Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press Purchasing on use of county, state and regional co‑ops for contracts
Summary
A prolonged exchange during the Hudson County caucus examined when the county uses State or county cooperative purchasing contracts versus running local bids. Purchasing told commissioners departments request products and Purchasing checks co‑ops and State contracts; commissioners asked for examples comparing convenience versus price.
A lengthy exchange at the March 25 caucus focused on Hudson County’s purchasing practices and use of cooperative contracts. Commissioner William O'Dea pressed Purchasing and administration officials for examples showing when the county accepts the convenience of piggybacking on cooperative purchasing agreements versus going to a competitive local bid.
Purchasing representative Harold Shower told the Board that departments are the technical experts who specify desired parts or services; Purchasing then checks State contracts and the county’s membership in regional cooperatives (for example, Bergen, Union and Middlesex cooperatives) to see whether a vendor and price are available. Shower said not every vendor appears in every co‑op and that the county will request local vendors through the Office of Business Opportunity when practicable.
The discussion covered several procurement details: whether Purchasing routinely checks all available co‑ops for the same product, whether the county compares prices across co‑ops or with State contracts, and which cooperative memberships Hudson County holds. Shower said the county checks the State contract first in many cases, and that co‑ops are used to avoid repeated bidding for commonly purchased goods; he also committed to provide examples where staff weighed “convenience versus price.”
Commissioner Albert Cifelli and others emphasized that purchasing via co‑ops creates a “safe harbor” under bidding statutes but does not guarantee the lowest available market price; Commissioner O'Dea asked for two or three recent examples in which Purchasing explicitly compared co‑op convenience to standalone bidding and opted one way or the other. Purchasing agreed to provide the requested examples.
The Board asked Purchasing to provide a memo with concrete examples and a short justification for using or not using local bids; commissioners said they want documentation that shows when co‑ops saved time without sacrificing price, and when competitive bids were preferable.
