Going Back to School
From the perspective of a four decade career within the distribution channel of an industry that provided cafeteria and janitorial supplies and services to many school systems across several regions, one aspect that continues to challenge all parties is the almost haphazard methodology applied to procuring these products and services in an effective, efficient manner. Confusion still reigns with many RFQs and bids presented to suppliers creating situations where the sellers aren’t quite sure what is being asked for and the sellers end up receiving an item that isn’t the best option for their need. And yet, with each new bid, regardless if they bid annually or award a multi-year bid term, the confusion surrounding the actual products and services being requested continues.
It is easy to understand the reasons behind the continued practice of releasing flawed RFQs and bids. There just aren’t enough resources within many school systems to allow for a comprehensive overhaul of the currently used RFQ/bid documents, so the bidding entities feel compelled to recycle the prior bid document. This often negates any new innovations by manufacturers and suppliers that might present a more affordable or a better value proposition product for the school’s use. This also creates some confusion when the products being asked for no longer exist in the specified form. Consider how innovations in the production of poly can liners (trash bags that line waste receptacles), the innovations of dispensing towels and bath tissue, the innovations in soap dispensing systems (both hand soaps and cleaning agents). These have resulted in the “retirement” of many legacy products, yet the items continue to appear on various bids, often resulting in a bidder (or bidders) ignoring the old specification and submitting the newer version. Unfortunately, that may make evaluation of the bid by those requesting the bid pricing (e.g the school system) more difficult when comparing the new product against those who submit bid prices for products that are true to the bid specifications, even if means seeking custom manufactured (and significantly more expensive, usually) products.
The supplier industry has gone through some difficult supply chain challenges over the last three years. In many instances, where suppliers have won bids for specific products, the supply chain disruption has required the supplier to offer an alternative product. This has added to the continued confusion and also put suppliers at greater risk for negative profit results. Where the bid product supplier may have had a support price from a manufacturer of the original item, the alternative product may have come from a different manufacturer who was unwilling to offer a deviated price to the supplier.
In a “perfect world” the bidding entity (e.g. the school system) and the suppliers (and manufacturers) would be provided the following:
Clearly written descriptions employing accurate and appropriate specifications, units of measure, forecast usage quantities or contract service terms, designated brands (if applicable)
Alternate products, or a mechanism to efficiently evaluated “like items” or “like services” prior to the award to ensure all bidders have access in a supply chain disrupted world
Clear delivery expectations (e.g. school door or warehouse, in house instruction vs online delivery of services)
In order for these informational elements to be provided however, the first step should be a collaborative evaluation of the existing bid/RFQ to ensure that the products and services outlined on the current bid are the most current iterations of the products and services. In many cases new technologies, or legislative mandates may have altered the viability of the currently provided products. A few years ago, extruded polystyrene foam products (EPS, XPS) were ubiquitous on many cafeteria supply bids. Today in many states, these products are banned for use. Yet many bids continue to reference these or other banned products on the bids putting suppliers in an uncomfortable position. If they bid the requested product and the school is cited by a government agency for use, there may be a shared responsibility.
That is why there should be a pre-bid conference with opportunities for suppliers to clarify products and services to be placed on the bid and to provide their best professional input as to the viability and availability of such items. This type of informational exchange should assure the schools that are purchasing these products and services are getting exactly what they expect and the suppliers are provided assurances that they are providing the correct product and service. This will heighten the efficiency of the procurement process and should ensure the most competitive pricing offered, saving the school money and resources, as well as providing a clear pathway to profitability and service profile to the suppliers.
Entrepreneurial ethics should dictate that when considering engaging in the bid process with public entities that provide services to the community, in this case, education, should endeavor to balance the goals of profitability with a cooperative spirit in providing the best products and services at affordable prices. Most often the schools are working with a fixed budget and no opportunity to use these products and services as a profit center. The long view should be that aiding schools and education today will result in successful entrepreneurs and professionals and community oriented citizens in the future.
