Santa Fe 2026 Procurement Process Review Report FINAL 9-9-26

Extracted text

As of June 3, 2025, Moss Adams LLP has merged with Baker Tilly.
Proprietary & Confidential
FINAL REPORT
City of Santa Fe
PROCUREMENT PROCESS REVIEW
September 9, 2026
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP

Procurement Process Review
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
A. Introduction 1
B. Summary of Observations and Recommendations 1
II. Introduction 7
A. Background 7
B. Scope and Methodology 8
C. Commendations 8
III. Observations and Recommendations 10
A. Recommended Improvements Associated with Process Mapping 11
B. Procurement Operating Model and Level of Centralization 35
C. Assessment of Continued Application of State Procurement Code 42
D. Other Supporting Opportunities for Improvement 44
Appendix A: Current State Process Map 53
Appendix B: Future State Process Map 60
Appendix C: Recommended Workflow Changes for Procurement-
Related Tasks 66
Appendix D: Additional Considerations for Policy Changes 68
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an
alternative practice structure and are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd.,
the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed
CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its
subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms.

Procurement Process Review | 1
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
I. Executive Summary
A. Introduction
The City of Santa Fe (the City) engaged Baker Tilly Advisory Group LP (Baker Tilly) to conduct a
detailed review and evaluation of the City’s procurement process as a follow-up to a prior assessment
released in May 2025. The primary goals of this project included the following:
• Analyze existing procurement processes and procedures to evaluate whether they reflect best
industry practices for operational efficiency and effectiveness.
• Evaluate options to continue following or departing from the state procurement code.
• Assess the current procurement structure for optimal positioning along the centralized-to-
decentralized continuum to best support organizational objectives.
An important part of our review focused on evaluating current procurement processes to identify
workflow impediments and delays and develop actionable recommendations to improve efficiency.
Toward this end, Baker Tilly conducted process mapping sessions and an in-depth analysis of the
workflows related to formal request for proposals (RFP) processes that require Governing Body
approval and execution of a written agreement. These sessions were instrumental in informing
recommendations for significant changes to procurement policies and procedural workflows.
B. Summary of Observations and Recommendations
The City has established a strong foundation for procurement improvement through investments in
technology, ongoing process enhancements, and effective collaboration between the Central
Purchasing Division (Purchasing) and user departments. However, opportunities remain to address
inefficiencies caused by fragmented processes, decentralized responsibilities, communication
challenges, training gaps, and an uncoordinated technology landscape.
This report recommends a comprehensive transformation focused on greater consolidation of
procurement ownership, clarified roles and responsibilities, enhanced staffing and training,
standardized processes, modernized policies, and a more integrated technology strategy.
Recommendations are organized into four areas: process mapping improvements, procurement
operating model and centralization, assessment of the continued application of the state procurement
code, and other supporting improvement opportunities.
With sustained leadership commitment and cross-departmental collaboration, implementation of
these recommendations will help the City improve efficiency, compliance, transparency, and service
delivery while advancing toward a more centralized, standardized, and strategically enabled
procurement function.

Procurement Process Review | 2
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Improvements Associated with Process Mapping
1. Observation The City does not have a formalized pre-solicitation phase process to facilitate
adequate and timely planning for solicitations. The absence of such a process
creates workload pressures and missed opportunities for early collaboration.
Recommendation A. Establish meeting cadences with departments prior to annual budget
adoption to discuss and prioritize planned procurements.
B. Require departments to submit look ahead forecasts for significant
anticipated procurements to increase awareness of anticipated
procurement needs.
C. Encourage all departments to schedule procurement planning meetings
prior to finalizing scopes of work.
2. Observation City departments do not consistently employ internal workflow review and
approval processes for preparing scopes of work and specifications, which
results in incomplete or incorrect scopes that cause downstream process
delays and require unnecessary iterative steps to address.
Recommendation A. Ensure all departments follow a standard review and approval framework
for preparing scopes of work and specifications.
B. Develop procedural guidelines and reference materials to facilitate and
sustain implementation and promote best practices for preparing scopes
of work and specifications.
3. Observation Responsibility for service determinations, State Use Act compliance, and
evaluating alternative sourcing methods is fragmented between user
departments and Purchasing, resulting in inconsistent application of
procurement requirements, unnecessary process delays, and missed
opportunities to use more efficient procurement methods.
Recommendation Simplify the services determination process and transfer the responsibility for
facilitating State Use Act compliance and researching alternative sourcing
methods to Purchasing to facilitate process consistency and efficiency.
4. Observation User departments are responsible for coordinating pre-proposal conferences
and preparing evaluation summaries following vendor selection. Because
these activities require consistent application of procurement procedures and
documentation standards, decentralized responsibility results in process
inconsistencies, inefficiencies, and role confusion.
Recommendation Transfer responsibility for coordinating pre-proposal conferences and
preparing evaluation summaries to Purchasing to improve consistency,
process integrity, and efficiency during the solicitation phase.

Procurement Process Review | 3
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5. Observation Contract negotiation and preparation responsibilities are decentralized to user
departments, resulting in inconsistent contract development practices,
unnecessary iterative review, and extended processing times.
Recommendation Centralize the contract negotiation and preparation phases within Purchasing
to improve workflow consistency, contract quality, and process efficiency.
6. Observation The current contract negotiation and preparation workflow relies on sequential
activities, multiple handoffs, and iterative review cycles that result in
unnecessary delays and extended contract processing times.
Recommendation Restructure the contract negotiation and preparation workflow to eliminate
unnecessary handoffs, streamline negotiations, and improve coordination
among Purchasing, user departments, vendors, and the City Attorney’s Office.
As part of this restructuring, transfer responsibility for routing contracts for
vendor signature to Purchasing.
7. Observation The Purchasing Memo review and approval process for contracts requiring
Governing Body approval relies on multiple review layers, extensive routing,
and two technology platforms, resulting in unnecessary administrative effort
and extended processing times.
Recommendation Restructure the Purchasing Memo review and approval process to streamline
workflow, eliminate unnecessary administrative steps, and improve process
efficiency while maintaining appropriate governance and internal controls.
8. Observation The City Manager is not included in the review process for contracts requiring
Governing Body approval, limiting administrative oversight and increasing
organizational, fiscal, and operational risk.
Recommendation Include the City Manager in the Purchasing Memo review and approval
process for contracts requiring Governing Body approval to strengthen
administrative oversight, stewardship of public resources, and organizational
coordination.
9. Observation The City has not established a comprehensive process integrity framework for
competitive sealed proposal evaluations and contract negotiations. The
Procurement Code does not clearly assign responsibility for conducting
negotiations, and the Procurement Manual does not establish procedures for
protecting confidential procurement information and identifying conflicts of
interest during the evaluation and negotiation process.

Procurement Process Review | 4
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation Update the City's Procurement Code and Procurement Manual to establish a
comprehensive process integrity framework for competitive sealed proposal
evaluations and contract negotiations by assigning responsibility for
conducting negotiations to the Chief Procurement Officer or designee and
implementing procedures to protect confidential procurement information and
address conflicts of interest.
10. Observation Greater clarity is needed in the City's governing documents to distinguish
contract approval or award authority from contract execution authority and
identify the officials responsible for each function.
Recommendation Update the City Code of Ordinances to clearly distinguish contract award
authority from contract execution authority and explicitly establish contract
execution authority for the City Manager, with authority to further delegate
execution of designated contracts to the Chief Procurement Officer or other
appropriate designee(s).
Procurement Operating Model and Level of Centralization
11. Observation Purchasing is not currently staffed or structured to assume the additional
procurement responsibilities recommended in this report.
Recommendation A. Conduct a comprehensive workload analysis to determine the staffing,
roles, and organizational structure needed to support the recommended
procurement operating model.
B. Add interim Purchasing staffing capacity to support workflow transitions,
implement process improvements, and maintain service levels while the
workload analysis is completed.
12. Observation Over time, procurement responsibilities that are more appropriately performed
by Purchasing transitioned to user departments, contributing to role confusion,
inconsistent application of procurement policies and procedures, and process
inefficiencies across the procurement cycle.
Recommendation Restore the intended balance of the City’s hybrid procurement model by
returning selected procurement responsibilities to Purchasing that are more
appropriately performed centrally.
13. Observation Procurement-related responsibilities within user departments are often
distributed across multiple staff members without a designated point of
accountability, contributing to inconsistent application of procurement policies
and procedures and inefficient coordination with Purchasing.

Procurement Process Review | 5
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation Establish a formal Purchasing liaison program by designating trained
departmental procurement points of contact to improve accountability,
coordination, and consistency across the procurement process.
Assessment of Continued Application of State Procurement Code
14. Observation The City’s home-rule authority provides the flexibility to adopt, modify, or
depart from provisions of the state procurement code. Exercising that flexibility
requires careful evaluation of the operational, governance, and policy
implications of each proposed change.
Recommendation Evaluate additional departures from the state procurement code on a case-by-
case basis and in conjunction with recommended improvements to ensure
operational impacts are understood.
Other Supporting Opportunities for Improvement
15. Observation Departments do not receive consistent, role-based procurement training,
contributing to inconsistent application of procurement requirements,
submission errors, and increased reliance on reactive support from
Purchasing.
Recommendation Implement a structured, role-based Purchasing training program to improve
consistency and capability.
16. Observation Procurement-related changes are not communicated through a consistent,
proactive change management process, resulting in confusion, inconsistent
adoption, and process inefficiencies.
Recommendation Implement a structured change management and communication framework
to improve awareness, adoption, and consistent implementation of
procurement-related changes.
17. Observation Procurement technology is fragmented, creating duplicate work, manual
processes, and administrative inefficiencies.
Recommendation Develop a coordinated procurement technology strategy that evaluates
opportunities to consolidate systems, improve integration, standardize
workflows, and strengthen governance of procurement-related technology.
18. Observation The City does not maintain a formal procurement performance management
program, limiting its ability to evaluate operational performance, demonstrate
results, and drive continuous improvement.

Procurement Process Review | 6
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation Establish a procurement performance management program that measures,
monitors, and reports KPIs to support operational decision-making and
continuous improvement.
19. Observation The Procurement Manual was last updated in 2020 and lacks procedural
guidance in some areas, resulting in inconsistencies and increased confusion
around purchasing processes.
Recommendation Update the Procurement Manual and establish a process for maintaining it to
reflect policy and procedural changes, incorporate procurement best practices,
and provide clear, user-friendly guidance to City staff.

