Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cooperative Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff says cooperative agreements are used sparingly; offers five options to optimize co‑ops
Summary
Purchasing staff said San Diego County uses cooperative contracts when speed and standardization matter—214 of 2,600 active contracts and roughly $47 million in FY24‑26 spending—then outlined five options to optimize co‑op use without sidelining local vendors.
County procurement officials told the Board of Supervisors' ad hoc subcommittee that cooperative agreements (co‑ops) can speed access to competitively procured pricing but come with tradeoffs for customization and small/local participation. "A co‑op is not a shortcut," Assistant Director Brenda Miller said. "It's a way for us to leverage and take advantage of an already competitively procured contract."
Miller provided portfolio statistics and use cases: "We have 214 co‑op contracts right now out of our 2,600 active contracts, which is about 8.2% of our total contracts," and she said that for fiscal year 2024–26 co‑op spending is about $47 million of a roughly $2.3 billion portfolio (a little under 2% of total spend). She cited common co‑op uses—software licenses, wireless services, maintenance and repair materials, medical supplies, and office supplies (Staples was given as an example)—and explained why co‑ops can be cost‑efficient (aggregate buying power, rebates and incentives) and administratively lighter than running a new county solicitation.
Miller also flagged tradeoffs: co‑ops may not fully match county‑specific needs, the county has less control over how the lead solicitation was structured, and some co‑ops can limit small/local participation. To address those tradeoffs, staff offered five concrete options the committee could pursue: (1) targeted co‑op contract reviews of highest spend categories, (2) countywide standardization of equipment and services, (3) optimization and demand management to eliminate redundancy, (4) county‑led solicitations where local needs justify them, and (5) hybrid approaches combining co‑op benchmarks with smaller county solicitations to open opportunities for small/local firms.
Supervisors pressed staff for examples and service‑level assurances; Miller pointed to wireless carriers and copier services as cases where co‑ops deliver scale, and said the county ensures service components meet operational needs. Staff agreed to produce a memo within 30 days summarizing recommended procurement pathways for the committee's consideration.
The committee did not vote on new policy; staff left supervisors with options to pursue and a commitment to return with further analysis.
