Best Value Procurement
BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT
Best Value Procurement for Crater Lake National Park
Jack W. Northcutt
Crater Lake Engine Company, Oregon
1
Best Value Procurement
Certification Statement
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is
set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the
language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.
Signed:
2
Best Value Procurement
3
Abstract
Crater Lake National Park's operating budget for the structural fire engine company has
been significantly reduced in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. The problem was a budget shortfall of
$7,000 for the engine company's fire fighting tools and equipment, maintenance, servicing and
testing of the apparatus. The purpose of this Applied Research Project was to evaluate
purchasing methods for small purchases (under $100,000), in particular cooperative procurement
programs, to determine which methods resulted in the best overall value for purchasing supplies,
equipment and services.
The researcher used evaluative methodology to determine the following: which
purchasing methods and types of contracts apply to Crater lake; what purchasing methods are
used by other departments; what regulatory requirements apply to procurement of products and
services by Crater Lake and; which purchasing methods result in the best value for Crater Lake.
A survey was used to research the purchasing practices of other departments, including
sources used, thresholds for competition, and use of cooperative or group consortiums.
Benchmark items were identified for price evaluation. Market research was performed to obtain
prices from manufacturers, local independent distributors, state and regional cooperatives, and
Federal Supply Schedules.
The results indicated that one purchasing method consistently provided the best value for
Crater Lake. Recommendations included emphasis on acquisition planning, market research and
consultation with procurement professionals. Further recommendations for those interested in
evaluating best value purchasing include researching the General Services Administration's
Federal Supply Schedules.
Best Value Procurement
4
Table of Contents
Page
Certification Statement ....................................................................................................................2
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................3
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................4
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................5
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................6
Background and Significance ..........................................................................................................7
Literature Review...........................................................................................................................11
Procedures ......................................................................................................................................15
Results ............................................................................................................................................20
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................28
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................30
References ......................................................................................................................................32
Appendices
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................37
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................38
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................41
Best Value Procurement
5
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Question One Results .........................................................................................24
Table 2: Survey Question Two Results ........................................................................................25
Table 3: Results of Best Value Evaluation ...................................................................................28
Best Value Procurement
6
Best Value Procurement for Crater Lake National Park
Introduction
Fire departments in the United States (US) are significant consumers, spending an
average of $4.4 billion annually on goods and services, an amount equivalent to .25% of the
annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (Geneva Association, 2009). The U.S. market for fire
protective garments is anticipated to be $606 million by 2010 (Crull and Hooker, 2007). These
purchases were made by the 30,170 fire departments in the US. Statistically, 66% of the fire
departments in the US serve communities of less than 5,000 citizens (Karter and Stein, 2009).
Small departments needing to purchase equipment or services may not qualify for volume
discounts and as a result, pay significantly higher prices.
The problem is that funding for the engine company at Crater Lake National Park
(CRLA) has been significantly reduced in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. An independent study
estimated the annual cost for the engine company's fire fighting tools and equipment,
maintenance, servicing and testing of the apparatus at $13,000 (HYT, 2007). The FY 2010
budget for the engine company has only $6,000 allocated for these items. The purpose of this
applied research project is to evaluate purchasing methods for small purchases (under $100,000),
in particular cooperative procurement programs, to determine which methods result in the best
overall value for purchasing supplies, equipment and services.
The research questions are (a) what are the purchasing methods and types of contracts
that apply to CRLA, (b) what do other departments do, (c) what are the regulatory requirements
that apply to procurement of products and services by CRLA, and (d) which purchasing methods
result in the best value for CRLA? The evaluative research method will be used in this Applied
Research Project.
Best Value Procurement
7
Background and Significance
CRLA is located in south central Oregon in the Cascade mountain range. Crater Lake
and the surrounding 183,224 acres of wilderness area were set aside and protected by the Act
Establishing Crater lake National Park (1902). The park encompasses 249 square miles. CRLA
is remote and has limited access to outside support services. The elevation of the park ranges
from 4,500 to 7,600 feet, with an annual snowfall averaging 533 inches. Around 500,000 people
visit the park each year. Including staff, sightseers passing through the park and visitors staying
overnight in the lodge, cabins and campgrounds, the summer population is about 5,000 (Harmon,
2002).
The National Park Service (NPS) was established in 1916 in the Department of the
Interior (DOI). The mission of the NPS is to protect the scenery, wildlife, natural and historic
objects while providing access to enjoy them "in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (Organic Act, 1916, sec.1). Structural
fire protection is an important part of the NPS mission. The NPS is charged with preserving and
protecting human life and the resources entrusted to its management through enabling legislation
and other statues. These resources include buildings and structures, irreplaceable cultural
resources, valuable property, and infrastructure (HYT, 2007).
The NPS manages 392 national parks, monuments and other sites. In 2007, 30 of these
sites had fire departments. In 2009, there were 22 parks with fire departments. The closure of
these departments is the result of budget cuts (NPS, 2007, 2009).
The NPS has exclusive jurisdiction for managing CRLA. The overall site manager is a
Superintendent who directs five divisions including Administration, Interpretation and Cultural
Resources, Facility Management and Maintenance, Resource Management and Research, and the
Best Value Procurement
8
Visitor Protection (Ranger) Division. The latter division, managed by a Chief Ranger, is
responsible for providing emergency services including law enforcement, wildland and structural
fire suppression, emergency medical services, and search and rescue. Fire prevention and
suppression services at CRLA are provided through two branches: a structural fire engine
company and a wildland fire management unit. CRLA operates two stations. One houses
structural fire Engine 9111 and Ambulance 9171, and the other, Wildland Engines 9151 and
9152. The engine company provides fire prevention and inspections, fire suppression, motor
vehicle crash rescue, emergency medical services, search and rescue, and confined space rescue.
Full staffing for the engine company is two officers, two driver/operators and eight firefighters.
Mutual aid for structural fire suppression is limited. The Klamath County Fire Defense
Board (KCFDB) coordinates the Mutual Aid Agreement for the 16 fire departments in the
county. Chiloquin-Agency Lake Rural Fire Protection District is a volunteer fire department
located thirty five miles south of the park. The response time is 45 minutes or longer. The closest
paid department is Klamath County Fire District One, located 63 miles south in Klamath Falls,
Oregon. The estimated response time to CRLA is 90 minutes. Response times vary depending on
apparatus, crew availability, and road and weather conditions on State Highways 62 and 97
(HYT, 2007).
Fire suppression and prevention are identified as areas of deficiency for the NPS.
In May of 2000, the Government Accountability Office, then called the General Accounting
Office (GAO), released a report prepared for the U.S. Senate titled Park Service Agency is Not
Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety Responsibilities. This report was a nationwide evaluation of
the NPS structural fire programs. It described the need for increased attention to the issue of
structural fire prevention and suppression in the nation's parks. The GAO concluded that if the
Best Value Procurement
9
NPS continues to fail to make funding necessary to support an effective structural fire program a
priority, the problems identified in the report will persist (GAO). CRLA has faced budget
shortfalls in the past, when overhead expenses including salaries, overtime, and fuel accounted
for virtually the entire budget resulting in deferred maintenance.