Procurement Process Review | 7
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
II. Introduction
A. Background
As part of the fiscal year 2026 internal audit program, Baker Tilly conducted a procurement process
review to assess purchasing policies, procedures, and processes to evaluate opportunities to
streamline operations and enhance efficiency. This engagement was intended to be a detailed follow-
up to the 2025 Procurement Operational Review (released in May 2025), which identified
recommendations for improvements grouped in four categories: people, performance, processes, and
systems.
This engagement builds on the previous operational review by providing detailed process mapping
and further evaluating key topics identified in the earlier assessment. Specifically, this review focuses
on comparing existing processes and procedures to best practices, evaluating options to continue
following or depart from the state procurement code,1 and assessing the current procurement
structure for optimal positioning along the centralized-to-decentralized continuum to best support
organizational objectives. References to the 2025 engagement are made in this report where
appropriate.
PURCHASING FUNCTION
The City’s procurement function is managed by Purchasing within the Finance Department (Finance).
Purchasing is overseen by a Chief Procurement Officer and includes two Procurement Managers, a
Contracts Supervisor, a Senior Procurement Analyst, and a Contractor.
The procurement function is centralized by policy, but user departments are responsible for
performing certain purchasing-related tasks. This structure represents a hybrid procurement model
that falls between complete centralization, in which the Central Purchasing Division performs all
procurement functions, and complete decentralization, in which departments perform all procurement
functions while Purchasing provides policy oversight and monitors procedural compliance. In this
structure, Purchasing is responsible for administering formal competitive solicitations and provides
procurement policy, procedural oversight, and guidance, while user departments perform certain
procurement-related tasks related to both lower- and higher-value purchases and contract
administration activities.
The City uses several technology systems and tools to facilitate procurement processes, including
OpenGov, Tyler Munis, Adobe Sign, JotForm, Box, CivicPlus, and Microsoft applications.
1 To help distinguish between the New Mexico Procurement Code and the Santa Fe Procurement Code, references throughout
the report to the state code will be lowercase while references to the City Code will be uppercase.

Procurement Process Review | 8
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
B. Scope and Methodology
Baker Tilly conducted this process review between February and July 2026. Our engagement
consisted of the following four phases:
PHASE DESCRIPTION
1 Project Initiation
and Management
This phase concentrated on comprehensive planning and project management,
including identifying employees to interview, participants for process mapping,
and documents to review; communicating results; and providing regular updates
on project status.
2 Fact-Finding This phase included interviews, document review, and process mapping.
● Interviews: We conducted ten stakeholder interviews with 12 leaders and
staff members from eight departments/divisions and held three discussions
with Purchasing leaders to prepare current state process maps.
● Document Review: We reviewed a variety of documents, data, and
information provided by the City, including procurement policies and manuals,
how-to documents, job descriptions, departmental procurement authority
matrices, procurement training materials, existing process maps,
organizational charts, state procurement code requirement, and various
procurement-related forms and templates.
● Process Mapping: We facilitated two cross functional mapping sessions to
verify existing workflows and generate ideas for future state designs.
3 Analysis Based on the information gained during our fact-finding phase, we compared
current purchasing policies, practices, and procedures to industry standards and
best practices and conducted research on the New Mexico state procurement
code. Based on our analysis and research, we identified potential areas for
improvement and developed actionable recommendations.
4 Reporting We communicated the results of our analysis with observations and
recommendations presented first in a draft report that was reviewed with
management to confirm the practicality and relevance of recommendations
before finalizing the report.
C. Commendations
Although the focus of this assessment was to identify opportunities for operational improvements
within the procurement function, we noted the following areas of strength and existing good practices
that can be leveraged for further improvement:
• Strong Commitment to Improvement and Modernization: Purchasing leadership is widely
recognized for actively working to improve processes and modernize the function. Stakeholders
noted ongoing and planned efforts to refine workflows, update policies and procedures, introduce
new tools, and address long-standing challenges, demonstrating a clear commitment to
continuous improvement.

Procurement Process Review | 9
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
• Highly Collaborative and Accessible Procurement Team: Many departments highlighted the
Purchasing team as approachable, responsive, and willing to support departments through
complex procurements. This strong partnership orientation has helped build trust and improve
outcomes for departments that engage early and often.
• Successful Implementation of OpenGov: The rollout of OpenGov has enhanced visibility,
tracking, and overall process efficiency. Stakeholders reported improved organization of
procurement activities, better management of solicitation timelines, and reduced errors compared
to legacy systems.
• Flexibility in Procurement Methods and Tools: Departments leverage a variety of procurement
strategies such as cooperative agreements, statewide price agreements, and different solicitation
types to meet operational needs. This flexibility enables the City to adapt to diverse purchasing
scenarios and funding requirements.
• Dedicated and Experienced Staff Across Departments: Across both Purchasing and user
departments, staff members demonstrate strong institutional knowledge and a willingness to
collaborate. Many stakeholders expressed appreciation for the expertise and dedication of their
peers, particularly in navigating complex procurement requirements.
• Emerging Focus on Training and Stakeholder Engagement: Purchasing has begun
implementing recurring training sessions, office hours, and knowledge-sharing opportunities,
signaling a proactive approach to addressing gaps in understanding and fostering stronger
alignment across departments.

Procurement Process Review | 10
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
III. Observations and Recommendations
The City has demonstrated a clear commitment to strengthening its procurement function, as
evidenced by recent investments in technology, ongoing process improvements, and strong
collaboration between Purchasing and user departments. These efforts provide a solid foundation
upon which to build a more efficient, consistent, and strategically aligned procurement operation.
At the same time, this review highlights several systemic challenges that, if addressed, present a
meaningful opportunity to transform procurement into a more streamlined, collaborative, and
customer-focused function. Key issues were identified including inconsistent communication, complex
and fragmented processes, decentralized responsibilities, training gaps, and the lack of a coordinated
technology strategy, which collectively contribute to inefficiencies, delays, and variability in outcomes
across departments.
The recommendations outlined in this report are designed to address these challenges holistically.
Central to this transformation is transferring certain procurement-related tasks currently performed by
user departments to Purchasing, supported by clear partnership-based roles and responsibilities,
strengthened staffing capacity, and the establishment of structured planning, training, and change
management frameworks. Equally important is the need to simplify and standardize workflows,
modernize policies to reflect best practices, and rationalize the current technology landscape to better
support end-to-end procurement processes.
Recommendations are grouped into four categories:
• Recommended improvements associated with process mapping
• Procurement operating model and level of centralization
• Assessment of continued application of state procurement code
• Other supporting opportunities for improvement
Successful implementation of these recommendations will require sustained leadership commitment,
cross-departmental collaboration, clear accountability for assigned roles and responsibilities, and a
phased, well-governed approach to change. By prioritizing high-impact improvements such as
consolidating procurement functions, restructuring contract development workflows, and
implementing coordinated training and technology strategies, the City can achieve early wins while
building momentum for longer-term transformation.
Ultimately, advancing toward a more centralized, standardized, and strategically enabled
procurement model will position the City to improve operational efficiency, enhance compliance and
transparency, reduce administrative burden, and better deliver value to its community.

Procurement Process Review | 11
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
A. Recommended Improvements Associated with Process Mapping
In collaboration with the City project team, it was determined that process mapping would focus on
formal requests for proposals (RFPs) for services requiring Governing Body approval because this
process presented significant opportunity to identify operational improvements. The mapping
sessions identified operational efficiencies and process inconsistencies across the procurement
lifecycle. The mapping sessions examined end-to-end process steps across the following phases of
the procurement cycle:
• Pre-solicitation (procurement planning)
• Solicitation
• Contract negotiation and preparation
• Contract review, approval and execution
Current-state and future-state process maps developed during the engagement are included in
Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. These maps document the procurement workflows
analyzed during the engagement and illustrate the recommended future-state workflows resulting
from the process improvements identified through the mapping analysis.
The process mapping analysis identified the operational inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and
improvement opportunities discussed throughout this section. Accordingly, the observations and
recommendations that follow are organized by the procurement cycle phases identified above and
correspond to the current-state and future-state process maps included in Appendix A and
Appendix B.
Implementing process improvements will require policy, procedural, structural, and technology
systems changes to reflect best industry practices for optimized workflows. These changes are
discussed throughout the other sections of the report.
Although process mapping focused on RFPs for services requiring Governing Body approval, many
of the recommended workflow improvements are broadly applicable to other procurement methods
and purchasing thresholds.

Procurement Process Review | 12
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
PRE-SOLICITATION PHASE: PLANNING FOR SOLICITATIONS
1. Observation The City does not have a formalized pre-solicitation phase process to
facilitate adequate and timely planning for solicitations. The absence
of such a process creates workload pressures and missed
opportunities for early collaboration.
Recommendations A. Establish meeting cadences with departments prior to annual
budget adoption to discuss and prioritize planned procurements.
B. Require departments to submit look ahead forecasts for
significant anticipated procurements to increase awareness of
anticipated procurement needs.
C. Encourage all departments to schedule procurement planning
meetings prior to finalizing scopes of work.
Effective procurement planning prior to conducting a solicitation is a best practice that promotes
interdepartmental collaboration, increases awareness of workload demands, and facilitates process
efficiency and understanding of appropriate purchasing procedures. Cities that implement
procurement planning procedures that facilitate early engagement with key process stakeholders tend
to develop collaborative working relationships that lead to better outcomes with solicitation processes.
Currently, neither Purchasing nor user departments employ best practice pre-solicitation methods to
efficiently and effectively plan for the procurement of services. For example, user departments do not
routinely engage Purchasing to discuss upcoming procurements prior to scope development or
provide insights on the timing or importance of anticipated solicitations. The lack of visibility can
create workload pressures when requests are submitted, especially for services that are urgently
needed or otherwise need to be procured on shortened timelines.
Routine and early engagement also provides opportunities for Purchasing to make basic decisions
about solicitation methods and types of required services and help identify points of collaboration that
may need to occur with key process stakeholders, increasing efficiency. Such engagement also helps
foster broader understanding of purchasing policies and procedures.
Recommendation
To promote interdepartmental collaboration, increase awareness of workload demands, facilitate
process efficiency, and facilitate understanding of policy and procedural requirements, the following
structure is recommended:
• Scheduled meeting cadences to prioritize solicitations. Prior to annual budget adoption,
Purchasing should schedule meetings with City department representatives to discuss and
prioritize planned procurements for the upcoming year and address potential workload and timing
challenges.
• Look ahead forecasts for increased awareness. User departments should provide Purchasing
with advance visibility into anticipated procurements, ideally 6–12 months before a solicitation is

