The Overlooked Costs of Electronic Monitoring Procurement

Part 1 of Beyond the RFP, will explore procurement considerations and purchasing options for community corrections agencies and courts. 

When an agency is evaluating an electronic monitoring solution, pricing is only part of the decision. The work required to select, contract for, and implement that solution also deserves attention. 

Who needs to participate? How much staff time will the process require? Will the purchasing schedule leave enough time to prepare for a change? 

A Request for Proposal (RFP) provides a structured process for evaluating proposals against defined requirements and criteria. It may be an appropriate or required agency approach. Before developing a new solicitation, however, consider the resources involved and whether an existing purchasing contract could meet your needs. [1] 

Staff Time Is Part of the Cost 

An RFP can involve developing specifications, establishing evaluation criteria, reviewing proposals, conducting negotiations, and securing approvals. Depending on the purchase and the agency's procedures, that work may require input from program staff, procurement professionals, technical specialists, and legal counsel. [1] 

These activities help support an informed purchasing decision. They also require capacity from people who may already have operational responsibilities. 

Staff time has a cost even when it does not appear as a separate procurement expense. Identifying the people, responsibilities, and review stages involved can help agencies build a realistic schedule and plan for the workload. 

Consider What Remains Unresolved 

The reason for evaluating a new monitoring solution matter when assessing the procurement timeline. 

An agency may be looking to address a specific reporting limitation, improve an existing workflow, or add a monitoring capability. If implementation depends on completing the purchase, a longer purchasing schedule may also postpone the opportunity to address that need. 

That delay represents an opportunity cost to consider, rather than a guaranteed financial loss. Its significance depends on the problem the agency is trying to solve and whether the proposed solution can deliver the intended improvement. 

Define that improvement before choosing a purchasing approach. Doing so provides a concrete basis for evaluating both the solution and the timing. 

Leave Time for the Transition 

A contract award is one milestone in bringing a new solution into use. 

For a program changing monitoring providers, planning may also need to address staff training, access to historical records, and coordination between the outgoing and incoming vendors. A report supported by the National Institute of Justice identifies training requirements and data transfer planning as important considerations in procuring offender tracking technology. [2] 

The planning implication is straightforward: work backward from the date your program needs to be ready. Include time for procurement, approvals, and implementation activities. 

If an existing contract is approaching expiration, review its notice requirements, renewal provisions, and transition obligations early enough to incorporate them into the purchases and implementation schedule.  

Evaluate Cooperative Purchasing Early 

Cooperative purchasing is one option worth discussing with procurement teams before developing a new solicitation. 

Through a competitively awarded cooperative contract, eligible public agencies may be able to purchase covered products or services using an existing agreement. Sharing the work of a solicitation across participating agencies can reduce the administrative effort associated with conducting separate procurements. NASPO ValuePoint identifies reduced solicitation costs and shared procurement resources among the benefits of its cooperative purchasing model. [3] 

Each individual agency still needs to confirm that the contract is available for use and meets the necessary requirements. Review purchasing authority, eligibility, contract scope, pricing, terms, and required approvals. 

For example, NASPO ValuePoint directs buyers to check the applicable participating addendum and follow their state's or organization's procurement procedures. An existing cooperative contract does not automatically authorize every agency to purchase from it. [4] 

Before Your Next Electronic Monitoring Purchase 

Bring program and procurement staff together to answer five questions: 

1. What specific program needs are we trying to address? 

2. Which staff members and approvals will the purchase require? 

3. When must the new technology be operational? 

4. What training, data access, and transition activities should be planned for? 

5. Is there an existing contract that our agency is authorized to use that meets our requirements? 

An RFP may remain the right approach. But evaluating available purchasing options early helps your agency make that decision with a clearer understanding of the work, timing, and program needs involved. 

Explore SCRAM Systems cooperative purchasing options. 

Next in this series: What Agencies Should Know Before Procuring Electronic Monitoring.

Sources 

1. National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO). "Introduction to Request for Proposals (RFP)." https://www.naspo.org/procurement-u/course-catalog/103-introduction-to-request-for-proposals-rfp/ 

2. National Institute of Justice (NIJ). "Procuring and Implementing Offender Tracking Technology." https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/nlectc/252822.pdf 

3. National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO). "Why Cooperative Purchasing." https://www.naspovaluepoint.org/why-cooperative-purchasing/ 

4. National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO). "Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. dba SCRAM Systems." https://www.naspovaluepoint.org/suppliers/alcohol-monitoring-systems-inc-dba-scram-systems-2/