Educational Procurement Journal - December 2007 - (Page 11)

chine, and they decided which of these two machines they wanted, how many machines they needed, and where they wanted the machines to be located. Of course, they had to be reasonable. We were not going to provide copiers for every classroom. They also had to stay within the boundaries of their allotted budgeted copies, which was developed by multiplying the number of students by the number of copies allotted per student per day (8) and then multiplying that number by the number of days in the school year. Our copier contracts also feature quarterly management meetings with the provider, guaranteed copy volumes, invoicing requirements and uptime requirements. Let me more fully explain each of these elements, as they play a very important role in managing the contract. Management meetings are held quarterly to discuss and resolve issues related to service calls, response times, machine downtimes, copier utilization, and other matters. For instance, if a site has decided to place a low-volume copier in a teacher workroom where the usage is very high, the machine may be exceeding its capability, which could result in more downtime. In the management meeting, it might be determined that moving this particular unit to a different location where the usage is more compatible with its functional capabilities and substituting a higher-volume machine would be prudent. Guaranteed copy volumes are estimated guarantees and are based on the combined usage for all machines. The value of this is that if one site has low usage and another has high usage, they can essentially offset each other, and we do not incur a loss. If the actual copies made are fewer than the guaranteed volume, the provider will invoice for the shortage at the current cost-per-copy rate per the contract at the end of each term. The contract allows for the district to renegotiate a cost-per-copy adjustment if the total copies run varies by 20 percent. For example, if we begin to run 20 percent more than our guaranteed minimum, we could renegotiate a decrease in our cost-per-copy due to the volume increase. Invoicing with copier contracts can be problematic if the provider decides to get creative. We require that the following items are provided on each monthly invoice: 1) school and location of machine, 2) PO number, 3) model number, 4) serial number, 5) start and end meter readings, 6) cost-per-copy, and 7) total amount. The monthly invoice is only for actual copies made. At the end of each year, the provider may bill for the number of copies that are under our minimum. A very important feature of our contract is the operational time or uptime requirement. We have stipulated that the provider must be responsible for a 98 percent uptime of machines at each site from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. This uptime includes summer school, and teacher and staff orientation days. We are issued a credit if the uptime is less than 98 percent, barring any operator error or abuse by the staff. The credit is determined as a percentage off the current month’s invoice, based on the following formula: Credit = % of variance from 98% x 2.5. An example might be 4% downtime = 2% variance x 2.5 = 5% credit off current invoice. Site-based funding for the program is predicated on enrollment ﬁgures for each school site, the allotment of copies per student, the number of school days, the allotment of copies per site per year, the cost per copy and the projected www.naepnet.org costs per year. In the elementary schools, for example, each student is given 8 copies per day for each school day the site is in session. This then translates to a budgetary ﬁgure for the sites for the year. We request that they stay within that budget. Yes, I know what you are thinking… What if they don’t? Well, what usually happens is that the monetary shortfall is taken from their next year’s budget unless they can ﬁnd another source of funding such as PTA. However, we will often suggest that “they learn how to bake cookies,” because when all else fails they may have to resort to having a “bake sale”… and they think we’re kidding!! The point here is that the sites are taking on the responsibility of staying within their budgeted copies, and they are required to ﬁnd a source to pay for any additional copies outside the parameters of their given budget. Contract administration is broken into “5 easy pieces,” which we refer to as the 5 Rs: Requesting, Recording, Reviewing, Reporting and Remitting. They are deﬁned as follows: Requesting – Each school site is sent a request for monthly meter readings. Recording – The meter readings are recorded onto a spreadsheet that is formulated to calculate their copy usage for the month, the cost of those copies, the average copies per student per day and their remaining funding. Reviewing – The buyer reviews the spreadsheet for any blatant discrepancies and corrects any errors. Reporting – The counts are sent to the vendors via e-mail, and copies of the report are also sent to the school sites so they can see what is left in their budget. Purchasing also keeps a copy of the spreadsheet that itemizes all the sites. Remitting – The provider’s invoice must reﬂect only OUR copy counts as reported to them during the reporting phase of this operation and costs MUST be based only on actual copies made. Will this system work for you? I really can’t answer that, but it has certainly been a very viable solution for us. However, it is a “work in progress.” We are continually ﬁnding ways in which to make improvements. If there are questions on our contract, how we developed it, or how we administer it, please address them to me at alexander@svusd.k12.ca.us Andrea Alexander, A.P.P., C.P.M., serves as Facilities Planner at Saddleback Valley Uniﬁed School District in Southern California. She graduated summa cum laude with an Associate of Arts degree from Saddleback College and is currently attending Cal State Fullerton in pursuit of her Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Administration. She has earned the A.P.P. and C.P.M. certiﬁcations and is a member of several professional organizations: Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society, Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society, California Association of School Business Ofﬁcials, California Association of Public Purchasing Ofﬁcers, National Association of Educational Procurement. EDUCATIONAL PROCUREMENT JOURNAL 11 http://www.naepnet.org

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Educational Procurement Journal - December 2007

Educational Procurement Journal - December 2007 Contents Letter From the CEO: Sustainability in Higher Education Heard On the Streets Calculating Procurement's Value Cost-Per-Copy Contract and Site-Based Funding At a K-12 School District Bargain-Basement Solutions to Automate and Streamline Procurement Processes LEED & Leadership Certification Roamin' with Yeoman Best and Final

Educational Procurement Journal - December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.