Procurement Process Review | 13
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
expected, particularly for complex, high-value, time-sensitive, politically sensitive, or health and
safety-related procurements. Early awareness provides several important benefits, including:
○ Budget Coordination: Large capital purchases and other significant procurements are often
identified well in advance through the City’s capital planning and budgeting processes.
Providing Purchasing with early visibility into these anticipated procurements enables
proactive planning and coordination before formal procurement activities begin.
○ Workload Planning: Advance notice enables Purchasing to anticipate workload demands,
prioritize procurements, and schedule resources to reduce potential bottlenecks.
○ Proactive and Strategic Sourcing: Advance notice provides an opportunity for Purchasing to
perform early market research to identify prospects or to evaluate opportunities to aggregate
similar purchases across departments to obtain volume discounts and leverage economies of
scale.
○ Vendor Relationships: Anticipated procurements can be published on the City’s OpenGov
platform to provide the vendor community with early notification, which provides lead time to
assess potential business opportunities and strategic partnerships.
• Procurement planning prior to finalizing scope development. As reflected on the future state
process map, immediately following initial scope development (the first process step), and before
finalizing the scope of work, user departments should schedule a planning meeting with the Chief
Procurement Officer or designee. Such meetings are an effective means to:
○ Discuss needs, clarify policy and procedural requirements, identify sourcing methods and
alternative options such as purchasing cooperatives or statewide price agreements, and set
realistic expectations for solicitation process timing.
○ Preview scopes of work to identify potentially problematic scoping elements.
○ Make services determinations as required by state law (more fully described in Observation
No. 3).
○ Identify points of collaboration with key process stakeholders that will be required during the
procurement cycle.
By adopting these best practice methods, key insights can be gained prior to conducting a solicitation
to help Purchasing and user departments understand mutual needs and facilitate workload planning,
provide strategic insights on sourcing methods and options, enhance interdepartmental collaboration,
and create awareness of policy and procedural requirements, which is especially helpful for staff
members who do not routinely participate in competitive solicitations.

Procurement Process Review | 14
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
PRE-SOLICITATION PHASE: SCOPE DEVELOPMENT
2. Observation City departments do not consistently employ internal workflow review
and approval processes for preparing scopes of work and
specifications, which results in incomplete or incorrect scopes that
cause downstream process delays and require unnecessary iterative
steps to address.
Recommendations A. Ensure all departments follow a standard review and approval
framework for preparing scopes of work and specifications.
B. Develop procedural guidelines and reference materials to
facilitate and sustain implementation and promote best practices
for preparing scopes of work and specifications.
Preparing concise scopes that are easily understood by prospective proposers is critical in public
procurement to promote fair and open competition, establish clear service expectations, facilitate
consistent vendor responses for ease of evaluation, mitigate risks associated with protest actions,
and ensure best overall value is received.
Many local governments struggle with preparing effective scopes of work and specifications due to a
lack of specialized knowledge and training, staffing shortages, heavy workloads, and resource
constraints. The City experiences such challenges, which can lead to substantial processing delays
and rework when developing solicitations and drafting contracts.
The City also does not have standard procedures that are consistently used by departments for the
review and approval of scopes of work before they are sent to Purchasing. The absence of such
quality control procedures contributes to scope errors that result in downstream delays during the
procurement cycle.
Recommendation
The City should adopt a consistent approach and framework for preparing scopes of work and
validating their completeness before they are sent to Purchasing. Such a process will facilitate
efficiency and effectiveness, foster and reinforce a quality control mindset, mitigate risk, and help to
ensure best overall value is obtained.
This approach should include the following:
• Ensure departmental review and approval of scopes of work. To help ensure scopes of work
are clear, concise, and complete, the following requirements/steps for user department review
and approval are recommended:
○ Peer review by at least one department employee for informal, straightforward purchases and
one level of approval.
○ Review and approval workflow for formal, complex, or politically sensitive procurements up to
department director/designee level.

Procurement Process Review | 15
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
○ Review by other departments or external stakeholders as necessary or required.
○ Review by Purchasing before a request for a solicitation is formally submitted, as required.
• Develop procedural and reference materials. To help facilitate the implementation of a
consistent review and approval framework, Purchasing can prepare and distribute a checklist that
incorporates the steps outlined above.
○ For additional clarity, standard procedures can be incorporated in the Procurement Manual
within a new section on preparing scopes of work and specifications, which is a best practice
and notably absent from the current document. The update can be covered in upcoming
Purchasing training and periodically thereafter.
• Incorporate existing scope preparation resources into departmental procedures.
Departments should incorporate the use of existing OpenGov resources, including the scope
library and scope generator, into their scope development processes to improve the
completeness and quality of scopes submitted to Purchasing.
As another frame of reference, the Institute for Public Procurement’s (NIGP) Center for the
Advancement of Research and Excellence (CARE) publishes and updates global best practices that
provide helpful information in all areas of public procurement. The following links are relevant to
preparing scopes of work and specifications that may be useful for Purchasing to incorporate as
reference material in training presentation and posted to its intranet site:
• Preparing Specifications
• Distinguishing Between Scopes of Work and Statement of Work
• Information Technology Software Procurement
• Market Research
Implementing a robust quality control process within departments to review scopes of work and
specifications, augmented by ongoing guidance from Purchasing, will help ensure that scopes are
concisely prepared before they are sent to Purchasing. Such procedures and guidance will help set
clear service expectations, promote competition, facilitate process efficiencies, and mitigate risk.

Procurement Process Review | 16
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
PRE-SOLICITATION PHASE: PROCUREMENT METHOD DETERMINATIONS
3. Observation Responsibility for service determinations, State Use Act compliance,
and evaluating alternative sourcing methods is fragmented between
user departments and Purchasing, resulting in inconsistent
application of procurement requirements, unnecessary process
delays, and missed opportunities to use more efficient procurement
methods.
Recommendation Simplify the services determination process and transfer the
responsibility for facilitating State Use Act compliance and
researching alternative sourcing methods to Purchasing to facilitate
process consistency and efficiency.
Effective public procurement practices recognize that determining the appropriate procurement
strategy—including determining whether a service is classified as a general or professional service,
evaluating applicable statutory and policy requirements, and assessing and selecting sourcing
methods—is a core procurement responsibility. These determinations should be performed or
coordinated by central procurement to ensure policies and procedures are applied consistently,
alternative sourcing methods are evaluated, and the organization obtains best value while
maintaining compliance.
Currently, responsibility for these procurement determinations is divided between the Purchasing
Division and user departments. Although Purchasing performs the initial services determination and
provides guidance regarding applicable procurement requirements and sourcing options, user
departments are responsible for completing portions of the State Use Act process and researching
alternative sourcing methods. This fragmented approach creates unnecessary handoffs, results in
inconsistent application of procurement requirements, and limits the City's ability to consistently
identify the most appropriate procurement method before initiating a solicitation under a given
sourcing method.
Currently, once a scope of work is drafted, user departments are required to send an email to
Purchasing to request a “services determination” to determine whether the required service is general
or professional, each designation having different connotations for solicitation and proposal
evaluation methods and contractual terms and conditions.
An important reason for the services determination is to facilitate compliance with the State Use Act,
which was adopted to provide meaningful employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
The act requires public agencies to contact authorized nonprofit organizations before soliciting certain
general or professional services to determine whether the required work can be performed at a fair
market price by qualified organizations employing individuals with disabilities. When a qualified
provider is identified, a competitive solicitation may not be required.
The services determination process is also used as a means by Purchasing to provide information on
researching alternative sourcing methods such as statewide price agreements, existing contracts, or
cooperative purchasing programs. The services determination process is further used to provide

Procurement Process Review | 17
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
information on policy and procedural compliance and identify potential process stakeholders for the
purpose of scope review.
Once a services determination response is provided by the Chief Procurement Officer, departments
then review the list of qualified services maintained by the nonprofit organization that administers the
State Use Act, Horizons of New Mexico (Horizons) and, when a potential match exists, coordinate
directly with Horizons to determine whether a qualified provider is available. Horizons is allowed four
business days to respond before the procurement may proceed through another procurement
method. According to City staff, Horizons rarely identifies a qualified provider, and most procurements
ultimately proceed through a competitive solicitation or another procurement method.
User departments are also responsible for researching whether services can be procured through
existing contracts, statewide price agreements, or cooperative purchasing programs. These sourcing
methods can eliminate the need for a competitive solicitation and improve procurement efficiency or
provide fair pricing or favorable terms; however, they are not consistently researched across
departments, increasing the risk that more efficient procurement methods, or those that provide best
value, are overlooked. If a potential alternative sourcing method is identified, it must be reviewed and
approved by Purchasing.
These responsibilities are well suited to Purchasing because they require specialized knowledge of
procurement requirements, available sourcing options, and applicable laws and policies. Centralizing
these determinations would promote consistent application of procurement requirements, reduce
unnecessary process delays, and improve the City’s ability to identify the most appropriate
procurement method before initiating a solicitation.
Recommendation
To promote consistent application of procurement requirements, improve process efficiency, and
leverage Purchasing’s procurement expertise, responsibility for facilitating State Use Act compliance
and evaluating the appropriate sourcing method should be transferred from user departments to
Purchasing. This responsibility includes a more efficient process for making service determinations.
Conduct service determinations during procurement planning.
The current process relies on email exchanges between user departments and the Chief
Procurement Officer to determine whether the required service is general or professional for the
purposes of determining competitive solicitation and evaluation methods or potential alternative
sourcing methods, and for facilitating State Use Act compliance. Although these determinations are
generally straightforward, the email process introduces unnecessary handoffs and delays, particularly
when additional information is needed.
Instead, service determinations should be made during the procurement planning meeting
recommended in Observation No. 1, or shortly thereafter if additional information is required.
Determining the appropriate service type early in the procurement process will eliminate unnecessary
delays and allow subsequent procurement activities to begin sooner.
Centralize State Use Act compliance.

