Staff recommends retaining Broomfield's current procurement practices; values‑based changes would need a costly disparity study

Deputy Director of Finance David Acevedo Yates and procurement staff briefed council on Broomfield’s procurement practices and whether the city should move to a values‑based or preference model that prioritizes categories such as women‑owned, minority‑owned, veteran‑owned, locally based firms, sustainability practices or prevailing (living) wage.

Staff said Broomfield currently uses two principal solicitation methods depending on estimated cost: documented quotes for procurements below $50,000 and requests for proposals (RFPs) for more complex or higher‑cost work. The team said the city follows established federal and national procurement guidance when appropriate (the Federal Acquisition Regulation was cited) and that RFP processes already allow staff to compare cost and non‑cost criteria (technical approach, experience, schedule, etc.) to identify best value.

Acevedo Yates told council, “staff does not recommend a values based procurement approach to be incorporated in Broomfield” at this time and explained why: values‑based preferences generally require a disparity study (a third‑party analysis) to establish a legal foundation for preferential treatment and to withstand vendor challenges; such studies are costly (staff cited about $500,000 for Aurora and about $634,000 jointly paid by Boulder jurisdictions as recent examples) and are typically renewed every five years. He added that preference programs add administrative burdens — monitoring, auditing and enforcement — and the city currently lacks the staff capacity to perform the compliance work. The city’s procurement presentation noted Denver uses defined procurement pools and periodic audits to enforce certain preference programs; those approaches require dedicated staff resources and can lengthen solicitation timelines.

Procurement staff described operational examples: under existing practice the city obtains multiple quotes for lower‑cost procurements (custodial and window washing were cited) and runs RFPs for projects where technical approach and non‑cost factors matter. Staff also described the tradeoffs of limited competitive pools: if a solicitation first limited to certified suppliers fails to draw bids, organizations such as Denver sometimes have to re‑post the solicitation to open competition, which delays projects.

Council discussion mixed values and practicality. Councilmember Marsh Holshon argued for prioritizing livable wage and sustainability criteria in procurement because the city already sets its own employee pay and sustainability goals. Several other members expressed concern about the upfront cost of a disparity study, the staff and enforcement burden and the timing relative to current budget and staffing constraints; several said they would prefer to delay any change and use existing procurement scoring and outreach to pursue sustainability goals in a pragmatic way. No formal action was taken at the study session.

Staff requested council direction whether to pursue a disparity study and values‑based procurement or to continue to refine the city’s existing best‑value procurement processes, and recommended maintaining current practices unless council directs a funded next step (disparity study and staffing).