By Lexi McFarlane, Times Chronicle
The approach to procurement that the Town of Oliver takes is shifting focus towards being more transparent and ensuring all of the roles are better defined in the purchasing process.
John Kurvink, the Town’s Chief Financial Officer, said in presenting the new draft Purchasing and Sales Policy that it would better align with what other jurisdictions have in place.
He noted that while the existing purchasing policy focuses more on cost reductions, the new one proposes a more “transparent and defensible framework” to build trust with residents.
“The new one is governance-focused, and (prominently) highlights transparency, fairness, accountability, and best practice,” Kurvink said. “The old one (put) emphasis on compliance and dollar thresholds, and the new one tries to structure the roles more clearly, the parts everyone plays in the process.”
Adopted first in 2012, with updates in 2018 and 2022, the existing policy dealt more with immediate impacts, such as the lowest upfront cost. In the new policy, longer-term implications such as risk, maintenance costs, and general quality of the products would be weighted more heavily.
One aspect that drew the attention of Mayor Martin Johansen was a section in the draft policy that puts in place a tiebreaker based on how local a supplier is, if two competing suppliers are “substantially equal” in their evaluation scores. Johansen wondered how the Town would define “substantial” in that context.
“The order of awarding is the Town of Oliver first,” Johansen pointed out. “How (can you ensure) that you’re going to be able to withhold a challenge?”
Kurvink called it a “good question”, and indicated it’s still something that is being figured out as the new policy evolves.
“That’s (a question) for us to wrestle with,” Kurvink said. “If we have a past history with a vendor, or are aware through references – a lot of times, a reference will give you that little bit of difference where one vendor’s easier to work with, or more responsive to our requirements or hasn’t put a lot of ‘change orders’ through – those are the things you could argue on.
“What I’ve been questioned with (outside Oliver) in the past is, sometimes vendors will want to know more, and so you really have to document your scoring and your comments. You don’t have to tell the vendor ‘well, you scored 24, and the other one scored 20’, but you really rely on the comments to say ‘you’re both strong, but the comments lean in this direction’.”
Both Johansen, and Councillor David Mattes recommended a re-wording, concerned that it could complicate the process.
“I was going to suggest we eliminate the word ‘substantial’,” Mattes said. “If they’re (exactly) the same, then we go with the local option, otherwise we should go with the best score.”
Mattes also noted this new policy was coming around at a time when it was needed.
“I’ve received a couple of complaints over the last two weeks, one from the public and one internally, about our tendering process. And quite honestly, I haven’t seen any (profiles) over a hundred thousand dollars come forward to Council, of late.”
Other factors the new policy would take into stronger consideration include trade agreements at the provincial and federal levels, recommendations by the provincial Auditor General, and more modern tools to assist with the procurement process.
Council voted to refer the policy back to staff for additional information, and to include better definitions in the policy.