Procurement Process Review | 18
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Once Purchasing determines that the State Use Act applies, Purchasing should coordinate directly
with Horizons of New Mexico rather than routing the process back through the requesting
department. Purchasing is better positioned to administer this requirement because staff routinely
interpret procurement requirements and are more familiar with the State Use Act process.
According to City staff, Horizons rarely identifies a qualified provider, meaning most procurements
ultimately proceed through another procurement method. Centralizing this responsibility will eliminate
unnecessary handoffs while ensuring consistent compliance with state requirements.
Evaluate alternative sourcing methods early.
Purchasing should also assume responsibility for evaluating whether services can or should be
procured through existing contracts, statewide price agreements, or cooperative purchasing
programs. Purchasing maintains greater familiarity with these procurement options and is therefore
better positioned to identify opportunities that departments may not recognize.
Evaluating these alternatives at the outset of the procurement process, either in parallel with State
Use Act compliance or during the procurement planning meeting, will improve consistency and
increase the likelihood that the most efficient procurement method is selected before a competitive
solicitation is initiated.
By consolidating these responsibilities within Purchasing, the City can standardize solicitation method
determinations, reduce unnecessary process delays, improve compliance, and make more consistent
use of alternative procurement methods where appropriate.
SOLICITATION PHASE: PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCES AND EVALUATION
SUMMARIES
4. Observation User departments are responsible for coordinating pre-proposal
conferences and preparing evaluation summaries following vendor
selection. Because these activities require consistent application of
procurement procedures and documentation standards, decentralized
responsibility results in process inconsistencies, inefficiencies, and
role confusion.
Recommendation Transfer responsibility for coordinating pre-proposal conferences and
preparing evaluation summaries to Purchasing to improve
consistency, process integrity, and efficiency during the solicitation
phase.
Leading public procurement practices recognize that administration of the solicitation process,
including vendor communications, coordination of pre-proposal conferences, and documentation of
evaluation results, is a core procurement responsibility. Centralizing these activities within the
procurement function promotes consistent procedural application, preserves the integrity and
transparency of the competitive process, and ensures procurement documentation is complete,
accurate, and sufficiently supports award decisions.

Procurement Process Review | 19
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
During the solicitation phase, user departments are responsible for several procurement-related
activities that would be more effectively performed by Purchasing. Specifically, departments currently
coordinate pre-proposal conferences and prepare evaluation summaries following vendor selection.
Because these activities require consistent application of procurement procedures and
documentation standards, decentralized responsibility results in process inconsistencies,
inefficiencies, and increased procurement risk.
Conduct pre-proposal conferences.
Under the current process, user departments are responsible for coordinating and facilitating pre-
proposal conferences, although Purchasing may lead these meetings at its discretion. In a centralized
procurement function, these conferences are typically administered by the purchasing office because
they serve as the formal mechanism for communicating solicitation requirements, responding to
vendor questions, and ensuring all prospective proposers receive the same information.
When these conferences are facilitated by staff with varying levels of procurement experience, the
quality and consistency of information provided can vary. Incorrect or incomplete information
increases the likelihood for more question-and-answer exchanges or solicitation addenda than
necessary, or schedule extensions or solicitation cancellations. More importantly, providing
information to some prospective proposers but not others can compromise the fairness of the
solicitation process and increase the risk of protest.
Prepare evaluation summaries.
Following vendor selection, Purchasing provides the evaluation committee report to a designated
department representative, who prepares the evaluation summary before returning it to Purchasing
for review. This process introduces an additional review cycle and can result in rework when
corrections or clarifications are needed.
Evaluation summaries also serve as the official record supporting the vendor selection and may be
subject to public disclosure. They must accurately summarize the committee’s evaluation while
protecting confidential evaluator notes and other information exempt from disclosure. Preparing these
summaries consistently requires familiarity with procurement documentation requirements and public
records considerations.
Together, these responsibilities illustrate how assigning specialized procurement activities to user
departments can create unnecessary process variability and additional administrative effort.
Centralizing these functions within Purchasing would improve consistency, strengthen process
integrity, and reduce unnecessary review and rework.
Recommendation
To improve consistency, efficiency, and process integrity during the solicitation phase, responsibility
for coordinating pre-proposal conferences and preparing evaluation summaries should be transferred
to Purchasing. These activities are core procurement functions that benefit from consistent
administration by staff with specialized procurement expertise.

Procurement Process Review | 20
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Centralize pre-proposal conferences. Purchasing should assume responsibility for coordinating
and facilitating pre-proposal (and pre-bid) conferences. These meetings provide vendors with a
common understanding of the solicitation requirements, establish expectations for the procurement
process, and ensure questions are addressed through a consistent addendum process.
Centralizing responsibility for pre-proposal conferences with Purchasing will promote consistent
communication with prospective vendors, improve process integrity, and reduce procurement risk.
Centralize preparation of evaluation summaries. Purchasing should also assume responsibility for
preparing evaluation summaries following vendor selection. Because Purchasing routinely
administers competitive solicitations and maintains procurement records, it is better positioned to
prepare these summaries consistently and accurately. Transferring this responsibility to Purchasing
will streamline the workflow, improve consistency, reduce rework, and strengthen process integrity.
Both pre-proposal conferences and evaluation summaries are routine procurement activities that are
better administered by Purchasing. Centralizing these responsibilities will reduce variability across
departments, improve efficiency, and strengthen the consistency and integrity of the City’s solicitation
process.
CONTRACT NEGOTIATION AND PREPARATION PHASES: ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
5. Observation Contract negotiation and preparation responsibilities are
decentralized to user departments, resulting in inconsistent contract
development practices, unnecessary iterative review, and extended
processing times.
Recommendation Centralize the contract negotiation and preparation phases within
Purchasing to improve workflow consistency, contract quality, and
process efficiency.
Best practice public procurement programs establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities that
assign contract negotiation and preparation to personnel with the appropriate knowledge and
expertise. Standardized procurement practices, centralized oversight where appropriate, and
consistent application of contract development procedures help ensure contract terms are effectively
negotiated, documentation is accurate and complete, legal review is efficient, and the organization
achieves best value while minimizing delays and administrative rework.
Contract negotiation and preparation responsibilities are currently decentralized to user departments,
even though these activities require specialized procurement expertise and consistent application of
procurement and contracting practices. As a result, contract development is characterized by
inconsistent approaches, unnecessary iterative review, and extended processing times.

Procurement Process Review | 21
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Contract Negotiation
Responsibility for negotiating vendor contracts is currently decentralized to user department
representatives. Following vendor selection, department representatives initiate two sequential
clarification meetings with the selected vendor. The first meeting primarily focuses on confirming the
scope of work, while the second focuses on contract cost. These meetings typically do not address
contractual terms and conditions. Instead, those terms are discussed later through an iterative
process after the department prepares a draft contract and submits it to the City Attorney’s Office for
review.
Department representatives have varying levels of experience negotiating contracts and must
balance these responsibilities with their primary operational duties. As a result, approaches to
negotiation vary across departments, and procurement-related activities may receive less immediate
attention than core department responsibilities. According to process stakeholders, this contributes to
extended cycle times, unnecessary clarification discussions, and missed opportunities to achieve the
best overall value. The current process also requires the City Attorney’s Office to coordinate with
numerous department representatives when contractual terms and conditions must be negotiated.
This creates more touchpoints than would occur if negotiations were coordinated through a smaller
number of Purchasing staff.
Notably absent from this workflow is any involvement of Purchasing, which is inconsistent with
procurement best practices. Negotiating best value contracts is a core procurement responsibility that
professional buyers should be trained to perform. By excluding Purchasing from this phase, the City
is not fully leveraging that expertise to clarify scope expectations and associated impacts on
submitted pricing that require adjustment, and negotiate contractual terms and conditions, all of which
support a best-value contract outcome.
Contract Preparation
Responsibility for preparing draft contracts also rests with user departments. Following the
clarification meetings, departments prepare the draft contract and simultaneously route it to the
selected vendor and the City Attorney’s Office for review (which is meant for provide guidance on
negotiating vendor-requested changes to the City’s standards terms and conditions). According to
process stakeholders, these steps are not performed consistently and many vary based on
department preference and the experience level of the department representative.
Process stakeholders indicated that approximately 90% of draft contracts contain errors when initially
submitted. The most common issues, in order of frequency, include compensation-related mistakes,
unclear scopes of work, incorrect number or letter formatting, improperly prepared amendments, and
redlined contractual terms and conditions that could have been addressed during the negotiation
phase.
These issues create additional review and correction cycles involving user departments, the selected
vendor, and the City Attorney’s Office, contributing to delays in the contract development process.
They also require the City Attorney’s Office to spend time identifying and correcting errors that are
often administrative or procurement-related rather than legal in nature.

Procurement Process Review | 22
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
As with contract negotiation, Purchasing is not currently responsible for preparing draft contracts.
Contract preparation is a core procurement function that benefits from consistent administration by
staff familiar with procurement requirements, contract templates containing the City’s standard terms
and conditions, and the terms negotiated with the selected vendor. By not involving Purchasing in this
phase, the City is not fully leveraging that expertise to prepare accurate and complete draft contracts,
reduce rework, and support a more efficient transition into legal review and contract approval.
Recommendation
To improve process efficiency, consistency, and contract quality, Purchasing should assume primary
responsibility for the contract negotiation and preparation phases. Centralizing these core
procurement tasks will create greater continuity throughout the contract development process, reduce
unnecessary handoffs, and ensure procurement expertise is applied more appropriately. By
consolidating contract negotiation and preparation within Purchasing, the City can realize several
operational improvements:
• Improve contract outcomes and support best value. Purchasing staff routinely administer
competitive solicitations and are well positioned to negotiate scope, pricing, and contractual terms
and conditions in coordination with user departments and the City Attorney’s Office. Applying this
expertise consistently throughout the negotiation process will help support best-value contract
outcomes.
• Promote workflow continuity and efficiency. Centralizing the contract negotiation and
preparation phases within Purchasing will improve process continuity and efficiency by reducing
the number of touchpoints and associated process steps. It will also establish a consistent point
of coordination among user departments, vendors, and the City Attorney’s Office, resulting in a
more efficient contract development process.
• Reduce error rates. As noted, process stakeholders estimated that 90% of draft contracts
contain errors when initially submitted. Many of these errors are administrative or procurement-
related rather than legal in nature, yet still require involvement of the City Attorney’s Office.
Centralizing contract preparation within Purchasing will promote greater consistency in contract
development, reduce errors and rework, and allow legal review to focus on approving contracts to
form and legal sufficiency as required by law, rather than identifying preventable drafting errors
requiring corrections.
The workflow changes described in Observation No. 6 below build upon this recommendation by
restructuring the contract negotiation and preparation process to further streamline coordination,
reduce delays, and improve overall process efficiency.