In June of 2006, the NPS contracted with HYT Corporation to audit the NPS fire
departments, including CRLA. The resulting report, National Park Service Structural Fire
Response Analysis – Crater Lake National Park, listed a number of deficiencies including
equipment and PPE procurement, maintenance, servicing, and testing. The final report also stated
"the structural fire program at CRLA should receive adequate funding" or be dissolved and fire
suppression services be out-sourced (HYT, 2007, p. 29). As a direct result of the audit, CRLA
has since replaced turnouts and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and acquired
equipment including a cascade air storage system, SCBA fill station, breathing air compressor,
and a dedicated use commercial washer and dryer for turnout gear. CRLA has also purchased
testing equipment needed to perform apparatus pump tests, and hose and ladder testing. The FY
2009 budget allocation for engine company supplies, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
replacement, and services was $24,000. The wildland fire management program is funded
separately.
Securing adequate funding for fire suppression and prevention services is increasingly
challenging. The FY 2010 engine company equipment budget is $6,000. The current budget is
inadequate when compared with previous years. In the last three fiscal years, however, part of
the budget was set aside for Emergency Vehicle Technician training and test equipment. Annual
apparatus inspection, pump tests, ladder tests, and preventive maintenance on rescue tools are
now performed in-house by a certified Emergency Vehicle Technician. Hose testing is
Best Value Procurement
10
performed in-house by the fire fighters. By doing in-house inspections of equipment, the
department is able to reduce required outsourcing for required services in the future. In order to
purchase the equipment and services not available internally, but mandated by law, regulation
and policy, procedures to obtain the best possible value must be used.
A former Chief Ranger at CRLA was not optimistic about the future of the engine
company. He stated that financial limitations point to a grim future for the company and that he
doubted that the engine company would be able to continue in its present form (M. Neeck,
personal communication, October 9, 2009). Inability to meet program requirements within
budget and staffing limitations may result in a management decision to eliminate the engine
company. The results of this evaluative research have the potential to affect the engine
company's financial viability.
This applied research project uses the Vroom and Yetton model for decision making in
Unit 4, Developing Decision Making Skills of the Executive Leadership Student Manual
(National Fire Academy [NFA], 2005). Fire department budget cuts and the trend toward
cooperative purchasing are emerging issues for the fire service. At a recent meeting of fire
service trade associations, a buyers' roundtable of fire chiefs representing volunteer, metro,
suburban and Canadian departments addressed these issues. They agreed that they are "more
involved in the purchasing process because of current economic conditions" and they "anticipate
more cooperation and collaboration on equipment purchases" (Wilmoth, 2009). This research
meets the United State Fire Administration (USFA) operational objective "to respond
appropriately in a timely manner to emerging issues" (NFA, 2009, p.3).
Best Value Procurement
11
Literature Review
The following purchasing methods available to CRLA are described in order of
complexity. Requisitions or Micro-purchases are purchases under $3,000 of supplies or services
using the DOI Purchase Card (DOI, 2008). In Fire Officer: Principles and Practice, a
requisition is defined as the method used for large purchases when the exact amount is unknown
(International Association of Fire Chiefs [IAFC] and National Fire Protection Association
[NFPA], 2010). A purchase order is a written contract at or below the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold (SAT), usually $100,000. A Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) is an agreement
between the Government and a vendor that establishes the terms and conditions that will apply to
individual orders (DAU). Interagency acquisitions under the Economy Act (1932) are
agreements between federal agencies to purchase supplies or services (FAR 17.500).
Cooperative purchasing is "procurement conducted by or on behalf of one or more public
procurement units" (American Bar Association [ABA], 2002, p. 229). A common method of
cooperative purchasing uses a formal agreement or contract with conditions from the lead agency
base contract and additional terms and conditions added by other government entities (National
Association of State Procurement Officials [NASPO], 2009). Adler (2007) refers to the reduced
administrative costs using this method. Fire officer reference manuals mention cooperative
purchasing. Smeby (2006), Marinucci (2009), and IAFC and NFPA (2010) describe
intergovernmental and group purchasing consortiums as opportunities to achieve greater
discounts from vendors. Fire service journals and periodicals occasionally mention cooperative
purchasing as well. Bennett suggested participation in a geographical purchasing alliance
(2003). Larger cooperative procurement programs utilizing options to "piggyback" existing
Best Value Procurement
12
contracts have the potential for cutting costs (Busch and Grindle, 2009). The National Institute
of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP) provides a definition of piggybacking (2009).
There are several types of contracts available to CRLA when purchasing supplies,
equipment and services. A firm-fixed-price contract is awarded to the bidder whose bid is most
advantageous to the Government (DAU, 2009). A negotiated procurement using a Request for
Proposals (RFP) is a more time consuming contracting process (DAU, 2006). IAFC and NFPA
(2010) describe the RFP process as being used for very large or complex purchases. FAR 16.504
(2009) describes Indefinite-Delivery Contracts. General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple
Award Schedules (MAS), also known as the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), provide federal
agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commercial supplies and services at prices
associated with volume buying (FAR 8.401). A Delivery Order is a contract for supplies from
the FSS or a MAS vendor. A contact for services is called a Task Order (FAR 16.505). FAR
31.03 addresses contracts for supplies and services negotiated with commercial organizations.
The principles that apply to contracts with State and local governments are described in FAR
subpart 31.6. Finally, FAR 1.102 outlines the authority of contracting officers in cases where a
particular method of acquisition is not addressed in the regulations.
The literature concerning the purchasing methods used by other departments consisted
mainly of fire service journals and documents on the websites of purchasing cooperatives. The
researcher spoke with Crosby Grindle concerning the availability of research by trade
associations concerning fire service purchasing. Grindle is the Executive Officer of the Western
Fire Chiefs Association and staff liaison with Fire Rescue Group Purchasing Cooperative
(FRGPO). He was not aware of any recent or meaningful data that would detail the market share
Best Value Procurement
13
of independent retailers used by the 30,000 fire departments in the US (personal
communications, Crosby Grindle, December 22, 2009).
State purchasing cooperatives are generally available to fire departments. Oregon has
such a program, with over 500 members (ORCPP, 2009). NASPO performed a survey of state
procurement offices. The results of the survey include information about participation in
cooperative purchasing within and between states (2009).
There are large regional purchasing cooperatives, such as the Houston Galveston Area
Council (HGACBuy), which has end users in 38 states (HGAC, 2009). The Western States
Contracting Alliance (WSCA) is a group formed by the state purchasing offices in 15 western
states (WSCA, 2009). Firefighters and fire departments can register to join a nationwide
cooperative (FRGPO, 2009). The Local Acquisition Preparedness Act of 2008 provided access
to the GSA Coop Program to public entities including eligible fire departments.
The United Kingdom (UK) released the National Procurement Strategy for the Fire and
Rescue Service: 2005-2008. The strategy established Firebuy Limited, a centralized national
level procurement body, to work with the English Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) and other
groups to establish and manage contracts for apparatus, supplies and equipment (2005).
Following a review in 2008, the Firebuy program was expanded (Department for Communities
and Local Government [DCLG], 2009).
