17837_Authority_Oct

46 The Authority | October 2024 Procurement article continued from page 33. for example, will need more time to develop a bid for a large complex project. Keep in mind, if your authority fails to give reasonable notice for pre-bid meetings and other requirements, this could be viewed as exclusionary or favoring specific bidders and result in a challenge. Additionally, certain funding sources may have advertising requirements that differ from what your authority normally adheres to – so make sure that is factored in. ¾ Funding Sources: Authorities often leverage one or more outside funding sources to complete capital projects. As such, it is critical to understand the requirements of each, and more importantly, identify potentially conflicting elements that need special attention. With these funds in high demand, the source agencies are continuously evolving their requirements, so it is important to stay current to avoid making outdated assumptions that could jeopardize funds. ¾ Selection and award: Determining certain things in advance, such as who will review the bids and proposals and the factors for making the award (i.e., scoring criteria, suitability of selected vendor, satisfaction of completed bid or proposal, timing of the selection process, etc.), promotes transparency and integrity of the process. It’s imperative to have clear documentation up front that outlines deficiencies that will lead to exclusion or disqualification so the authority can defend itself against a potential challenge. Public agencies that score high marks in the realm of procurement risk management share three common attributes: fairness, transparency, and the availability of a recourse mechanism. When potential bidders know up front what is expected, it’s easier for them to accept and understand your decision, whether it favors them or not. ¾ Post-award: An authority’s procurement process should not end with the award of the contract. All procurements should be reviewed shortly after conclusion to determine any issues or necessary improvements. Following up on the procurement during the life of the contract not only ensures the vendor is complying with the requirements and expectations but it also validates your risk management process. Corruption While rare, when corrupt activities happen in the public sector, it makes headlines and adds to the negative perception of government officials. Ultimately, the agency pays the long- term price, literally and figuratively. The loss of funds, and increased legal expenses are two factors that could impact short and long-term public projects and services. The biggest impact of all, however, is the loss of public confidence and trust in the organization. According to studies, corruption in the public procurement process generally occurs by one of three primary methods: Bribery, Bid Rigging, or Fraud. While government procurement processes can be vulnerable, risk management efforts offer protection. Instituting checks and reviews by multiple people can minimize the chances of corrupt or fraudulent activities and should be an integral part of any risk management program. Putting it all together Incorporating risk management into your authority’s procurement process can yield meaningful results and possibly prevent a worst-case It’s imperative to have clear documentation up front that outlines deficiencies that will lead to exclusion or disqualification so the authority can defend itself against a potential challenge.