Procurement Process Review | 23
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
CONTRACT NEGOTIATION AND PREPARATION PHASES: CONTRACT
DEVELOPMENT WORKFLOW
6. Observation The current contract negotiation and preparation workflow relies on
sequential activities, multiple handoffs, and iterative review cycles
that result in unnecessary delays and extended contract processing
times.
Recommendation Restructure the contract negotiation and preparation workflow to
eliminate unecessary handoffs, streamline negotiations, and improve
coordination among Purchasing, user departments, vendors, and the
City Attorney’s Office. As part of this restructuring, transfer
responsibility for routing contracts for vendor signature to
Purchasing.
Contract negotiation and preparation practices in leading central procurement organizations promote
efficient, standardized workflows that assign responsibilities to staff with appropriate expertise,
eliminate unnecessary handoffs, minimize redundant reviews, and perform activities concurrently
where appropriate.
As discussed in Observation No. 5, responsibility for negotiating and preparing contracts following
competitive solicitation processes currently rests with user departments, who work directly with
selected vendors and the City Attorney’s Office throughout the contract development process. Most
contracts are drafted using City Attorney-approved templates with standard terms and conditions;
however, some procurements use vendor-provided templates that typically require more extensive
negotiations. The figure below summarizes the current workflow, with Steps 1–3 representing user
department activities and Steps 4–8 representing activities performed by, or require guidance from
the City Attorney’s Office.

Procurement Process Review | 24
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
CURRENT WORKFLOW LED BY USER DEPARTMENTS TO PREPARE FOR CONTRACT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

Procurement Process Review | 25
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Following vendor interviews, user departments conduct clarification meetings to confirm scope and
discuss contract cost before preparing a draft contract. The draft contract is then submitted to the City
Attorney’s Office for an initial review intended to provide guidance on vendor-requested changes to
the City’s standard terms and conditions, but includes a process to correct administrative errors. After
those errors are corrected by user departments and sent back to the City Attorney’s Office, contracts
are routed to an assigned attorney to determine whether negotiations on contractual terms and
conditions are required. If required, the City Attorney’s Office provides negotiation guidance to
department representatives who work directly with the selected vendor to reach agreement on
contract terms. Once agreement is reached, the Administrative Manager in the City Attorney’s Office
routes the contract to the vendor for signature. Upon its return, the City Attorney approves the
contract as to form and legal sufficiency, confirming that it is appropriately drafted and legally
sufficient. The contract then enters the City’s administrative and Governing Body review and approval
process.
This workflow is highly sequential, requiring each step to be completed before the next can begin. It
also relies on multiple handoffs among user departments, the City Attorney’s Office, and selected
vendors, resulting in iterative review and negotiation cycles that extend contract processing times.
Interviewees and process mapping participants consistently identified the legal review and contract
preparation phases as the longest, most frustrating, and least predictable phase of the solicitation to
contract approval cycle, with processing times ranging from several days to several months.
Stakeholders also cited substantial delays between the vendor clarification meetings and preparation
of the draft contract, further extending the time required before contracts can enter the review,
approval, and execution phases.
Recommendation
To improve workflow efficiency and reduce unnecessary delays, the contract negotiation and
preparation workflow should be restructured to eliminate unnecessary handoffs, move key activities
earlier in the process, and establish Purchasing as the primary coordinator of contract development.
Figure 2 illustrates the recommended future-state workflow. The discussion below highlights the
principal workflow changes and the operational benefits associated with each.
Approval as to form and legal sufficiency is not shown in the figure below because, under the
proposed workflow, it would occur at a later stage (as discussed below). In the proposed workflow,
Steps 1, 3, 4, and 6 detail activities performed by Purchasing, and Steps 2 and 5 detail activities
performed by or require guidance from the City Attorney’s Office.

Procurement Process Review | 26
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
PROPOSED WORKFLOW LED BY PURCHASING TO PREPARE FOR CONTRACT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

Procurement Process Review | 27
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Earlier review of vendor-requested changes to contract terms and conditions by the City
Attorney. Currently, the City Attorney’s Office does not review vendor-requested changes to contract
terms until all interviews have been completed and a draft contract has been prepared and
administrative errors corrected. Under the proposed workflow, requested changes submitted by the
highest-ranked proposers (those reasonably in line for contract award, generally no more than three)
would be reviewed immediately following the initial evaluation of proposals and before vendor
interviews. This earlier review would allow the City Attorney’s Office to identify potential deal-breakers
and other problematic contractual provisions before negotiations begin and provide guidance to
Purchasing on issues that may require negotiation. Equipped with this guidance, Purchasing would
be better positioned to negotiate contractual terms during the clarification meeting, increasing the
likelihood that tentative agreement on contract terms can be reached earlier in the process and
reducing the need for iterative negotiations later in the workflow.
Consolidate scope, fee, and contract negotiations. Following vendor selection, Purchasing should
first meet with the user department to develop a negotiation strategy addressing scope, pricing, and
requested changes to contractual terms and conditions. This preparation will enable a more focused
clarification meeting with the selected vendor, increasing the likelihood that tentative agreement on
scope, fee, and contract terms can be reached during a single meeting. Remaining issues can then
be resolved through targeted follow-up discussions rather than additional formal meetings.
Streamline routing of contracts for vendor signature. Under the current workflow, the City
Attorney’s Office finalizes draft contracts and routes them to vendors for signature before returning
the vendor-signed contracts to user departments to initiate the contract review and approval process.
Under the proposed workflow, Purchasing would finalize draft contracts, coordinate vendor signature
using appropriate version controls, and retain the vendor-signed contracts to initiate the City’s review
and approval process. This change eliminates unnecessary handoffs, improves workflow continuity,
and better aligns contract administration responsibilities within Purchasing.
Move approval as to form and legal sufficiency. Currently, the City Attorney approves contracts as
to form and legal sufficiency before they are presented for Governing Body review and approval. This
approval confirms that the contract is appropriately drafted and legally sufficient for execution. In
many cities, attorney sign-off occurs later in the process—after Governing Body approval and
immediately before the authorized City official executes the contract and legally binds the agency.
Under the proposed workflow, approval as to form and legal sufficiency would occur after Governing
Body approval. This timing would better align legal sign-off with the point at which the contract is
ready for final execution and with the proposed changes to the contract review and approval process
described in Observation No. 7. It would also support the recommended involvement of the City
Manager in the contract review and approval workflow discussed in Observation No. 8.
Improved consistency in contract negotiation and preparation, together with a corresponding
reduction in drafting errors, should increase confidence in the accuracy of contracts presented for
Governing Body consideration and help facilitate this change.
Collectively, these workflow changes reduce unnecessary handoffs, move key legal and procurement
activities earlier in the process, and establish Purchasing as the central coordinator of contract
negotiation and preparation. As a result, the City can streamline what interviewees and process

Procurement Process Review | 28
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
mapping participants consistently identified as the longest, most frustrating, and least predictable
phase of the procurement process.
CONTRACT REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND EXECUTION PHASES: CONTRACT
REVIEW AND APPROVAL WORKFLOW
7. Observation The Purchasing Memo review and approval process for contracts
requiring Governing Body approval relies on multiple review layers,
extensive routing, and two technology platforms, resulting in
unnecessary administrative effort and extended processing times.
Recommendation Restructure the Purchasing Memo review and approval process to
streamline workflow, eliminate unnecessary administrative steps, and
improve process efficiency while maintaining appropriate governance
and internal controls.
Administrative review processes should be streamlined to avoid duplicative review activities, use
integrated workflow technology, and facilitate timely decision-making while maintaining appropriate
internal controls and accountability.
The City's contract review and approval process for contracts requiring Governing Body approval
includes multiple layers of administrative review and approval before contracts are presented to the
Governing Body. User departments initiate the process by preparing a Purchasing Memo that
summarizes the procurement, verifies funding, recommends contract award, and incorporates
supporting documentation. The Purchasing Memo is then routed from the user department to
Purchasing, Budget, back to Purchasing, impacted departments, Finance, and finally the City Clerk
before Committee and Governing Body consideration. Notably absent from this workflow is review
and approval by the City Manager as the City’s Chief Administrative Officer.
Additionally, the Finance Director verifies contract funding by signing both the Purchasing Memo and
the contract, creating a duplicative approval activity because funding verification is already
documented through the Purchasing Memo. Contracts are also routinely reviewed by at least one
Council Committee, and often multiple Committees, before being presented to the Governing Body,
adding additional review layers to the approval process.
In addition to extensive routing, the workflow spans two technology platforms, OpenGov for staff-level
review and CivicPlus for Committee and Governing Body review, requiring additional administrative
coordination. The workflow also excludes review by the City Manager as the City's Chief
Administrative Officer, while contracts are routinely reviewed by one or more Council Committees
before being presented to the full Governing Body.
As a result, the process relies on numerous routing steps, multiple review layers, fragmented
technology, and duplicative approvals that extend processing times without consistently adding value.
Stakeholders indicated that excessive approval routing, duplicative reviews, and a reliance on senior
leadership to perform transactional quality control are among the primary contributors to delays in the
contract approval process.

Procurement Process Review | 29
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Recommendation
To improve process efficiency while maintaining appropriate governance and internal controls, the
City should streamline the Purchasing Memo review and approval processes for contracts requiring
Governing Body approval by restructuring workflows and eliminating unnecessary administrative
steps. Restructuring the workflow includes consolidating procurement-related responsibilities within
Purchasing and reorganizing the Purchasing Memo review process. Eliminating unnecessary steps
includes consolidating technology platforms, simplifying funding verification, and eliminating
redundant Committee review.
Restructure workflows.
• Consolidate procurement responsibilities. Under the proposed workflow shown in Appendix B,
Purchasing would prepare and initiate the Purchasing Memo review and approval process. User
departments would continue to provide the relevant project background information.
• Reorder Purchasing Memo review workflow. Under the proposed workflow shown in
Appendix B, Purchasing would initiate the Purchasing Memo and route it to the user department,
impacted departments, Budget, Finance, City Manager, and City Clerk. Reordering the workflow
will streamline routing, improve coordination between Budget and Finance when evaluating
funding availability and overall fiscal impacts, and incorporate City Manager review before
contracts are presented for Governing Body consideration.
Eliminate unnecessary steps.
• Consolidate Technology Platforms. In many local governments, contract review and approval
occurs within a single agenda management platform. To improve workflow efficiency, the City
should consider using CivicPlus for contract review and approval.
• Simplify funding verification. Modify the Purchasing Memo to include a fiscal impact or similar
section that documents funding availability and eliminate the Finance Director's contract signature
as a funding verification step.
• Eliminate Committee review. The City has already begun evaluating opportunities to streamline
Committee review of administrative matters, including contracts, through a March 2026
Governing Body Study Session. To improve process efficiency while maintaining Governing Body
oversight, the City should eliminate routine Committee review of contracts prior to Governing
Body consideration.

