CGCS review finds strengths in ASD procurement, recommends P‑card expansion and tech, training changes

A team from the Council of the Great City Schools presented a management review of the Anchorage School District’s purchasing and warehouse functions during the governance committee meeting on March 27, recommending a set of operational changes designed to lower processing costs and speed procurement.

The study, presented by Ray Hart of the Council of the Great City Schools, praised ASD staff for responsiveness and noted the district earned more than $2,000,000 in P‑card rebates since the 2016–17 school year. “We share these, in an effort to help the district improve, and get better, and that is our our focus,” Hart said. The team recommended expanding P‑card use for low‑value purchases, improving software and contract repositories, and creating performance dashboards to monitor procurement key performance indicators.

The nut graf: The review identifies specific, implementable steps the district could take to reduce procurement costs and processing time, improve consistency for principals and suppliers, and strengthen ethical/conflict‑of‑interest compliance. Board members said they will schedule follow‑up work to examine the report in more depth.

Most important findings and recommendations

- Cost and time: The CGCS team reported ASD’s procurement cost per $100,000 spent at about $833, compared with the CGCS median near $281, and purchase‑order processing times averaging about 165 days versus a national median of about 87 days. The consultants noted higher processing time tends to raise costs.

- P‑card opportunity: The review found roughly 6,675 purchase orders could have been processed via P‑card and estimated transition of eligible purchases could save the district about $500,000 in processing costs. Hart told the committee that maximizing P‑card use for transactions under the district $2,500 threshold would both increase rebate revenue and reduce purchase‑order costs.

- Staffing, structure and succession: Reviewers urged a modest restructuring to add dedicated continuous‑improvement, training and vendor‑management roles and recommended reclassifying supervisors into a separate bargaining unit to avoid supervisory/subordinate conflicts in a single unit.

- Technology and contract visibility: The report recommended a centralized contract repository and evaluating e‑procurement supplier‑marketplace systems integrated with ASD’s ERP to make routine purchases easier and improve vendor competition.

- Customer service and equity: Principals rated procurement about 6.5 out of 10 on average and reported inconsistent responses, missed the stated 48‑hour response window at times, and difficulties acquiring specialized commodities for students with special needs. The review recommended customer surveys, clearer guidance for principals and a formal supplier‑diversity outreach program.

Questions and next steps

Board member Higgins asked whether the CGCS comparisons were adjusted for Alaska cost‑of‑living differences. Hart replied, “Yes. All of our KPIs are adjusted for cost of living.” The committee agreed the report warrants a focused follow‑up meeting and possibly an ad hoc task force to dig into finance and implementation details. Hart offered CGCS support identifying outside expertise for a task force.

The report includes additional, itemized operational recommendations (warehouse, purchasing policies, and P‑card practice) the administration and governance committee said they will review in a dedicated session.

Ending

Committee members agreed to schedule an additional governance meeting to pursue the report’s recommendations and next steps. The CGCS team left detailed written findings and said it is available to help set up dashboards and vendor‑marketplace options.