Finance Committee
TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Date: OCTOBER 8, 2025
FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENT WARDS: ALL SUBJECT: PREFERRED PURCHASING PARTNER AGREEMENTS
ISSUE:
Receive and provide input on the City’s utilization of Preferred Purchasing Partner Agreements, with particular focus on how these agreements are established, the frequency with which they are reviewed or updated, and the opportunities that may exist to broaden vendor participation while enhancing transparency and competitiveness in the cooperative purchasing process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Finance Committee receive and provide input on the City’s Preferred Purchasing Partner Agreements.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Riverside has historically leveraged cooperative purchasing as authorized under Purchasing Resolution No. 24101. Cooperative purchasing is defined as a method where procurement requirements of two or more governmental entities are combined to obtain volume savings and reduce administrative expenses.
Key provisions in the Purchasing Resolution allow:
Contracts procured through cooperative methods to be awarded by the Purchasing Manager without additional Council appropriation if funding is already in place (Section 508).
Competitive procurement requirements to be waived when cooperative purchasing or federal, state, or other public pricing agreements are available (Sections 602, 702, 802).
DISCUSSION:
The City of Riverside leverages Preferred Purchasing Partner Agreements primarily through cooperative purchasing organizations to ensure efficiency, compliance, and cost-effectiveness in its procurement activities. Cooperative purchasing allows the City to participate in contracts that have been competitively solicited and awarded by other agencies or consortiums, thereby reducing administrative workload and delivering better pricing. Among the organizations most frequently utilized are NASPO ValuePoint, Omnia Partners, Sourcewell, the County of Riverside, Equalis Group, NJPA, and GSA Advantage.
During the last fiscal year (FY 2024–25), the City executed 72 cooperative contracts across multiple departments. The heaviest department users were Information and Technology, with 12 cooperative procurements, followed by Public Utilities - Customer Service Division with 9, and Energy Delivery Operations Division with 7. Other active participants included Public Safety (Division 3105, 6 contracts) and General Services (Division 2215, 5 contracts). This distribution reflects the broad reliance on cooperative purchasing across both operational and service-oriented divisions.
Among cooperative agencies, Sourcewell led with 18 contracts, followed by County of Riverside (11 contracts), Omnia/Region 4 ECS (11 contracts), and Equalis Group (9 contracts). Other agencies, including NASPO, City of Mesa, and City of Charlotte, also contributed to Riverside’s procurement portfolio. Vendor participation was similarly diverse: the most frequently engaged suppliers included Stericycle Inc. (9 contracts), Goforth and Marti (6 contracts), CDW-G and Cintas Corporation (5 each), and Securitas Technology Corporation (4 contracts). These suppliers provided a range of services spanning technology, safety, environmental, and operational needs.
These agreements are established through rigorous competitive processes conducted by the cooperative agencies. For example, Sourcewell conducts a nationally advertised solicitation process that begins with identifying participating entities’ needs, obtaining authorization from its publicly elected Board of Directors, and issuing a solicitation that is broadly advertised through national and regional publications as well as procurement portals. Vendors are given time to respond, participate in pre-proposal conferences, and submit sealed bids through an electronic portal. Proposals are then evaluated by a scoring committee, recommendations are presented to the Chief Procurement Officer, and contracts are awarded for a four-year term with options for annual extensions. All contract documentation is maintained in a publicly accessible procurement portal, ensuring openness and accountability.
The City reviews cooperative contracts on an as-needed basis when a department identifies a procurement requirement. Purchasing staff verify that the cooperative agreement is active, that contract terms align with the City’s Purchasing Resolution, and that the pricing offered is consistent with what has been established in the contract. Departments are required to submit supporting documentation when seeking approval from the Board or City Council, and the Purchasing Division maintains records of solicitations, bid results, evaluations, and award documents for compliance and audit readiness.
While these processes already provide a high level of transparency and efficiency, there are opportunities to further enhance participation and competitiveness. Expanding vendor outreach and training could help local and regional businesses better understand how to engage with cooperative contracts. Additionally, ensuring that documentation and procurement files remain easily accessible to both internal stakeholders and the public will reinforce confidence in the fairness of the process and the City’s commitment to fiscal stewardship.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the recommendation in this report.
Prepared by: Jennifer McCoy, Purchasing Manager
Approved by: Julie Nemes, Assistant Finance Director
Certified as to
availability of funds: Kristie Thomas, Finance Director/Assistant Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Edward Enriquez, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Approved as to form: Rebecca McKee-Reimbold, Interim City Attorney Signature Authority of City Manager • Page 3