The FAR is the primary regulation for all Federal Executive Agencies, including the
NPS, using appropriated funds for the acquisition of supplies and services. The FAR are almost
2,000 pages of definitions, procedures, and authorities (FAR p.1, 2009).
The DOI Acquisition Policy Release (DIAPR) and the NPS Contracting Officer's
Technical Instruction (COTI) at the departmental and agency level are directives that provide
Best Value Procurement
14
contracting officers with regulatory interpretation and agency contracts for all aspects of
procurement. The NPS Contracting Office maintains an intranet-based copy of the FAR with the
departmental and agency regulations inserted, for easy reference (2009).
In addition to the regulatory requirements concerning purchasing and contracting, CRLA
is subject to OSHA Regulations (OSHA, 2009). The OSHA regulations that affect fire
department purchasing provide minimum standards for SCBA, fire helmets, goggles, boots,
gloves and turnouts. Tables that cross reference OSHA requirements with NFPA and ANSI
standards considered acceptable in complying with requirements in the specific sections of
subpart L (OSHA, 2010).
The NPS adopted a number of NFPA standards in Reference Manual 58 (RM-58),
Structural Fire Management (2004). NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for
Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (2007) provides specifications for the
design and testing for helmets, goggles, footwear, gloves and other components. SCBA and
annual flow tests requirements are described in NFPA 1852, Standard on Selection, Care, and
Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) (2008). These
standards contain specifications for equipment and services and may be referenced as minimum
requirements.
The FAR describes the requirement to perform market research (10.001), and the
definition (2.101, 2009). Con 110 discusses the logical limits to which agencies should go when
performing market research (DAU, 2006). Terms used to evaluate best value include Free on
Board Destination "FOB-D", where the vendor pays for shipping, and "lowest price technically
acceptable" which may not be the best overall value (DAU). Factors in addition to price may
Best Value Procurement
15
include vendors' past performance, warranties, trade-in considerations, life-cycle costs,
availability of maintenance or service and delivery terms (FAR 8.405-1, 2009).
The purchasing methods and contract types appropriate to CRLA are described in the
FAR. Fire service or non-federal procurement sources contain subtle but significant differences
in meaning. A review of literature concerning buying habits of other fire departments was
largely unsuccessful. All of the sources emphasized the importance of trying to leverage
discounts using some form of cooperative purchasing. This trend led the researcher to focus on
that topic. Two NPS sources, RM-58 (2004) and the intranet FAR, provided the researcher with
links to procurement regulations. Guidance concerning market research and best value directed
the researcher in the procedures used to evaluate purchasing methods.
Procedures
While attending the NFA Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP), Executive Leadership
(EL), R125 course, the researcher undertook a literature search in the Learning Resource Center
(LRC) using the on-line catalog. The LRC's extensive archives of fire service related
publications and materials provided an excellent starting point for determining what others had
written on the subject of purchasing methods for small purchases. The researcher conducted a
book search using key words "purchasing", "procurement", and "acquisitions" and the
parameters "2003-2009". The researcher also conducted a separate search of journals and
magazines using the same key words and parameters. This generated a variety of information
mostly geared toward large purchases of items such as apparatus and facilities. To narrow the
search to materials specific to small purchases, the researcher had to manually preview each
search result. The researcher maintained a log of source material and made photocopies of
pertinent articles and text passages for sources that were unavailable on-line. Materials which
Best Value Procurement
16
were available online were simply downloaded and the sources recorded. After returning home,
the researcher searched the Oregon public library system, and completed inter-library loans for
fire officer reference materials. References were also found in the National Emergency Training
Center eContent collection on netlibrary.com. These searches were conducted similarly to those
completed at the academy. The researcher also found information by doing an internet search
using key words "cooperative purchasing".
As the available literature consisted primarily of journal articles and reference handbooks
for fire officers, the researcher determined it was necessary to expand research to include the
regulations governing purchasing. Regulatory research on this topic is easily divided into three
basic parts: regulations dictating what must be purchased by departments to meet required
standards (purchase specifications); where these items must be purchased, or from whom they
may be acquired; and how the purchase must be made. This research was directed toward
answering the first and third research questions.
To determine what purchase specifications apply to CRLA, the researcher used (RM-58)
(2004), which provides a listing of the regulations and adopted standards of the NPS. The
researcher identified those regulations and standards that pertained to fire service equipment and
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Using this list as a guide, the researcher identified
benchmark items to evaluate for determining best value purchasing methods. Having determined
what items are required by regulation, the researcher moved to determine from where these items
could be purchased. At this point, the researcher was not determining specific sources that were
available for use, but rather, what types of suppliers were specified for use. This research
included a review of applicable sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The FAR
is the primary regulatory document for federal agencies relative to purchasing. FAR prescribes
Best Value Procurement
17
required sources of supplies and services, giving preference to certain groups, types of
businesses and contract agreements, otherwise known as required sources. FAR section 8.002
relates to required sources (2009).
In order to investigate the purchasing methods and contract types available to CRLA, the
researcher first examined guidance and regulatory documents at the national level. The NPS
intranet contracting page provides links to federal, departmental, and agency regulations. The
researcher used this page to access applicable documents. The researcher identified applicable
regulation in the FAR, the DIAPR, and several levels of directives within the NPS. These
documents were reviewed to determine how purchases for the CRLA engine company must be
made.
Published literature found during the literature review concerning how other departments
make small purchases consisted mainly of fire service journals and purchasing consortium
websites. These sources failed to provide statistical data on the purchasing methods of fire
departments within the US. In an effort to secure this data, the researcher contacted a staff
member at the Fire Rescue Group Purchasing Organization (FRGPO) who directed the
researcher to the Fire and Emergency Manufacturers and Services Association (FEMSA). The
association was unresponsive, so the researcher determined to prepare a survey for the purpose
of acquiring this information. The researcher prepared a survey to determine the purchasing
methods of fire departments.
Survey questions were written to determine two basic things. First, the researcher wanted
to determine what purchasing methods most departments used for making small purchases.
Secondly, the researcher wanted to determine if responding agencies utilized group or
collaborative purchasing contracts that would also be available to CRLA. Additional survey
Best Value Procurement
18
questions were drafted to determine relevancy of information for use at CRLA. These questions
included a state locator, characterization of the department based on size and personnel makeup,
and specifics about purchasing processes within the survey organization. The survey included a
question to assist the researcher assess other departments' perceptions of overall procurement
success.
The survey questions were entered into an internet based service, Survey Monkey. A test
survey using the draft questions was distributed to six colleagues from departments of varying
sizes and geographic locations. The survey was then edited using test-run feedback and an
introduction was added to clarify the survey's purpose. The researcher then distributed electronic
mail requests for departments across the country to complete the survey. A link to the survey
was included in the message. The electronic mail list for this distribution was generated from
two sources. First, the researcher used a mail list acquired from another EFO student who had
recently completed a nationwide survey. Secondly, the researcher used the Oregon State Fire
Marshal's website listing of all Oregon fire departments to generate e-mail addresses for as many
Oregon departments as possible. By combining the nationwide and statewide lists, the
researcher was able to prepare a satisfactory distribution list. The completed list represented 50
different states and included 59 Oregon fire departments. The total number of survey requests
sent was 556. A copy of the survey is in Appendix A.
