The key principles are outlined below: 

1. Use Data: Many of these decisions are critical to the efficiency and effectiveness of staff and/or critical to resident engagement, not to mention can be costly purchases that will be used by the team for years or decades.  Requests for Information (RFI), a traditional source to gather market research, often is not timely or cost effective in this space because the need may evolve, and you may not receive specific enough responses from leaders or emerging players.  Your process needs to use relevant data at every step to be successful. That data could be relevant by identifying potential vendors, their solutions and range pricing up front but current contracts and references in the decision-making stage for comparison.

2. Learn Along the Way/Know the Limits of Knowledge: The process needs to presume the government buyer is learning about both the market and their needs along the way.  It is too high of a bar to expect local governments to have or hire expertise in all the areas of technology (and many other items they purchase) to keep up with the pace of  innovation.  Any process must adapt to the fact that the buyers/stakeholders need to learn along the way and in many cases the experts are the technology providers. 

3. Outcome-Based Procurement: This method can be beneficial in all areas of public procurement, but no more so than technology.  In most cases, governments have a specific outcome they are trying to achieve (i.e., improved last mile mobility, decreased cybersecurity risk, lower resident time and cost to obtain building permits, etc.).  The government knows WHAT it wants but does not need to be overly prescriptive on HOW it is done.  In most cases, the government has few true requirements but many more preferences and ideas on the best fit.  Focusing on asking the market for outcomes while providing some guidelines and guardrails, governments can open up to more creative or emerging solutions that can often lead to more scalable fits.  Having too many specific requirements forces the governments to know the market today and  how it will evolve moving forward.  Finally, stating desired outcomes, even with quantitative measurements is often more expedient than developing exhaustive technical requirements, so buying agencies can go to market sooner and then evaluate the technical details after a shorter list of outcome based solutions are identified.

4. Keep Scope at a High (i.e. Appropriate) Level: High-level requirements are not a bad thing.  What are the systems today?  What integrations are needed?  How many users?  What activities are needed?  Requirements that are too specific, often when they are preferences, will force more customized solutions, potentially making them less optimal as they are not as scalable or easy to maintain.  This will lead to an unexpected increase in total cost of ownership.  Although it may be unfamiliar and uncomfortable to keep needs and requirements at a high level, it can often lead to a better result and save a lot of resources upfront.

5. Use Relevant Examples: Using examples from peer governments is a great way to demonstrate what you are trying to buy and for researching “what good looks like”.  Starting from scratch with a blank page is hard and time consuming.  When using templates, it is important to view them with the right lens - did the example solicitation use similar principles to my process?  Do we have similar needs/outcomes?  Is it timely and recent?  Too often governments use older solicitations from neighboring communities that they can easily access without asking the questions above and thinking through if they had the same approach to their project.

6. The Importance of Marketing: Because public procurement is, by nature, publicly available, governments often presume their opportunities or solicitations will be found.  While bid aggregators help in some markets, in many emerging spaces, the governments don’t know what companies exist and those companies don’t know you are looking for them.  Relying solely on a bid aggregator to connect vendors to your solicitations leaves too much to chance.  Are you selecting the same industry codes that prospective vendors are? Are vendors digging down into their notifications to find your project? To ensure a good outcome, governments need to know the companies in the market and how to reach them.  Ongoing and specific communication regarding an opportunity increases response rate and competition.

7. Don’t Shut Down Communication: As government stakeholders are learning more through the process, clarifying questions or meetings may be needed. Traditional procurement processes may create barriers to getting those responses because certain legacy policies require a cone of silence.  Too often in pursuit of transparency and fairness to the market, stakeholders are left without information because asking one provider for more information is deemed unfair.  It is essential to build a transparent and documented process to ensure stakeholders can get all questions answered in the most resource-efficient manner. That might mean having one off, documented follow ups to ask clarifying questions.  It may also mean a greater amount of vendor polling, research or questionnaires prior to a formal procurement process.  The pool of prospective vendors can be immensely helpful in understanding market dynamics, but the outreach process should be structured and consistent so that no single entity has an outsized influence.

8. Make Vendor Relationships a Partnership: Though this can be a best practice in all supplier relationships, it is especially important in innovation and technology procurement.  As the government is learning about the subject area, the need may evolve, contract, or expand.  Just as the government is learning about the technology area, the provider is also learning about the government.  Structuring both the procurement and the eventual contract/relationship as a partnership will allow for an outcome that continues to be beneficial for the government.

9. Be Agile in Process and Procurement Pathway: Most governments have multiple procurement options in many situations.  While processes might typically use RFP/tender for some categories, purchasing cooperatives for others and sole source only in certain places, being open on methods and steps to get the best outcome is critical.  Many governments typically do not use cooperatives for technology, but if due diligence with proper market research is available, it can be the best way to procure the right solution at the right price quickly.  Likewise, using a two-step Request for Qualification/Request for Proposal may seem lengthier but, in many cases, can actually speed up the process where stakeholders need to see options in an option before deciding what the best fit for the final purchase may be.  Overall, being able to adjust steps, such as a longer demonstration or pilot, may be needed to get the best result.