1. State of Oregon Procurement Improvement Project

2. AGENDA  Overview of the Improving Government Project  Debbie Dennis; State Procurement Services Manager  Robert Underwood; Project Manager  Executive Level Support – what that means  Debbie Dennis, Mark Williams  Q&A about overview  Deep Dive into Templates  Toby Giddings, Bob Baxter, Shannon Rand, Linda Lichty; Templates Project Team Members  Q&A about templates Procurement Improvement Project

3.  Nationally recognized as a leader in best practice  Dedicated, talented professionals across the state doing great work every day  The best of both worlds:  Decentralized structure allows flexibility and autonomy for agencies  DAS available to provide central services when needed, such as for statewide price agreements Procurement in Oregon

4. The Challenges

5.  Many different rules, practices, and procedures  Inconsistent approaches  Lack of uniformity  Confusion for vendors  Duplication of efforts across agencies  Not always easy way to share resources and best practices across agencies  Lengthy, sometimes inefficient processes The Challenges

6. The Goal

7. Video

8.  Build off the great work agencies have already done to improve the procurement process  Maintain the benefits of our decentralized structure while increasing the efficiency of the process to save the state time and money  Make life easier for procurement staff by providing user- friendly tools and guidelines and facilitating cooperation and resource sharing between agencies  Encourage improvement and innovation The Goal

9.  Oregon’s Enterprise Leadership Team (ELT) and its Improving Government Steering Team (IGST) are charged with transforming state government  Hackett Group study revealed opportunities for improvement in procurement  ELT and IGST hired a consultant, Ikaso, to review procurement practices  Ikaso worked with procurement staff and identified 22 recommendations for improvements Project Background

10. 1.Implement comprehensive templates, forms, and checklists 2.Implement internal and supplier policy and procedure manuals 3.Use standard contract templates 4.Allow agencies to fund embedded DOJ resource 5.Change criteria for legal sufficiency review 6.Delegate price agreement authority to expert agencies 7.Embed DAS procurement resources 8.Streamline procurement rules 9.Align small procurement amendment value 10.Implement regular procurement planning meetings 11.Involve appropriate agency SMEs when drafting procurements Ikaso’s Recommendations

11. 12.Include risk experts on procurement teams 13.Facilitate business decisions on risk matters 14.Incorporate supplier outreach into solicitation process 15.Conduct multiple and successive rounds of bidding 16.Utilize short list or “competitive range” 17.Utilize negotiations, target pricing, and BAFOs 18.Prioritize contract management across enterprise 19.Conduct Oregon-specific benchmarking before adopting cooperative procurements 20.Remove a key restriction on cooperative procurements 21.Review performance metrics 22.Implement statewide data system with item level detail Ikaso’s Recommendations

12.  Project Sponsors:  Margaret Van Vliet, Director, Oregon Housing and Community Services, Improving Government  George Naughton, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Administrative Services  Sarah Jo Chaplen, Deputy Director, Department of Administrative Services  Mark Williams, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice Executive Support

13. Questions?

14.  Enterprise Standard Templates, Forms, and Checklists  Enterprise Risk Alignment  Multi-Agency Price Agreements Current Projects Procurement Manual ELT and IGST, with feedback from procurement staff, prioritized and bundled the recommendations into several specific projects:

15.  The Opportunity :  Permissive agreements allow agencies to piggyback off each other’s procurements, saving process time for staff  Reduces duplicative efforts across agencies  Increases cooperative opportunities between agencies and more of an enterprise view of procurement Multi-Agency Price Agreements

16.  Progress:  Identified possible pilot procurements for piggybacking  Considered process improvement for permissive cooperative procurements  Conducted a pilot  Next Steps:  Document lessons learned  Create a report with recommendations for the IGST Multi-Agency Price Agreements

17. Risk Alignment Video

18.  The Benefits:  Provides clear, concise guidelines about risk assessment and how and when to access experts  Helps agencies and staff strike the right balance between protecting the state and being business friendly  Ensures the amount of review needed for a procurement matches its actual level of risk Risk Alignment

19.  Progress:  Surveyed users to find out what methods they use to assess risk  Identified gaps in current practices for assessing risk  Begun to create risk assessment guidelines for agencies & users  Begun to look at ways to better align legal sufficiency review with actual level of risk  Next Steps:  Develop guidelines for agencies and users on how to identify, assess, and address procurement-related risk and make the most of expert resources like DOJ and DAS Risk  Help DAS Risk develop a process for creating user-friendly tools that incorporate user feedback Risk Alignment

20.  The Benefits:  Quicker turnaround times since the documents have already been vetted by DOJ and other experts  Higher quality end products  Consistency for users and vendors  Everyone using the most up-to-date language  Less training needed when moving from agency to agency Templates

21.  Progress:  Surveyed users to find out what templates they need  Put together work teams to develop the first set: RFP, IT Terms & Conditions, IAA, IGA, Evaluation Templates, and Addenda  Have collected feedback from DPOs, CPOs, and their staff  Next Steps:  Release first templates, probably in February, along with user training  Phase 2 templates have been identified and will begin drafting in February (Informal RFP, Service/Client Service Template) Templates

22.  Templates Project Team Members  Toby Giddings, Bob Baxter, Shannon Rand, Linda Lichty;  Template development process  Team member contributions  RFP Template training Templates team

23. Questions?

24.  Robert Underwood, Project Manager, Department of Administrative Services  Robert.underwood@state.or.us Robert.underwood@state.or.us  (503) 378-4037  Sarah Roth, Project Lead, Chief Procurement Officer, Secretary of State  sarah.roth@state.or.us sarah.roth@state.or.us  (503) 986-2357 For More Information