The process used to identify best value began with acquisition planning. Planning
includes looking at vendors and the products they supply. The researcher first identified several
benchmark items that CRLA purchases on a regular basis or items that have been identified as
needed purchases. Market research was then performed to determine which of the items were
readily available. Also, market research was conducted to identify vendors that CRLA had not
Best Value Procurement
19
used in past procurements in order to identify new potential sources of required materials at
better prices.
The World Wide Web was searched to assemble a list of vendors including local
distributors; state, regional and national cooperative purchasing programs and federal supply
schedule multiple award schedule vendors. Vendors that were not registered in the online Central
Contractor Registration (CCR) and the Online Representations and Certifications Application
(ORCA) databases were eliminated. No potential vendors were listed on the Excluded Parties
List System (EPLS). Benchmark items which did not meet specification were then eliminated.
Remaining benchmark items, as provided by approved vendors were recorded. Published price
lists, contract documents and shipping terms were compiled and data was entered into a
spreadsheet. The results are shown in Table 3.
Limitations
The actual process used by CRLA for procurement of supplies or services between
$3,000 and $10,000 would involve issuing Requests for Quotes (RFQ) to at least three vendors if
the required sources could not fill the order. Purchases between $10,000 and $25,000 would
involve posting solicitations on the Interior Department Electronic Acquisition System –
Electronic Commerce (IDEAS-EC) website. For acquisitions greater than $25,000 federal
agencies are required to post solicitations, proposed contract actions, and associated information,
at the FedBizOpps website, which can be accessed by the public.
Some cooperative purchasing groups found during market research had contracts that
were available for piggybacking, but the specifications were too complex to compare with other
sources without performing formal solicitations. The researcher did not contact vendors for this
Best Value Procurement
20
applied research project because CRLA purchasing policy does not allow solicitations to be
issued without actual funding approval.
Results
In the NPS, small purchases are made using Requisitions and are paid for with the DOI
Purchase Card. These small purchases, up to $3,000 of supplies and $2,500 for services, are also
called micro-purchases (DOI, 2008). IAFC/NFPA says that a Requisition is used for large
purchases when the exact amount is unknown primarily to obligate funds that will be spent after
the bidding process is completed (2010). A purchase order is contains explicit clauses detailing
the terms and conditions and, when issued by the Government, means an offer by the
Government to buy supplies or services. An Unpriced Purchase Order is used only when the
price is not known at the time of the order. A good example would be an order for repairs to
equipment that requires tearing down or disassembly to determine the nature and extent of
repairs and parts needed (FAR 2.1-10) and 13.302-1, 2009). A BPA is an agreement between the
Government and a vendor. Each individual order is a contract (DAU, 2006).
Interagency acquisitions under the Economy Act (31 USC § 1535) are agreements
between federal agencies to purchase supplies or services. This method is used when it is more
economical than contracting directly with a private source. One agency (the requesting agency)
may send funds to another (the servicing agency) and have them buy the item. Alternatively, the
servicing agency may allow the requesting agency to place orders directly with a vendor already
on contract (FAR 17.50, 2009).
Cooperative purchasing is "procurement conducted by or on behalf of one or more public
procurement units" (ABA, 2002, p. 229). Public procurement units are described as a state, a
subdivision or public entity of a state, other states and their political subdivisions, agencies of the
Best Value Procurement
21
federal government, or non-profit entities (ABA). Cooperative procurement is further described
by NASPO as two or more government entities, such as states, cities, and counties together
identifying a common requirement, and combining those requirements into a formal solicitation.
A common method is to use a formal agreement or contract using conditions from the lead
agency base contract with additional terms and conditions added by other government entities
(2009). Adler describes the primary benefits of cooperative purchasing: convenience, reduced
costs, and volume discount pricing (2007).
Fire service sources that also noted the opportunity for greater discounts included Bennett
(2003), Smeby (2006), Marinucci (2009), and the IAFC and NFPA (2010). A variation on
cooperative purchasing called piggybacking was described by Busch and Grindle (2009) as a
way to save administrative time and expense by using existing contracts. The NIGP Online
Dictionary of Procurement Terms defines piggybacking as cooperative purchasing where one
entity will use the pricing and terms of a contract signed by a larger entity. By including clauses
in the terms and conditions that allow piggybacking, the larger entity may realize an advantage
by gaining economics of scale. The method is also known as riding a contract (2010).
There are several types of contracts available for use by CRLA. The Fixed-price family
of contracts provide for a firm price or in appropriate cases, an adjustable price. A firm-fixedprice contract has a price that does not change based on costs incurred by the vendor. It puts the
least cost risk on the Government. This contract type is most commonly used for acquisitions
under $100,000. Using a process called competitive sealed bidding, the government sends out an
invitation for bids (IFB), called a solicitation. At a given time and location, the bids are opened
publicly. A firm-fixed-price contract is awarded to the lowest bidder, considering only price and
the price-related factors (DAU, 2009).
Best Value Procurement
22
The Negotiated Procurement uses a solicitation called a Request for Proposals (RFP).
Vendor's proposals are opened privately and the contents are often not released outside the
Government without the offeror's permission. Proposals are examined followed by information
exchanges with the potential vendors. Discussions and clarifications are part of the negotiation.
Offerors are often requested to revise their offers during negotiations (DAU, 2006). The IAFC
and NFPA describe the RFP process as being used for very large or complex purchases, with a
public opening of bids (2010).
The FAR (2009) describes three types of Indefinite-Delivery Contracts. The definite
quantity type specifies the quantity, delivery location and a fixed, timeline for delivery. A
Requirements Contract differs from the definite quantity type in that the actual quantity is
estimated. The vendor will supply all of a particular supply to the ordering activity. The
requirements contract sets a minimum and maximum quantity to be delivered during a set period
of time. Indefinite-quantity contracts provide for an indefinite quantity of supplies or services
during a fixed period. The Government places orders for individual requirements. These
contracts require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish a stated minimum
quantity of supplies or services. The contractor must fill orders up to a maximum amount stated
in the contract (FAR 16.504).
GSA Multiple Award Schedules are also known as the Federal Supply Schedules. These
are contracts awarded by GSA for supplies or services, and awarded to more than one supplier, at
varying prices. This method provides Federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining
commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying (FAR 8.401). A
Delivery Order is a contract for supplies from the Federal Supply Schedules or a Governmentwide Agency contract. A Contract for services is called a Task Order (FAR 16.505). Delivery
Best Value Procurement
23
Orders and Task Orders can be categorized as cooperative purchasing methods and types of
contracts.
FAR 31.03 (2009) addresses contracts for supplies and services negotiated with
commercial organizations not including State and local governments. The principles that apply to
Contracts with State and local governments are described in FAR subpart 31.6 The Statement of
Guiding Principles for the Federal Acquisition System encourages contracting officers to be
innovative in business processes. If a particular procurement strategy is not addressed in the
FAR, one should not assume it is prohibited (FAR 1.102).