Procurement Process Review | 30
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
CONTRACT REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND EXECUTION PHASES: ADMINISTRATIVE
OVERSIGHT
8. Observation The City Manager is not included in the review process for contracts
requiring Governing Body approval, limiting administrative oversight
and increasing organizational, fiscal, and operational risk.
Recommendation Include the City Manager in the Purchasing Memo review and
approval process for contracts requiring Governing Body approval to
strengthen administrative oversight, stewardship of public resources,
and organizational coordination.
Under the current Purchasing Memo review and approval workflow at the staff level, contracts
requiring Governing Body approval (greater than $200,000) are not reviewed by the City Manager or
anyone else in the City Manager’s Office. Instead, contracts proceed through the administrative
review process and are presented directly to the Governing Body for approval. Following Governing
Body approval, the Mayor executes the contract on behalf of the City.
The City’s charter establishes a strong mayor form of government in which the Mayor serves as the
City’s Chief Executive Officer and the City Manager as the Chief Administrative Officer. While the
Mayor retains executive authority, there are compelling administrative reasons for including the City
Manager in the Purchasing Memo review and approval process for contracts requiring Governing
Body approval. Including the City Manager in the Purchasing Memo review and approval process
would provide an additional level of administrative oversight before contracts are presented to the
Governing Body. This review would strengthen stewardship of public resources, improve coordination
across departments, enhance fiscal and operational oversight, and provide an additional opportunity
to identify and address organizational risks before contract awards are considered by elected officials.
Recommendation
To strengthen administrative oversight while preserving the Mayor’s executive authority and the
Governing Body’s policymaking responsibilities, the City Manager should be included in the
Purchasing Memo review and approval process for contracts requiring Governing Body approval. City
Manager approval would provide an additional level of administrative oversight before contracts are
presented to the Governing Body and support more informed decision-making.
Including the City Manager in the review process would provide the following benefits:
• Strengthen administrative oversight and quality assurance. Review by the City Manager
would help ensure Purchasing Memos are accurate, complete, and supported by sound analysis
before contracts are presented to the Governing Body. It would also provide an opportunity to
confirm compliance with procurement requirements and identify operational, financial, or
reputational risks before contracts proceed for approval.
• Improve fiscal stewardship and organizational coordination. City Manager review would help
confirm funding availability, evaluate broader operational and fiscal impacts, and ensure that
affected departments have been appropriately consulted. This review would also provide an

Procurement Process Review | 31
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
opportunity to identify future operational or funding considerations associated with the proposed
contract.
• Promote alignment with Governing Body priorities. As the City’s Chief Administrative Officer,
the City Manager is well-positioned to evaluate whether proposed contracts support the
Governing Body’s adopted priorities, policies, and service delivery objectives and to identify
broader organizational implications before contracts are presented for approval.
• Improve Governing Body support and transparency. Reviewing Purchasing Memos before
Governing Body consideration will better prepare the City Manager to answer questions from
elected officials and members of the public regarding recommended contract awards and the
rationale supporting them.
Taken together, these benefits provide a strong justification for including the City Manager in the
Purchasing Memo review and approval workflow. This review should not be viewed as diminishing the
Mayor’s executive authority. Rather, it provides an additional level of professional administrative
oversight that supports prudent governance, strengthens stewardship of public resources, and
reinforces the distinction between the Governing Body’s policymaking responsibilities and the
administrative responsibility for providing objective, well-supported recommendations.
CONTRACT REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND EXECUTION PHASES: NEGOTIATION
AUTHORITY AND PROCESS INTEGRITY
9. Observation The City has not established a comprehensive process integrity
framework for competitive sealed proposal evaluations and contract
negotiations. The Procurement Code does not clearly assign
responsibility for conducting negotiations, and the Procurement
Manual does not establish procedures for protecting confidential
procurement information and identifying conflicts of interest during
the evaluation and negotiation process.
Recommendation Update the City's Procurement Code and Procurement Manual to
establish a comprehensive process integrity framework for
competitive sealed proposal evaluations and contract negotiations by
assigning responsibility for conducting negotiations to the Chief
Procurement Officer or designee and implementing procedures to
protect confidential procurement information and address conflicts of
interest.
Effective public procurement governance requires a strong process integrity framework for
competitive sealed proposal evaluations and contract negotiations. Such a framework should clearly
assign responsibility for conducting negotiations at the staff level and establish procedures for
safeguarding confidential procurement information throughout the evaluation and negotiation process
by requiring evaluators and other participants to acknowledge confidentiality obligations and disclose
potential conflicts of interest. These practices preserve the integrity of the procurement process,
protect the City's negotiating position, promote fair competition, and reduce the risk of protests or
challenges to procurement decisions.

Procurement Process Review | 32
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
The City has not established a comprehensive process integrity framework for competitive sealed
proposal processes. The Procurement Code does not explicitly assign responsibility for conducting
contract negotiations to the Chief Procurement Officer or other designated procurement official,
despite negotiations being an administrative procurement function. As discussed in Observation No. 5
and Observation No. 6, negotiations are currently conducted by user departments with guidance from
the City Attorney's Office, while the Purchasing Division is not involved despite its procurement
expertise. Consequently, the Procurement Code does not clearly reflect the City's intended
procurement responsibilities or establish accountability for conducting contract negotiations.
The City's Procurement Manual also does not establish formal procedures for protecting confidential
procurement information during proposal evaluations and contract negotiations. Although the New
Mexico Open Meetings Act permits governing bodies to meet in closed session to discuss competitive
sealed proposals during the contract negotiation process, the purpose of that exception is to protect
confidential procurement information that could affect the City's bargaining position or otherwise
disadvantage the procurement process if publicly disclosed.
In practice, negotiations are conducted administratively and are completed before contracts are
presented to the Governing Body for approval. Without clearly established confidentiality and process
integrity procedures, evaluators and other participants may not consistently understand or fulfill their
responsibilities for protecting procurement-sensitive information or identifying conflicts of interest
throughout the evaluation and negotiation process.
Collectively, these governance gaps reduce accountability for contract negotiations and weaken the
integrity of the competitive sealed proposal process. They increase the risk that confidential
procurement information could be improperly disclosed, conflicts of interest could go unidentified, or
negotiated outcomes reached in good faith by staff could be revisited outside the established
procurement process. These conditions create the appearance of unfairness, diminish public
confidence in the integrity of the procurement process, and increase the risk of procurement protests.
Recommendation
The City’s Procurement Code and related procedures should be updated to memorialize current
practice by assigning responsibility for conducting negotiations to the Chief Procurement Officer or
designee and reinforcing the importance of fair and open competition, process integrity, and the
protection of confidential procurement information, as follows:
Implement policy and procedure changes.
• Update the City’s Procurement Code. The Procurement Code should be updated to explicitly
assign the responsibility for conducting negotiations resulting from competitive sealed proposals
to the Chief Procurement Officer or designee(s). This change would memorialize current practice
of conducting negotiations at the staff level and appropriately assign the role, establish clear
accountability for contract negotiations, and reinforce the importance of protecting confidential
procurement information throughout the negotiation process.
• Strengthen process integrity requirements. To further protect the integrity of competitive
sealed proposal processes, Purchasing should establish formal process integrity requirements
governing proposal evaluations and contract negotiations. This should include updating the
Procurement Manual and requiring evaluators to sign confidentiality and conflict-of-interest

Procurement Process Review | 33
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
acknowledgments before participating in proposal evaluations. These procedural changes
reinforce the importance of maintaining confidentiality throughout the evaluation and negotiation
process and help protect the integrity of competitive procurements.
Implementing these changes would not preclude the Governing Body from discussing competitive
sealed proposals in closed session as permitted by law. Rather, they would clarify staff responsibility
for conducting negotiations, align the Procurement Code with the City’s current operating practices,
and reinforce the importance of protecting confidential procurement information and maintaining the
integrity of the competitive procurement process.
CONTRACT REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND EXECUTION PHASES: CONTRACT
EXECUTION AUTHORITY
10. Observation Greater clarity is needed in the City's governing documents to
distinguish contract approval or award authority from contract
execution authority and identify the officials responsible for each
function.
Recommendation Update the City Code of Ordinances to clearly distinguish contract
award authority from contract execution authority and explicitly
establish contract execution authority for the City Manager, with
authority to further delegate execution of designated contracts to the
Chief Procurement Officer or other appropriate designee(s).
Effective governance requires procurement policies and ordinances to clearly distinguish between
contract award authority and contract execution authority and explicitly identify the officials authorized
to perform each function. Contract award authority is the authority to approve the selection of a
vendor following the procurement process, while contract execution authority is the authority to sign
and legally bind the City to an approved (awarded) contract. Clearly defining these authorities
promotes accountability, supports efficient administration, and eliminates ambiguity regarding who is
authorized to award contracts and legally bind the City to contractual terms and conditions once the
signature execution process is completed.
The City's current governing documents could more clearly establish contract execution authority.
While the Code of Ordinances authorizes the City Manager to enter into contracts up to $200,000, it
does not explicitly state that the City Manager has authority to execute or sign those contracts on
behalf of the City. Likewise, neither the City Charter nor the Code of Ordinances explicitly assigns the
Mayor authority to execute contracts greater than $200,000 following Governing Body approval. As a
result, responsibility for executing contracts is not clearly established for either threshold.
Additionally, the provision in the Code of Ordinances section that authorizes the City Manager to
enter into contracts up to $200,000 does not clearly distinguish between contract approval, entering
into contracts, and contract execution. Although these terms are sometimes used interchangeably,
they represent different governmental authorities. Contract award or approval is the policy decision
authorizing the recommended contract following the procurement process, while contract execution is
the administrative act of signing the contract and legally binding the City to its terms. Entering into a

