multiple units of the Georgia Department of Administrative Services for their data and process flow needs. He is graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology Georgian by birth. He enjoys the nexus of technology and humanities, striving for a customer-centric focus of government services.

3. An Overview Consortia Overview The use of a consortium or cooperative supply agreement, can be a great way to supplement the current portfolio of contracts. ….but what products/services should we seek through consortia and to whom?

4. Consortia/Cooperatives Purpose Organizations that form consortiums, provide the goods and services most likely to be needed by entities that cannot support large or complex purchases. or Organizations that do not have a sufficient amount of “spend” often take advantage of cooperative purchasing to obtain greater discounts than they can receive on their own.

5. Challenges with Consortias • What is the criteria for using consortia agreements? • What products/services are a good fit for the State? • Where can consortia cause problems? • What are the defined benefits for going this sourcing route? • Where does GSA fit into the equation?

6. Complexity with defining Consortia The definition and approaches applied in business, are different for within public sector groups and industries. (ex. State vs Federal, education versus corrections)

7. Examples of Consortia/Cooperatives for Government U.S. Communities (OMNIA Partners) NASPO NCPA (National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance) MMCAP GSA (General Services Administration) SourceWell National IPA (now OMNIA Partners)

8. Lack of a State Policy Leader Most state policies are silent in their policy for executing consortia agreements. No examples of policy address “industry” consortiums that provide significantly reduce costs, obtained by combined purchasing volumes (i.e. healthcare/pharmaceuticals).

9. Good State Policy Excerpts Texas…extends its cooperative purchasing agreements for interstate and outer-state utilization. Florida……cites GSA Cooperative Agreements as a resource New Jersey Issues a NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN COOPERATIVE CONTRACT as a communication, versus a solicitation event. 3 day comment period. California… Users must document their research to validate “fit” in contract files. Arizona… extends contracts to all non-profit organizations, State governments, the US Federal Government and Tribal Nations

10. Data Sourcing Methodology Analyze for matches between the offerings of the merged consortia portfolio and the NIGP list Remove consortias that do not fit the ‘form and function’ of a publicly bid contract Juxtapose compiled list against consortia listings to identify existing consortia opportunities Denote Existing Portfolio Offerings Do not implement a consortia where a current Statewide Contract exists unless more competitive pricing can be achieved

11. Total SWC Spend: $1,109,559,603 FY18 SWC Portfolio Sample (Consortia Percentage) Total Consortia Spend: $231,689,598 (20.9%)

12. Spend Area: Facilities Spend Area: Healthcare Technology and Services

13. Spend Area: HR Services Spend Area: IT and Telecom

14. Spend Area: MRO

15. Spend Area: Professional Services Spend Area: Sales and Marketing Spend Area: Transportation and Logistics

16. Lindle Hatton, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer – NASPO and NASPO ValuePoint

17. Benefits of Cooperatives

18. Why Choose a Cooperative

19. Our Evolution March 30, 2015 January 1, 2013 1992

20. 2017 Administrative Fee Comparison ValuePoint Up to 0.25% Coop A 3% Coop C 2% Coop B 1 – 2.5%

21. 2017 Contract Comparison Coop A 120 Coop B 86 ValuePoint 358 Coop C 225 Coop D 284

22. All 50 states and The District of Columbia have executed the Memorandum Of Agreement allowing them to be eligible to use any NASPO ValuePoint cooperative Master Agreement. Participating Addendum Process

23. Participating Addendum Process • Entities may be given approval on an individual basis or State CPO may give approval to all entities within the state to execute their own Participating Addendums.

24. Largest Contracts By Spend

25. NASPO Model

26. Procurement University Integrated Delivery Model STRATEGIC MS Degree Executive Leadership MSU ASU BADegree Academic Partners TACTICAL Certification CPPO, CPPB, CPSM, CPM UPPCC / ISM Procurement AdministrationSourcing Negotiation Process Contract Administration Supply Management Strategic Procurement Planning Common Body of Knowledge Six Core Domains