The literature concerning the purchasing methods used by other departments consisted
mainly of fire service journals and purchasing consortium websites. It isn't likely that any recent
or meaningful data exists that would identify the vendors used by the 30,000 fire departments in
the U.S. (personal communications, Crosby Grindle, December 22, 2009).
The researcher prepared a survey to determine the purchasing methods of fire
departments. The questions asked were (a) in what state is your department located, (b) How
would you describe your department, (c) in your organization, who is responsible for purchasing
equipment and services, (d) what is the threshold at which competitive bids are required by your
department, (e) where do you purchase the majority of your equipment and services, (f) is your
department part of a cooperative purchasing group, and (g) is your department's purchasing
program successful in getting the best available prices? The completed list represented 50
different states and included 59 Oregon fire departments. The total number of survey requests
sent was 556. The survey received responses from140 departments, representing 37 states. 30
Oregon departments responded.
Best Value Procurement
24
As shown in Table 1, the vast majority of fire departments surveyed utilize local
distributors. An unexpected finding in the researcher's survey was the low use, less than 1%, of
GSA for the majority of departments' purchases. State and local governments, including
counties, cities, towns or any agency of those entities have been eligible to purchase from
Schedule 84 since September 19, 2008. A few of the items available on Schedule 84 are SCBA,
turnouts, helmets, boots, hydraulic tools and hose (GSA, 2009). Prices are typically as good as
those offered to vendors' best commercial customers. 37 states have the authority to participate
in the GSA Cooperative Purchasing Program (2009 Survey NASPO).
Table 1
Survey Results – Question 4
Where do you purchase the majority of your equipment?
Answer Options
Local distributors
Directly from manufacturers
Federal Supply Schedules (GSA)
Cooperative Purchasing Program
Other
Multiple answers
Totals
Response
Percent
52.86%
12.14%
.71%
3.57%
4.29%
26.43%
100%
Response
Count
74
17
1
5
6
37
140
As shown in Table 2, the majority of the respondents indicated that their departments
were not part of a cooperative purchasing group. The highest percentage of the departments that
did belonged to a state group. The Oregon Cooperative Procurement Program (ORCPPP) has
520 members that include cities, counties, school districts and fire departments. Of the 322 fire
departments in Oregon, 124 are members (ORCPPP, 2009). According to the NASPO survey
(2009) forty states reported that they may participate in cooperative agreements with local
governments within the state (NASPO Survey).
Best Value Procurement
25
The second most prevalent type of purchasing group in the researcher's survey results
was regional purchasing cooperatives. Two of these groups are the Houston Galveston Area
Council (HGAC Buy) which has more than 2,500 end users in 38 states (HGAC, 2009) and the
Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA, 2009) with 15 member states. The NASPO survey
results showed that, in 2009, 44 states have cooperative arrangements with other state
governments and 49 states had the authority to participate in some type of cooperative
purchasing program.
One nationwide cooperative is the Fire Rescue Group Purchasing Cooperative (FRGPO).
It is not a reseller, but rather facilitates group purchasing specifically for the fire service market.
The purpose of FRGPO is to allow its members to acquire goods and services at lower prices by
leveraging purchasing strength (2010).
Table 2
Survey Question 5
Is your department part of a cooperative purchasing group?
Answer Options (Check all that apply)
National Cooperative Purchasing Group
Regional Cooperative Purchasing Group
State Cooperative Purchasing Group
Local Cooperative Purchasing Group
No
Multiple Answers
answered question
skipped question
Response
Percent
1.43%
11.43%
19.29%
7.86%
40.00%
18.57%
98.57%
1.43%
Response
Count
2
16
27
11
56
26
138
2
In the UK, Firebuy Limited has contracts for fire service needs such as radios, foam,
thermal imaging cameras, breathing air compressors, turnout gear, apparatus, and SCBA.
Interoperability is one of the goals of the program; however, there are choices for the Fire and
Best Value Procurement
26
Rescue Authorities (FRA's). SCBA's from MSA, Interspiro, Scott and Draeger are all on
Firebuy contracts.
The U.S. fire service was a $36.8 billion industry in 2007 (Karter and Stein, 2009). The
30,000 fire departments in the US purchase most of their equipment individually (Busch and
Grindle, 2009). Structural and proximity turnout gear is estimated to be a $300 million market in
2010 (Crull and Hooker, 2007). Cooperative purchasing programs are growing in popularity.
The regulatory requirements that apply to the procurement of products and services by
CRLA are extensive. The primary document is the FAR (2009), which consists of almost 2,000
pages of definitions, procedures, clauses and authorities. The FAR specifies required sources of
supplies and services and is the foremost authority for vendor selection. Section 8.002 of FAR
specifies that suppliers are selected using the following sources in order by priority: existing
agency inventories, excess from other agencies, Federal Prison Industries, the Procurement List
for people who are disabled or blind, GSA or Defense Logistics wholesale suppliers, mandatory
and optional Federal supply schedules, and commercial sources. Section 19.5 of the FAR says
each acquisition of supplies or services that has an anticipated dollar value exceeding $3000 is
automatically reserved exclusively for small business concerns and must be set aside for small
business. Exceptions to this requirement are listed there as well.
Vendors are sometimes debarred from doing business with the government. GSA
maintains a website of the Excluded Parties List System (FAR 9.404, 2009). Vendors are
required by to register online in the CCR database prior to being awarded of any contract or BPA
(FAR 4.1102). In addition, vendors that are claiming small business or other socioeconomic
status are required to complete an online form on the ORCA website in conjunction with the
Best Value Procurement
27
required registration in the CCR (FAR 4.1201). FedBizOpps is the web-based source that
provides detailed information for vendors on federal procurement opportunities over $25,000.
Federal agencies post solicitation information online. FedBizOpps replaced the Commerce
Business Daily, a printed publication (FAR 2.101). As part of acquisition planning, federal
agencies must perform market research, when the information available is inadequate and the
circumstances justify the effort (FAR 10.001). Market research consists of collecting and
analyzing information such as availability, location, and prices (FAR 2.101). The extent of
market research varies with the size and type of the acquisition. The intent is that the effort and
cost devoted to market research are appropriate with the complexity and value of the acquisition.
It is not in the government's interest to spend more money on the acquisition process than on the
item service to be acquired (DAU, 2006).
CRLA is subject to federal OSHA regulations in addition to the regulatory requirements
concerning purchasing and contracting (OSHA, 2009). The OSHA standards that affect fire
department purchasing provide minimum standards for respiratory protection, head, eye and face
protection, hand and foot protection, and body protection. Tables that cross reference OSHA
requirements with NFPA and ANSI standards considered acceptable in complying with
requirements in the specific sections of subpart L (29CFR1910, 2010).
NFPA 1852, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit SelfContained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) describes the minimum standards for SCBA and annual
flow tests requirements (2008). Specifications for the design and testing of helmets, goggles,
footwear, and gloves are provided in NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for
Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (2007). These standards may be
Best Value Procurement
28
referenced as minimum requirements but were not written as purchasing specifications. The NPS
adopted these NFPA standards in 2004 (RM-58). The results of the evaluation of purchasing
methods and sources of supply are summarized in Table 3. The benchmark items were evaluated
on the basis of price, delivery terms and other costs. The researcher made every effort to
compare like items, using manufacturers' part numbers. Shipping terms for all of the vendors
was FOB-D. For each item that could be found on both GSA and another source, the best value
purchasing method was GSA.
