On November 17th, I put up a post about an RFP opportunity from the LA USD for “scanning, archiving, document control and other related services”, and, yesterday, one of the purchasing department people e-mailed me a link to the “vendor selections” made by LA USD for this procurement.
You can click on the link immediately below to access the previous post about that RFP opportunity:
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LAUSD)
SCANNING AND ARCHIVING, DOCUMENT CONTROL AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES
Here’s a link to the “vendor sections” document:
Joel’s comments about the “vendor selections”:
(1) Evidently, LA USD decided to make a “multiple award” for this procurement, meaning that several vendors (in this case, five different vendors) will be awarded contracts to perform services.
(2) Evidently, all of the five vendors are “SBE-qualified” firms; I’m pretty sure that SBE stands for “Small Business Enterprise”; perhaps the RFP stated that the procurement opportunity would be limited to SBE- qualified firms, but I don’t know that for sure since I did not read the RFP document. If LA USD did limit participation to only SBE-qualified vendors, that’s a decision that’s generally not in the best interests of taxpayers, because, when you limit competition for an RFP of this nature, that generally means that the purchaser (in this case, LA USD) will not benefit from the absolute lowest cost possible. In these times, when cities and counties are facing major budget problems, it is essential to open up RFP (and other bidding) opportunities to “all” qualified vendors, large, small and otherwise.
(3) I was very surprised that no reprographers showed up on the vendor-selection list! Did that happen because RFP participation was limited to only SBE-qualified firms? Or, did that happen because no reprographers were aware of this RFP opportunity?