Approval of the Minutes of the October 25, 2013 Meeting
Chairman Loftus called for a motion to approve minutes from October 25, 2013 meeting.
Motion to Approve: Member Dailey
Second: Member Bryson
Tally of Votes: Members unanimously approved the October 23, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Chairman Loftus explained that there is a column added on the vote sheet that is titled request letter reviewed. The letters the agencies send to us requesting State Use approval with the cost analysis is now being sent to the committee members to read. This column should be initialed to show that they were indeed reviewed by each committee member. There was discussion and it was agreed that the column should be titled “Cost Benefit Review”.
Member Bryson said that longevity sometimes creates problems in that a lot of what we are doing here appears to show that we have less trust in the staff. I tend to trust the staff and all this information makes it uncomfortable. It has never been like this for 30 years.
Chairman Loftus said that we are trying to define the role of the committee to the letter of the law.
Chairman Loftus introduced Matt Brown, Chief Procurement Officer for General Services to speak to the committee.
Chief Procurement Officer Matt Brown said he is one of four Chief Procurement officers in the State. Ben Bagby is also present and he is CPO for Higher Education. My purpose of being here today is to officially kick off our relationship for establishing preferences that the state use committee would like to have formally established for each state use organization to provide. What I mean by that the requirements of the procurement code mandates that the chief procurement officer issue the listing of those services that the state use committee can help prescribe for the benefit of the state of Illinois and benefit the businesses and organizations served by state uses endeavor. Until now we haven't had that list officially established or visited at all.
We started list by what state use vendors do currently and try and expand that list with as many categories as possible for the mutual benefit to the state of Illinois and those served by the program. I wanted to take the opportunity in person to make sure I am able to hear all and understand what you feel is important and what sort of things you think the CPO should be concerned about in addressing this list. I am not the expert in serving State Use, you folks are. It is only appropriate that I hear from you so I understand first hand. I would also like to respond to comments made earlier by Dr. Bryson about how the process is changing and there is a question of trust. When I last spoke to the State Use Committee there was a similar conversation. I would like to reiterate that none of the changes that I think are on the horizon are about trust. It is simply about how do we bring about the changes and comply with the laws of the land as they are written today. To provide all the documents to represent the full legitimatize of why the State Use Committee exists and why you serve in the capacity you serve. I will continue to be available to this group whether in the meeting or outside of the meeting, I am available to answer any questions you have or further talk about those things the CPO can do or is responsible for in helping this mission.
Question: Member McCrimon said she is looking at the commodities and services list of October 2013. Part of the intent of reviewing the products and services is to enter a dialog about new opportunities. Technology and other types of changes are taking place.
Chief Procurement Officer Matt Brown said he appreciates hearing that comment and I believe that is part of the mission of the organization as well as an obligation that the CPO's office must adhere to. Make sure that this effort in the inclusion of any new opportunities and we can expand a far and wide that would be valuable to the customer base of state agencies.
Chairman Loftus said that this list provided today is just a starting point to be expanded upon.
Member Bryson said it is his understanding that the process is for the workshop to inform us of what they can do. It seems unfair to rely entirely on the workshops to tell us what they currently are doing. My question is what process is being done to get the two parties working together to expand on this list.
Chairman Loftus: That is a good question. Joe, Ben and the CPO's office. We met before to discuss the list with Joe Kim and Ben Bagby and as I said before this is just a start.
Member Bryson: There is no way a workshop could understand what the needs are for higher education. It seems that you should get together and identify opportunities and then inform the workshops. The issue is what are the needs for higher education? I think that would be a start.
Chief Procurement Officer for Higher Education Ben Bagby: Looking at this list it comes to mind that most of the things on this list are just general things that most universities are buying. It will be announced that a person has been appointed to represent all the universities have a meeting with the University purchasing directors on December 3rd and preferences is one of the agenda items.
Member Dailey excused himself for another meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Member Strick: How are competing preferences handled by the four separate CPO's?
Chief Procurement Officer Matt Brown: I want to address the issue of the four separate CPO's. Having four lists is not a good idea. We have a number of circumstances arise where four CPO's need to coordinate so uniformity can benefit the consumer. Our intention of going forward with a list is most likely going to be a universal list that all four CPO's can subscribe to.
What happens if there are competing preferences among agencies? In past years, some of those conflicts have been avoided because programs seem to remain neutral and stay away from other preference programs. I don't believe that the last couple of years and going forward
Member McCrimon: I think one of the important things Matt shared is the sequence. Where does State Use fit into the sequence of when State Use fits into the process? What I heard today is that State Use can be put into place prior to formal procurement. That's what I heard.
Chairman Loftus: We gave the committee a draft list of Duties and Powers and incorporated some comments that were provided by the working group of the subcommittee. We want the State Use committee to review and give feedback before we start writing our internal procedures.
Chairman Loftus: The CPO's have recommended that all contracts over the small purchase threshold be posted for transparency purposes.
Chief Procurement Officer Matt Brown: This type of transparency is of benefit to advertise the program and it acts as a message board. This is a great way to notify the world that this is the outcome.
Member McCrimon: We need to update the five year plan and include it in the annual report.
Future Meeting Dates
Chairman Loftus: Call for motion to approve future meeting dates for:
December 4, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
April 9, 2014
July 9, 2014
October 8, 2014
Motion to Approve Meeting Dates: Member Gloede
Second: Member Strick
Tally of Votes: Members unanimously approve the motion to approve next meeting dates.
December 4, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
April 9, 2014
July 9, 2014
October 8, 2014
Chairman Loftus announced that the motion passed.
From now on we will add tentative contracts to the agenda to cover the 48 hour requirements of the open meetings act.
Chairman Loftus introduced Kacy Bassett who is the new DHS representative on the Committee now.