Table 3
Evaluation of Benchmark Items
MSRP
SCBA
Turnouts, Brand A
Turnouts, Brand B
Boots
TIC, Model A
TIC, Model B
TIC Model C
Annual Fee
$4,440
Retail
Local
$3,848
Coop
State
Coop
Region 1
$4,406
Coop
Region 2
$1,357
$3,165
Coop
GSA
$3,345
$1,133
$1,582
$1,392
$329
$298
$10,695
$9,352
$7,812
$12,500
$10,750
$9,600
$750
Discussion
Procurement methods described in the FAR and in literature from outside the federal
government had similar names but differences in meaning. The Unpriced Purchase Order (FAR
2.1-10, 2009) is similar to the Requisition discussed in IAFC and NFPA (2010). In the federal
version of a Negotiated Procurement using an RFP, proposals from vendors are opened privately
and the contents are often not released outside the Government without the vendor's permission
(DAU, 2006). The IAFC and NFPA described the RFP process using a public opening of bids
Best Value Procurement
29
(2010). Marinucci stated that you "may not know the lingo of purchasing. Like many in
government, the people in purchasing have acronyms and other terms that are specific to their
process" (2009, p. 115, ¶ 2). At CRLA, fire officers have access to contracting officers who can
recommend purchasing methods and types of contracts based on the end users needs.
Fire departments perform the majority of their purchasing as individual customers (Busch
and Grindle, 2009). The results of the researcher's survey agree with this statement, as shown in
Table 1. Forty states have the authority to participate in cooperative purchasing with local
government entities within their state (NASPO, 2009). Of the 83 responses to the researcher's
survey who participate in cooperative purchasing, the majority, 64%, are members of their state's
program, as shown in Table 2. 30 states may utilize GSA contracts for which they are eligible,
however only small percentages actually do. Seven states are prevented by statue from
purchasing through the GSA cooperative purchasing program (NASPO, 2007). As only 10% of
the fire departments surveyed purchase the majority of their equipment and services from GSA,
the findings of others support the results as shown in Table 1.
CRLA is required by law to use GSA contracted vendors, after checking some other
required sources for supplies and services. Although the federal agencies are specifically
mentioned as eligible users in the state and regional cooperatives used for the best value
evaluative process, the FAR places limitations on their use. The vendors holding state and
regional contracts fall into the final category of required sources, commercial sources (FAR
8.002, 2009). The FAR further limits CRLA's use of these vendors by requiring small business
status. In some cases, the contracts found during market research were for items that did not
meet current NFPA standards. For each item in the evaluative research that could be found on
Best Value Procurement
30
both GSA and another source, the best value purchasing method was GSA. There are two
aspects to the cost savings. First, GSA requires most favored customer pricing, which ensures
that the government does not pay more for an item than the vendor's best private sector customer.
Agencies are also required to request further price reductions from at least three of the vendors.
The second area of savings is the streamlined process. GSA has already determined that the
prices are fair and reasonable, so the administrative costs of issuing solicitations and reviewing
bids are substantially less (FAR 8.404, 2009). The process of soliciting bids may require
hundreds of labor hours costing thousands of dollars and months to process (Adler, 2007).
The ethical standards for public employees are critical to successful purchasing. There is
a responsibility to use public funds judiciously. The general rule is to avoid even the appearance
of a conflict of interest in government-vendor relationships. CRLA simply can't award most
contracts locally due to the FAR regulations concerning required sources (8.002, 2009). Local
businesses owned by your neighbors or other people from your own community are simply too
far down the list to reach. This can be a bitter pill in today's economy.
For CRLA, the results of the evaluation are encouraging. There is no indication that the
prices paid in the past for engine company equipment are higher than the prices from other
cooperative purchasing programs. The effort involved in market research provided a substantive
list of potential vendors to contact in the future.
Recommendations
At CRLA, the regulations governing purchasing are too complex and dynamic for anyone
outside of the contracting office at CRLA to master. However, a concise document that outlines
the procedures and provides links to additional information would be helpful for acquisition
planning and market research. Using the results of literature and regulations review, the
Best Value Procurement
31
researcher drafted a document for the engine company officers. A copy is located in Appendix
C. As Marinucci (2009) suggests, consulting with the contracting office early on in the process.
The administrative staff knows the rules and may have knowledge of past purchases.
Because funding is uncertain and may vary significantly from one year to the next,
acquisition planning is critical. The engine company at CRLA has been successful in securing
funds for equipment at the end of a fiscal year when some appropriations have not been
completely expended. In those cases, the key was that the researcher and other officers always
had a list of needs, with current pricing, part numbers, and vendor contact information. This
practice should be continued and expanded to include the contracting office in the planning
stage.
For departments that are interested in evaluating best value sources, the researcher has the
following suggestions. Contact the department's legal advisor or state procurement officials to
see if there are any statues or administrative rules that would interfere with using the GSA
cooperative purchasing programs. There are three programs that departments may be eligible
for. The first is the Schedule 70, information technology. The second is Schedule 84, which
includes fire and rescue PPE and equipment. The third program allows states and local
governments to purchase from all FSS in the event of a Presidential declared disaster. Interested
readers should browse the GSA Advantage website using the search term "fire" and limit the
results to "Coop".
In GSA, the US already has in place a centralized procurement program similar in
concept to the UK's Firebuy Ltd. Further research is needed to determine how to engage the
stakeholders, such as the IAFC, FEMSA, and NASPO. The opportunity to improve
interoperability and access national tier pricing is here, now.
Best Value Procurement
32
References
Act establishing Crater Lake National Park, 32 Stat. 202, 16 U.S.C. ß 121et seq. (1902, May 22).
Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://vlex.com/vid/sec-establishment-boundaries19238939
Adler, J. (2007, May 1). What is cooperative purchasing? Mass Transit Magazine. Retrieved
September 5, 2009, from http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/mass-transit/cooperative
purchasing/1$3368
American Bar Association. (2002). The 2002 model procurement code recommended regulations
for state and local governments. Chicago: Author. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from
http://www.abanet.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=model+procurement+code
Bennett, J. (2003). Warehouse savings. Fire Chief, 47(11), 114-116. Retrieved July 13, 2009
from http://firechief.com/management/firefighting_warehouse_savings/
Busch, B., & Grindle, C. (2009). Group purchasing: Does it work for the fire service?
Firehouse, 34(2), 86-87.
Crull, A., & Hooker, D. (2007, August 1). Clothing and gear: body, vehicle armor, fire,
chem/bio (BCC Research Rep. No. AVMO21F). Abstract retrieved December 16, 2009,
from http://www.bccresearch.com/report/AVM021F.html
Defense Acquisition University. (2006). Con 110 mission support planning course guide. Fort
Belvoir, VA: Author. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from https://learn.da/u.mill/html/
clc/clc.jsp?CertCourses=Con+110
Best Value Procurement
33
Defense Acquisition University. (2009). Program managers tool kit (15th ed.). Washington, DC:
U.S. Superintendent of Documents. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from
http://www.dau.mil/pubs/isc/toolkit.asp.