Procurement Process Review | 34
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
contract is related to approving a contract but the terminology more closely aligns with the signature
execution process. Because these authorities are not explicitly distinguished in the City's governing
documents, the authority to execute contracts may be left to interpretation. Similarly, the absence of
specificity on the authorities to approve contracts prior to execution creates policy ambiguity. In
practice, the authority for approving contracts up to $200,000 rests with the City Manager, while the
Governing Body approves contracts greater than $200,000.
As discussed in Observation No. 7 and Observation No. 8, the recommended contract review and
approval process incorporates greater administrative oversight by the City Manager before contracts
are presented to the Governing Body for approval. Consistent with this structure and municipal best
practice, contracts approved by the Governing Body should be executed by the City Manager as the
City's Chief Administrative Officer, with authority to further delegate execution of contracts up to
$200,000 to the Chief Procurement Officer or other appropriate designee.
Without clearly distinguishing contract award authority from contract execution authority and explicitly
assigning award and execution authorities in the City's governing documents, the City lacks clear
governance instruction on approving contracts at what level and administrative accountability for
executing contracts and maintaining consistency with its procurement governance framework.
Clarifying these authorities would improve governance, eliminate ambiguity, and better align contract
execution with the City's recommended procurement workflow.
Recommendation
To improve operational efficiency and align contract execution authority under a best practice
administrative management structure that further aligns with the recommended contract review and
approval process, the City Code of Ordinances should be updated to delegate contract execution
authority from the Mayor to the City Manager and authorize further delegation by the City Manager to
the Chief Procurement Officer or other appropriate designees. Ideally, these revisions should be
included in Chapter XI (Budget and Finance), section 11-13 (Adoption of the City’s Procurement
Code). These changes relate only to contract execution authority and do not alter the Governing
Body’s authority to approve contract awards greater than $200,000.
• Delegation provision for City Manager contract execution authority. Chapter XI, section 11-
13 of the City Code of Ordinances should specify that the Mayor, as the City’s Chief Executive
Officer, delegates authority to execute contracts greater than $200,000 to the City Manager
following Governing Body approval. This delegation aligns contract execution authority with the
City Manager’s administrative oversight responsibilities and separates the Governing Body’s
policymaking role from the administrative responsibility for executing approved contracts.
• Delegation provision for Chief Procurement Officer contract execution authority. The same
code section should also authorize the City Manager to delegate contract execution authority for
contracts up to $200,000 to the Chief Procurement Officer or other appropriate designee(s). This
delegation would provide additional operational flexibility by allowing contract execution
responsibilities to be performed by the administrative officials most directly responsible for the
procurement process.
These changes would provide greater clarity and specificity in the City Code of Ordinances on the
administrative authorities to legally bind the City following appropriate review and approval, align
contract execution authority with the recommended procurement workflow, draw upon the specialized

Procurement Process Review | 35
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
knowledge and experience of professional municipal staff, and improve operational efficiency by
authorizing contract execution at the appropriate administrative level.
To promote policy clarity, the City’s Code of Ordinances should also be updated to enumerate the
current contract approval authorities of the Governing Body and the City Manager for contracts
greater than, and up to $200,000, respectively. Ideally, these revisions should be included in the City’s
Procurement Code.
B. Procurement Operating Model and Level of Centralization
STAFFING CAPACITY
11. Observation Purchasing is not currently staffed or structured to assume the
additional procurement responsibilities recommended in this report.
Recommendations A. Conduct a comprehensive workload analysis to determine the
staffing, roles, and organizational structure needed to support the
recommended procurement operating model.
B. Add interim Purchasing staffing capacity to support workflow
transitions, implement process improvements, and maintain
service levels while the workload analysis is completed.
As discussed throughout this report, many of the recommended process improvements transfer
procurement-related responsibilities from user departments to Purchasing, including pre-solicitation
research and outreach; solicitation administration; and contract negotiation, preparation, and approval
activities. While these changes are intended to improve consistency, accountability, and process
efficiency, they will also increase Purchasing’s workload and will require requisite training.
Purchasing currently operates primarily in a facilitative and compliance-focused role and is not staffed
to assume all of the additional responsibilities recommended in this report. Purchasing leadership
acknowledged that consolidating these activities would improve procurement operations but indicated
that additional staffing and organizational capacity would be required to support the transition.
The City’s 2025 Procurement Operational Review compared Purchasing staffing levels with those of
Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Rio Rancho, and Los Alamos County and concluded that the City would
need to add one full-time equivalent position to meet the peer average. That report also
recommended conducting a comprehensive workload analysis to determine long-term staffing and
organizational needs. Although peer benchmarking was not part of this engagement, the
recommendations contained in this report further support the need to complete that workload
analysis. They also indicate that additional staffing will be needed to implement the recommended
changes.
Recommendation
The City should conduct a workload analysis to determine the staffing, roles, and organizational
structure required to support the recommended procurement operating model. This analysis should:

Procurement Process Review | 36
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
• Evaluate current and projected procurement volumes, complexity, and cycle time expectations
across departments.
• Assess role clarity and delineation between Purchasing, user departments, and supporting
functions to eliminate duplication and gaps in accountability.
• Analyze anticipated efficiencies from process improvements, technology enhancements, and
standardization efforts to understand potential offsetting workload impacts.
• Consider additional centralization options not recommended in this report and quantify associated
resource requirements for future consideration.
• Incorporate relevant recommendations from the 2025 report.
Additionally, given the scope and complexity of the changes recommended in this report, the City
should also add one Procurement Analyst position in the near term to support implementation
activities while the workload analysis is planned and conducted. The City should evaluate whether a
permanent or term-limited position is the most appropriate option based on current funding
availability.
Initially, the position should focus on supporting workflow transitions, coordinating process and
system changes, documenting and updating policies and procedures, and assisting with
implementation of the recommended procurement operating model. This additional capacity will help
maintain service levels, reduce implementation risk, and facilitate adoption of the report’s
recommendations.
The workload analysis will then help determine the longer-term staffing and organizational structure
needed to sustainably support the recommended procurement operating model.
PROCUREMENT OPERATING MODEL
12. Observation Over time, procurement responsibilities that are more appropriately
performed by Purchasing transitioned to user departments,
contributing to role confusion, inconsistent application of
procurement policies and procedures, and process inefficiencies
across the procurement cycle.
Recommendation Restore the intended balance of the City’s hybrid procurement model
by returning selected procurement responsibilities to Purchasing
that are more appropriately performed centrally.
Hybrid procurement models can effectively balance centralized procurement expertise with
departmental operational knowledge when roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and
procurement functions are assigned based on the knowledge, skills, and expertise required to
perform them. Activities requiring specialized procurement expertise should be performed by the
central purchasing function, while departments should retain responsibility for operational functions
closely tied to service delivery.
Under the City’s existing hybrid model, procurement responsibilities are shared between Purchasing
and user departments. Under this approach, Purchasing provides centralized procurement

Procurement Process Review | 37
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
leadership, policy oversight, and administration of designated procurement activities, while user
departments retain responsibility for certain purchasing and contract administration functions. Hybrid
procurement models are common in local government because they balance centralized procurement
expertise with operational flexibility for departments and can function effectively when responsibilities
are clearly defined and consistently applied.
Within the City, responsibility for certain activities typically performed by a central purchasing function
transitioned to user departments over time, with Purchasing primarily retaining responsibility for policy
oversight and procedural compliance. This includes activities related to pre-solicitation outreach
following the services determination, research to determine the appropriate solicitation and sourcing
methods, solicitation administration, and contract negotiation and preparation.
These tasks vary in levels of complexity, ranging from routine administrative coordination to
interpreting procurement requirements, negotiating pricing and contractual terms, and applying
procurement policies and procedures. As discussed throughout this report, decentralizing these
activities has contributed to role confusion, inconsistent application of procurement policies and
procedures, and process inefficiencies across the procurement cycle.
An important part of this engagement included assessing the City’s current procurement structure for
optimal positioning along the centralized-to-decentralized continuum to best support organizational
objectives. This scope component was included at the City’s request to help determine if a higher
level of centralization was necessary to improve procurement system efficiency.
The determination of whether and how much centralization is optimal for the procurement function is
agency specific. Leading procurement organizations design their procurement structure based on
factors such as organizational size, complexity, procurement volume, risk tolerance, staff capabilities,
and service delivery requirements.
Some agencies operate highly centralized procurement functions where the authority and
responsibility for procuring all goods and services rests solely with central purchasing. At the opposite
end of the spectrum, all procurement responsibility is vested in individual departments, with authority
delegated by an agency’s chief executive and responsibility for policy oversight assigned to
purchasing. In actual practice, the most common model is a hybrid combination of centralized and
decentralized functions along a continuum between both extremes, as depicted in the figure below,
and employed by the City. This type of model is transactional in nature as opposed to strategic
models viewed as transformational (see Future Considerations for Greater Centralized Oversight
below).
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION CONTINUUM

Procurement Process Review | 38
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Based on our assessment, the City’s current challenges do not stem from its hybrid procurement
model, but rather from the gradual decentralization of procurement activities that are more
appropriately performed by Purchasing. The recommendations contained in this report therefore
represent a course correction that returns selected procurement responsibilities to Purchasing and
more closely aligns day-to-day operations with the City’s Procurement Manual’s intended allocation of
responsibilities.
Recommendation
The recommendations throughout this report are not intended to move the City toward a more
centralized procurement structure. Rather, they are intended to restore the intended balance of the
City’s hybrid procurement model by returning selected procurement responsibilities to Purchasing that
are more appropriately performed centrally. This approach aligns with the City’s Procurement Manual,
which assigns Purchasing responsibility for the control of procurement and the performance of
procurement functions except where otherwise authorized by statute, ordinance, or City policy.
Implementing this course correction should occur in phases based on the complexity of the
recommended workflow changes. A phased approach will allow the City to reestablish the intended
hybrid procurement model, evaluate the operational impacts of the recommended changes over time,
and determine whether additional centralization beyond the recommendations in this report is
warranted.
Analysis and comparisons of current and proposed workflows were presented in Section III. A of this
report and are not repeated here. Appendix C summarizes the recommended workflow changes by
procurement cycle phase, implementation complexity, and recommended implementation timing.
While many routine workflow changes can be implemented in the short term, others will require
additional planning because of policy, procedural, technology, structural, and change management
considerations. Successful implementation will also require continued collaboration between
Purchasing and user departments to help ensure anticipated efficiency gains and quality
improvements are realized while staffing and organizational changes are implemented. As discussed
in Observation No. 11, adding interim Purchasing capacity will help facilitate this transition.
Future Considerations for Greater Centralized Oversight
The recommendations in this report are intended to improve operational performance within the City’s
existing hybrid procurement model. They are not intended to recommend a greater level of structural
centralization at this time. Once the recommended process improvements have been implemented,
workload impacts assessed, and operational performance evaluated over time, City leaders may wish
to consider whether additional strategic procurement responsibilities should be centralized within
Purchasing.
The concepts discussed below are presented as future considerations rather than implementation
recommendations. They illustrate how leading local governments use strategically centralized
procurement functions as a transformative way to advance organizational objectives beyond the
transactional procurement activities addressed in this report.
Illustrative Strategic Procurement Practices

