ACQNET v2n096 (October 15, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n096 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 96, October 15, 1992 ======================================== (1) FROM: Barry Fast SUBJECT: Bidding (67 lines) (2) FROM: October Ivins SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (82 lines) (3) FROM: Orion Pozo SUBJECT: Research USA, Inc., Putnam Publishing Co. (12 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 92 15:45:02 GMT From: Barry Fast (Academic Book Center) Subject: Bidding I have been out of the country while the discussion of bidding appeared in ACQNET, so forgive me for commenting on this issue at this late date. One of the strengths of ACQNET is its currency. Barbara Winters makes an important point, which is that bidding focuses acquisitions librarians on the criteria they should use in evaluating vendors and monitoring their performance. And Christian Boissonnas, in his discussion of his Cornell experience, quite rightly extols the virtues of a formal, competitive selection process. In my experience, the real problem with bidding is when the process is removed from the control of librarians and governed by purchasing agents and other, non-librarian state bureaucrats. Christian's Cornell experience was a success because he controlled the process. I think he would agree with me that if a vendor he knew was incompe- tent (or, more kindly, unsuitable for the needs of Cornell) had won the bid on the basis of discount offered, he would have refused to accept the bid. [I do! I do! -- C.] Under a bid controlled by purchasing agents, some of the finer points of book supply services are sacrificed for pure price competition. The difficulty of measuring, comparing and quantifying service elements among various book suppliers is complicated, and its intricacy is lost on bureau- crats. I would argue that service-related book supply problems can more than offset small discount advantages. The cost of acquiring materials, while it includes the actual price of the material, should also include the value-added services and the value-subtracted costs of errors, tardiness, and other disruptive problems. Many years ago New York State awarded contracts on a pure discount competitive bid. I visited the Dept. of Purchase and asked, quite reasonably I think, for an explanation of the auditing procedures that were in effect to make sure that list prices and discounts were being monitored. The bureaucrats explained, again quite reasonably, that with thousands of books being purchased by hundreds of organizations, it was certainly not cost effective to establish auditing procedures for this contract. The task was too complicated. How, I asked, could the taxpayers of New York be assured that this competitive bid process was delivering books at a lower cost than any other vendor selection process? The Albany folks had no answer. Today in New York State our librari- ans buy books from a list of approved vendors with published discounts. Librarians control the vendor selection process and use their professional experience to compare and evaluate vendors' performance. It is not a perfect system, but it allows more flexibility and professional discretion than in states like Virginia. The problem in Virginia is that as part of the bidding procedures vendors report their performance standards, based on past history. When contracts are awarded only one or two vendors get a chance to demonstrate the truth or fallacy of those past performance claims. Professional librarians, trained in the trenches of actual library procurement, are limited in their selection of vendors by a complicated RFP procedure that is forced on them by the state bureaucracy. While the Virginia librarians did the best they could with a government-mandated purchasing policy, no one can really know if the results benefit the taxpayers. I would almost always opt for making librarians accountable for their purchasing decisions, within agreed-upon guidelines and with plenty of choices among vendors, rather than forcing them to narrow their choices to a very few vendors who did a better job of bidding. I think librarians are able to defend a decision to select a vendor who appears to cost more on a discount comparison, but offers something else that actually makes the cost of using that vendor less. I think that states that force librarians to select the lowest bidder, based on discount off list price (and it is always that, folks, no matter how convoluted the RFP), denigrate the professionalism of acquisitions librarians. I am all for competitive procurement; it works best when librarians control the process because they are best qualified to articulate the environment within which the competition will take place. (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:22:23 CDT From: October Ivins (Louisiana State University) Subject: ALCTS reorganization I'd like to share some suggestions that were mentioned by many concerned members in the task force hearings and which I offer to further discussion: 1. Copy anything that works! Ask members who are active in other divisions or organizations for suggestions. 2. Copy LAMA: Establish a system to pair a first time attender with an experi- enced member. Encourage contact before the meeting to share interests and plan a schedule. Hold "new members orientation" at each meeting. 3. Use _AN2_ and/or the ALCTS _Newsletter_ to publish agendas for meetings that indicate projects and activities so new members can choose activities for themselves; include e-mail addresses of chairs. Encourage chairs to be candid - like, "we have just finished a major project and encourage others to attend and help us choose a new one" or "we are in the middle of editing a long document on (blank). New members are likely to be bored." 4. Copy ACRL: ACRL has a very successful "leadership training" orientation for new chairs, etc. that runs three hours, from 2-5 on Friday. Officers, commit- tee chairs and discussion group chairs are encouraged to attend "all or part" as their schedules permit. It is positive in tone. What a contrast with the one hour ALCTS one I attended that lectured us about all of the things we couldn't or shouldn't do. 5. Copy NASIG: promote two-way communication and make better use of members at large by creating liaisons of executive committee/board members to each committee, task force and discussion group. 6. Decide how people get on committees, are reappointed to committees, and become committee chairs. Communicate these guidelines and follow them. It once seemed that section and ALCTS vice chairs/presidents consulted committee chairs, so an active intern or frequent guest could be recommended. In the hearings, many of us had experienced situations when a good intern was not appointed to a committee; chairs were replaced when they still had a year to serve as a member; and none of this was known until very late in the year. Ask each committee chair to keep a guest roster. 7. Make and communicate committee appointments on a timely basis. Chairs need time to contact new members. Ideally, new members should have an opportunity to read up on their committee and actually attend the Annual meeting before their term officially starts. 8. Create some clearer guidelines for how things happen-- what is the order, what approval is required, etc. This is needed for programs, publications, etc. (The Serials Section has prepared a guide for chairs, members, etc. that explains roles and responsibilities, thanks to Mark Kovacic, Bob Alan and others. Other sections may have similar tools. Share with each other; don't recreate and duplicate!) 9. Even better: review the guidelines for how things happen and reduce the steps when possible. 10. Promote the creation and use of subcommittees. Remind committee chairs that they can appoint subcommittees with only one member of the parent commit- tee to address specific goals. This would be a great way to involve new members. 11. The Serials Section has new draft guidelines for oral reports given at Executive Committee meetings. The goal is to shorten reports and give the Committee discussion time. We'd be glad to share. 12. As Barker suggests, create section e-mail discussion groups. Shift routine discussions to e-mail so meetings can be more productive. 13. Recognize that the old distinction between the attendance, purpose and content of Midwinter and Annual meetings has long since blurred. Reduce the emphasis on programs and their two-year planning cycles. Instead of trying to restrict and limit the "programs" presented by discussion groups, encourage them. They have long been the most vital and popular part of meetings and should be appreciated and supported, as Marsha Hamilton notes. 14. Respond to the trend toward less expensive state and regional conferences by emphasizing joint meetings and regional institutes. 15. Respond to the high cost of dues by creating a basic dues and then offering publications at a discounted rate as an option. Encourage ALA to control costs. (Why are the offices in downtown Chicago instead of the suburbs, anyway?) (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 92 07:12:48 U From: Orion Pozo (North Carolina State Univ.) Subject: Research USA, Inc. I have a request to purchase a $400 report done by Research USA Inc. entitled _Food Processing/Food Business Survey_ published by Putnam Publishing Inc. I can find no information about Research USA Inc. nor the title to tell me whether or not they are reputable or whether the report is worth the price. I can find an address for a Putnam Publishing Company in Huntington Beach, Ca, but no other information about it. I do not know if this is the publisher in question. Does anyone have experience with this publisher or the firm Research USA that might help me? ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 96 ****** END OF FILE *******