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2009). National procurement strategy for
the fire and rescue service in England 2009-12. London: Author. Retrieved July 13,
2009, from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/frsprocurement2009?
view=Standard
Department of the Interior. (2008, November 24). Integrated charge card program policy
manual. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.doi.gov/pam/chargecard/
Nov%2024%202008%20interim%20charge%20card%20manual.pdf
Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. ß 1535. (2008). Retrieved October 14, 2009, from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1535.html
Federal Acquisition Regulations, Title 48, Chapter 1 (2009).
General Services Administration. (2009, September 17). GSA directive adm 4800.2f: Eligibility
to use GSA sources of supply and services. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from
www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=349221
Geneva Association. (2009). World fire statistics. In Geneva Association Information Newsletter
(Vol. 25). London: The International Association for the Study of Ins. Retrieved
December 16, 2009, from www.genevaassociation.org/Affiliated_Organizations/
WFSC.aspx
Government Accounting Office. (2000, July19). Park service agency is not meeting its
structural fire safety responsibilities. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.gao.gov/
archive/2000/rc00253t.pdf
Best Value Procurement
34
Harmon, R. (2002). Crater lake national park: A history. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University Press.
HYT Corporation. (2007). National park service structural fire response analysis: Crater lake
national park. Concord, CA: Author.
International Association of Fire Chiefs & National Fire Protection Association (2010). Fire
officer: principles and practice (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Karter, M. J., & Stein, G. P. (2009). U.S. fire department profile through 2008. Quincy: National
Fire Protection Association. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from www.nfpa.org/catalog/
services/customer/downloadmemberonlypdf.asp?pdfname=OS. FDProfile.pdf&src=nfpa
Local Preparedness Acquisition Act, 40 U.S.C. ß 502(c). (2008). Retrieved September 11, 2009,
from http://npl.ly.gov.tw/pdf/6465.pdf
Marinucci, R. A. (2009). Fire chiefs guide to administration and management. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
National Association of State Procurement Officials. (2009). 2009 Survey of state government
purchasing practices: Executive summary. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from
http://www.naspo.org/documents/2009_Survey_of_State_Government_Procurement_Exe
c_Summary.pdf
National Fire Academy. (2005). Executive leadership student manual (5th ed.). Emmitsburg,
MD: Federal Emergency Management Administration.
National Fire Academy. (2009). Executive development applied research self-study course guide
(Q123). Emmitsburg, MD: Author.
National Fire Protection Association. (2007). Standard on protective ensembles for structural
fire fighting and proximity fire fighting (NFPA 1971). Quincy, MA: Author.
Best Value Procurement
35
National Fire Protection Association. (2008). Standard on selection, care, and maintenance of
open-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) (NFPA 1852). Quincy, MA:
Author.
National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. (2009). NIGP Online Dictionary of Procurement
Terms. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2009, from
http://www.nigp.org/eweb/docs/education/OnlineDict/DictP.htm
National Park Service. (2004). Structural fire management (Reference Manual – 58).
Washington DC: Author
National Park Service. (2006). Management Policies. Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Park Service. (2007). 2007 Structural fire fact sheet. Boise, ID: Author. Retrieved
December 16, 2009, from
www.nps.gov/Fire/download/uti_abo_structuralfire2007fact.pdf
National Park Service. (2009, July 1). 2009 Structural fire fact sheet. Boise, ID: Author.
Retrieved September 11, 2009, from
www.nps.gov/Fire/download/uti_abo_structuralfire2009factsheet.pdf
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2009). Guide to jurisdiction in OSHA region
10. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from http://www.orosha.org/pdf/ enforcement/
jurisdiction.pdf.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2010). Personal Protective Equipment,
29CFR1910.132. Retrieved January 1, 2010, from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/
cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title29/29cfr1910_main_02.tpl
Best Value Procurement
36
Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. ß 1. (1916). Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://frwebgate.access.
gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc &docid=Cite:+16USC1
Oregon Department of Administrative Services. (2005). Cooperative procurement participation
agreement. In Oregon cooperative procurement program (ORCPP). Salem, OR: State of
Oregon. Retrieved December 5, 2009, from http://procurement.oregon.gov
Procurement made simple HGACBuy. (2009, April 9). Helping governments across the country
buy. Retrieved December 5, 2009, from http://www.hgacbuy.org/newsletter April%2
009.html
Smeby, L. C. (2006). Fire and emergency services administration: Management and leadership
practices. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Western States Contracting Alliance. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2009, from http://www.
aboutwsca.org/content.cfm/id/WSCA?CFID=493838464&CFTOKEN=90391553
Wilmoth, J. (2009, October 22). Money (or lack thereof) changes everything. Retrieved October
22, 2009, from http://blog.firechief.com/mutual_aid/2009/10/22/money-or-lack-therofchanges-everything/
Best Value Procurement
Appendix A
Survey to Fire Departments
1. In what state is your department located?
State:
2. How would you describe your department?
Department of municipal government (city, town etc.)
County Fire Department
Federal or DOD
Fire Protection District
Corporate (Rural/Metro etc.)
Other (please specify)
3. In your organization, who is responsible for purchasing equipment and services?
Fire Chief
Other Officer
Other Administrative Staff
Purchasing Agent
Other (please specify)
4. Where do you purchase the majority of your equipment?
Local distributors
Directly from manufacturers
Federal Supply Schedules (GSA)
Cooperative Purchasing Program
Other (please specify)
5. Is your department of a cooperative purchasing group? Check all that apply.
National Cooperative Purchasing Group
State Cooperative Purchasing Group
Regional Cooperative Purchasing Group
Local Cooperative Purchasing Group
No
6. Is your department's purchasing program successful in getting the best available prices?
Yes - best prices
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
37
Best Value Procurement
38
Appendix B
Results of Fire Department Survey
1. In what state is your department located?
AK
AL
AZ
CA
CO
CT
FL
GA
IA
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
MI
MO
MS
1
2
8
9
6
2
4
1
2
5
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
4
1
NC
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
OH
OR
PA
SC
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WY
Other
7
1
1
1
1
1
6
30
2
1
2
8
2
3
1
8
3
1
2
The researcher sent out 556 e-mail messages with links to the survey. The 140 survey responses
represented 37 states and two others (non specified).
2. How would you describe your department?
Response
Percent
Department of municipal govt. (city, town etc.)
62.14%
County Fire Department
4.29%
Fire Protection District
30.00%
Federal or DOD
0.71%
Corporate (Rural/Metro etc.)
0.71%
Other - Multi-Agency
1.42%
Other - Tribal
0.7%
Totals
100%
The majority of department responses represented municipalities.
Answer Options
Response
Count
87
6
42
1
1
2
1
140
Best Value Procurement
39
3. In your organization, who is responsible for purchasing equipment and services?
Answer Options
Fire Chief
Other Officer
Purchasing Agent
Other Administrative Staff
Other (please specify)
Multiple responses
Totals
Response
Percent
17.14%
30.71%
7.86%
12.14%
10%
22.14%
100%
Response
Count
24
43
11
17
14
31
140
Fire Officers represented the majority of personnel responsible for purchasing within the
responding departments. Purchasing agents constituted less than 8%.
4. Where do you purchase the majority of your equipment?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Local distributors
52.86%
74
Directly from manufacturers
12.14%
17
Federal Supply Schedules (GSA)
.71%
1
Cooperative Purchasing Program
3.57%
5
Other
4.29%
6
Multiple answers
26.43%
37
Totals
100%
140
Over half of responding departments purchase the majority of materials from local distributors.
Answer Options
5. Is your department part of a cooperative purchasing group?
Answer Options (check all that apply)
National Cooperative Purchasing Group
Regional Cooperative Purchasing Group
State Cooperative Purchasing Group
Local Cooperative Purchasing Group
No
Multiple answers
Skipped question
Totals
Response
Percent
1.43%
11.43%
19.29%
7.86%
40.00%
18.57%
1.43%
100%
Response
Count
2
16
27
11
56
26
2
140
Only about 60% of the departments responding participate in cooperative purchasing groups.
Best Value Procurement
6. Is your department's purchasing program successful in getting the best available prices?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes - best prices - Strongly Disagree
2.14%
3
Yes - best prices - Disagree
5.71%
8
Yes - best prices - Neither
6.43%
9
Yes - best prices - Agree
67.14%
94
Yes - best prices - Strongly Agree
17.14%
24
Skipped question
1.43%
2
100.00%
140
Most departments felt they secured the best available prices for purchases.
Answer Options
40
Best Value Procurement
41
Appendix C
Purchasing Guidelines for the Crater Lake Engine Company
I. Frequently Asked Questions
1. What attachments are required with my Purchase Request?
Purchases/Contracts over $25,000
Statement of Work (SOW) (Services) or Specifications (Supplies)
Independent Government Estimate
Technical Evaluation Criteria (work with your assigned Contracting Officer if you need
help)
Fund Approved Purchase Request (PR) with Individual Acquisition Plan (IAP) number in
the comment block
Purchases under $25,000
Statement of Work (SOW) (Services) or Specifications (Supplies)
Independent Government Estimate
Fund Approved PR
2. Why do we have to award this contract to a small business?
Because it's the law. FAR Subpart 19.5 says "Each acquisition of supplies or services that has
an anticipated dollar value exceeding $3,000…is automatically reserved exclusively for small
business concerns and shall be set aside for small business…"
II. Required Sources - FAR -- Part 8 Required Sources of Supplies and Services
8.002 Priorities for use of Government supply sources.
(a) Except as required by 8.003, or as otherwise provided by law, agencies shall satisfy
requirements for supplies and services from or through the sources and publications listed below
in descending order of priority—
(1) Supplies.
Best Value Procurement
42
(i) Agency inventories;
http://165.83.197.120/new_PM_website/listing/view_excess_property_listing.cfm
(ii) Excess from other agencies (see Subpart 8.1); https://gsaxcess.gov
 It's always worth a few minutes to check the excess property websites. Who knows?
Maybe a FD is being closed.
(iii) Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (see Subpart 8.6);
http://www.unicor.gov/prodservices/prod_dir_schedule/?navlocation=Schedule
 When you are searching GSA Advantage, at the Limit To drop down menu, select Unicor
Mandatory Items
(iv) Supplies which are on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for
Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see Subpart 8.7);
http://www.abilityone.gov/proc_list.html
 Again, select NIB/NISH/AbilityOne at the Limit To dropdown menu
(v) Wholesale supply sources, such as stock programs of the General Services
Administration (GSA) (see 41 CFR 101-26.3), the Defense Logistics Agency (see
41 CFR 101-26.6), the Department of Veterans Affairs (see 41 CFR 101-26.704), and
military inventory control points;
https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/advgsa/advantage/main/start_page.do https://dodemall.dla.mil/acct/
 Select GSA Global Supply at the Limit To dropdown menu
(vi) Mandatory Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4);
http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/home.do;jsessionid=190EE364CA2C82CCBE
7F8B46103E3D83.node2
(vii) Optional use Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4);
http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/home.do;jsessionid=190EE364CA2C82CCBE
7F8B46103E3D83.node2
Best Value Procurement
43
and
(viii) Commercial sources (including educational and nonprofit institutions).

(2) Services.
(i) Services which are on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for
Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see Subpart 8.7);
http://www.abilityone.gov/proc_list.html
(ii) Mandatory Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4);
http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/home.do;jsessionid=190EE364CA2C82CCBE7
F8B46103E3D83.node2
(iii) Optional use Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4);
http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/home.do;jsessionid=190EE364CA2C82CCBE7
F8B46103E3D83.node2 and
(iv) Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (see Subpart 8.6)
http://www.unicor.gov/prodservices/prod_dir_schedule/?navlocation=Schedule, or
commercial sources (including educational and nonprofit institutions).
(b) Sources other than those listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as prescribed
in 41 CFR 101-26.301 and in an unusual and compelling urgency as prescribed in 6.302-2 and in
41 CFR 101-25.101-5.
(c) The statutory obligation for Government agencies to satisfy their requirements for supplies
or services available from the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled also applies when contractors purchase the supplies or services for Government use.
III. Market Research
Collecting and analyzing information about capabilities within the market to satisfy agency
needs. (FAR 2.101(b))
The purchaser should use the results of market research to:
•
Determine if GSA Schedule sources are capable of satisfying the activity's requirements;
•
Determine if commercial sources are capable of satisfying the activity's requirements;
Best Value Procurement
•
44
Determine the practices of firms engaged in producing, distributing, and supporting
commercial items, such as terms for warranties, buyer financing, maintenance,
packaging, and marking;
IV. The Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
The funding estimate is typically referred to as the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).
The complexity of the IGE depends on the procurement with nothing more than funding being
provided in many cases. The estimate for a commercially available supply item may be based on
a catalog price.
VI. Requirements Documents - Services
Statements of Work (SOWs) All Statements of Work shall include the work to be performed;
location of work; period of performance; deliverable schedule; applicable performance
standards; and any special requirements (e.g., security clearances, travel, and special
knowledge). To the maximum extent practicable, agency requirements shall be performancebased statements. The PBSOW approach focuses on performance outcomes or results, and not
methods of performance or processes.
VII. Required Documents – Supplies
The following FAR requirement concerning general descriptions is extremely important. If you
want to specify a brand name or equal, do not use a local vendor's part numbers. Instead, use
the manufacturer's part numbers, followed by a detailed description.
11.104 Use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions.
(a) While the use of performance specifications is preferred to encourage offerors to propose
innovative solutions, the use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions may be advantageous
under certain circumstances.
(b) Brand name or equal purchase descriptions must include, in addition to the brand name, a
general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the
brand name item that an "equal" item must meet to be acceptable for award. Use brand name or
equal descriptions when the salient characteristics are firm requirements.
11.105 Items peculiar to one manufacturer.
Best Value Procurement
45
Agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a particular brand name, product, or
a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a
product manufactured by another company, unless—
(a)(1) The particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's
requirements, and market research indicates other companies' similar products, or products
lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs;
(2)(i) The authority to contract without providing for full and open competition is
supported by the required justifications and approvals (see 6.302-1);