Procurement Process Review | 39
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Strategic procurement management is a best practice that extends beyond traditional, transaction-
based purchasing and takes a proactive, long-term approach to purchasing goods and services that
aligns with broader economic, social, and sustainability goals of a local agency.
Key facets of the approach include the following:
• Civic goal alignment. Strategic procurement management aligns procurement to governing
body policy goals such as those established in conjunction with Environmental, Social, and
Governance (ESG) strategies for environmental stewardship, local supplier diversity, and
contracting integrity and transparency.
• Strategic sourcing and supplier relationship management. This approach includes cultivating
strategic vendor partnerships, including those involving multiple supply chains, to establish long-
term contractual arrangements. These relationships can improve price predictability, strengthen
service delivery, and help achieve best value over defined life cycles.
• Robust spend analysis. Conducting robust spend analysis can result in significant cost savings
and purchasing efficiency but is not effectively employed by most local agencies whose
purchasing units do not have the requisite expertise and typically operate under resource
constraints. Spend analysis is essential for making fact-based decisions, especially those used
for center-led spend efforts described below.
• Center-led spend. Center-led spend is a governance and operating model where a centralized
procurement organization provides strategic direction, policy development and compliance, and
sourcing control over enterprise-wide spending, while decentralized departments execute
purchase transactions within established frameworks and delegated authorities.
Under the center-led spend approach, central procurement is the responsible authority for
grouping similar goods and services together commonly used across departments under
enterprise-wide contracts. Some examples include fleet vehicles and heavy equipment, fuel,
information technology hardware and software, office supplies, printing and copying, and
professional consultants.
The center-led spend model can be particularly efficient and effective means to:
○ Aggregate spending for obtaining pricing discounts.
○ Standardize products and services across departments.
○ Reduce duplicate procurements.
○ Improve policy and procedural compliance.
○ Increase visibility into agency spending.
○ Strengthen internal controls through centralized oversight while allowing departments to
focus on service delivery.
For medium- to large-sized municipalities, a center-led approach is considered a leading practice
that combines strategic procurement expertise with departmental flexibility.
Establishing such a framework is a long-term, transformational proposition that elevates the
procurement function to a strategic level for policy and innovation, not merely a vehicle to facilitate
goods and services purchases. While the gold standard in public procurement, implementing a
strategic procurement management framework requires structural changes that most cities are not
resourced to implement. However, elements such as strategic sourcing or center-led master

Procurement Process Review | 40
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
contracting can be piloted to determine whether resources should be added to further develop such
tools for long-term value.
DEPARTMENTAL PROCUREMENT LIAISONS
13. Observation Procurement-related responsibilities within user departments are
often distributed across multiple staff members without a designated
point of accountability, contributing to inconsistent application of
procurement policies and procedures and inefficient coordination
with Purchasing.
Recommendation Establish a formal Purchasing liaison program by designating trained
departmental procurement points of contact to improve
accountability, coordination, and consistency across the procurement
process.
Purchasing liaison programs strengthen governance by establishing clear accountability for
coordinating departmental purchasing activities, facilitating communication with central procurement,
supporting procurement planning, reinforcing consistent application of procurement policies, and
ensuring procurement-related training and guidance are communicated throughout the department.
While procurement responsibilities may involve multiple staff members, assigning a designated
liaison improves coordination and reduces uncertainty regarding departmental procurement
responsibilities.
Currently, procurement-related responsibilities within the City’s user departments are often distributed
across multiple staff members without a designated departmental point-of-contact for coordinating
procurement activities. This fragmented approach contributes to inconsistent application of
procurement policies and procedures, inefficient coordination with Purchasing, and process
inefficiencies.
Procurement-related tasks such as obtaining price quotes, preparing purchase requisitions, form
filling, coordinating required documentation, contract and Purchasing Memo preparation are
performed inconsistently and often distributed across multiple staff without clear ownership. Without a
designated departmental point of accountability, this fragmented approach contributes to confusion,
inconsistent quality, rework, and delays in the procurement process. It also creates variability in how
procurement requirements are interpreted and applied, reducing process consistency and increasing
the risk of noncompliance. These challenges are amplified in the City’s hybrid procurement
environment, where responsibilities are shared between Purchasing and user departments but not
always clearly defined. Purchasing must frequently provide reactive, one-on-one support to address
avoidable issues, further straining limited centralized resources.
While some of these tasks are proposed to be transferred to Purchasing, the transition will take time
and responsibilities associated with coordinating information flow, preparing documentation, and
vendor engagement will continue to be performed by user departments even once changes are
implemented.

Procurement Process Review | 41
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
To address such challenges, public procurement organizations often use a liaison or “super-user”
program. These programs are particularly effective in hybrid environments because they create a
scalable bridge between centralized expertise and decentralized execution. These programs help
standardize interpretation of policies, reduce reliance on informal knowledge networks, and improve
the consistency of procurement practices across departments. A liaison program also enhances
communication and understanding between Purchasing and user departments.
Organizations that successfully implement liaison programs typically pair role designation with
structured training, ongoing engagement, and governance. Without these supporting elements,
liaison roles can become symbolic rather than functional, limiting their ability to drive meaningful
process improvements.
Establishing a formal liaison network would enable Purchasing to transition from a transactional,
reactive support model to a more strategic role focused on oversight, continuous improvement, and
high-value procurements. At the same time, departments would benefit from increased ownership and
subject matter knowledge, faster processing, and improved internal coordination.
Recommendation
The City should implement a structured purchasing liaison program by designating a primary
procurement point of contact within each department and/or division depending on size and volume.
The liaisons would serve as central coordinators for all procurement-related activities within their
respective departments, creating a clear and consistent ownership model for key tasks that are
currently fragmented across multiple staff. Establishing a dedicated liaison role with a single point of
accountability for interfacing with Purchasing will create a clear line of responsibility for procurement
process coordination at the department level.
As Purchasing takes on greater workload, it will be necessary to consolidate points of contact to
create process efficiency that will also serve to strengthen interdepartmental collaboration. Core
elements of a successful liaison program include:
• Designated Departmental Points-of-Contact: Assign a trained procurement liaison within each
department to serve as the single point of coordination for procurement activities.
• Clear Role Definition: Document liaison responsibilities, including ownership of intake, quality
assurance, and coordination, along with clear boundaries between departmental and Purchasing
responsibilities.
• Upstream Quality Control: Position liaisons as initial reviewers responsible for ensuring
requests are complete, accurate, and policy-compliant before submission, reducing downstream
rework.
• Standardized Tools and Templates: Provide liaisons with consistent checklists, templates, and
job aids to drive uniform execution across departments.
• Role-Based Training: Require liaisons to complete targeted training and maintain baseline
competency in procurement policies, systems (e.g., OpenGov), and processes.
• Community of Practice Model: Establish regular forums for liaisons to engage with Purchasing,
share lessons learned, and receive updates on policy or process changes.
• Performance Monitoring: Track metrics such as submission quality and cycle times to reinforce
accountability and identify improvement opportunities (see Observation No. 18).

Procurement Process Review | 42
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Implementing a formal purchasing liaisons program that designates single points of contact within
departments to interface with Purchasing will help strengthen interdepartmental communication and
collaboration and improve consistency and efficiency in service delivery. Establishing such a program
is necessary to help offset workload impacts resulting from transferring procurement-related tasks
from departments to Purchasing.
C. Assessment of Continued Application of State Procurement Code
HOME-RULE PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY
14. Observation The City’s home-rule authority provides the flexibility to adopt,
modify, or depart from provisions of the state procurement code.
Exercising that flexibility requires careful evaluation of the
operational, governance, and policy implications of each proposed
change.
Recommendation Evaluate additional departures from the state procurement code on a
case-by-case basis and in conjunction with recommended
improvements to ensure operational impacts are understood.
Effective procurement governance requires procurement authorities, responsibilities, and procedures
to be established through a coherent legislative and policy framework. When a home-rule municipality
adopts a state procurement code but exercises its authority to modify or depart from individual
provisions, those departures should be intentional, clearly documented, supported by a defined policy
rationale, and periodically evaluated to determine whether they continue to advance the municipality's
operational, governance, and procurement objectives.
Following adoption of the state procurement code in 2018, the City has exercised its home-rule
authority to modify certain procurement requirements to improve operational flexibility, legal
consistency, and transparency, with changes occurring in 2023 and 2026. These changes have
primarily included:
• Increasing the City Manager’s contract approval authority to $200,000, with monthly reporting of
approved contracts
• Expanding and clarifying exemptions from competitive solicitations
• Authorizing Procurement Manual changes by resolution without committee review
• Authorizing the Chief Procurement Officer to approve purchase orders and requests for
applications for grants awards
• Increasing the maximum duration for professional services contracts from four to eight years
• Adopting the construction manager at risk (CMAR) project delivery method
• Modifying dollar thresholds and procurement requirements for small purchases
• Authorizing the City Manager to approve contract amendments that do not materially alter the
scope of work
• Adding processes for emergency procurements

Procurement Process Review | 43
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
The policy changes adopted to date demonstrate that the City has exercised its home-rule authority
to address specific operational and governance objectives.
Based on our assessment, Baker Tilly does not recommend that the City either fully adopt or fully
abandon the state procurement code at this time. Instead, the City should continue using its home-
rule authority to evaluate procurement policies individually, adopting, modifying, or departing from
state procurement code provisions where doing so demonstrably improves operational efficiency,
governance, transparency, or process integrity. This approach allows the City to continue exercising
its home-rule authority strategically, adopting or modifying procurement policies where they provide a
demonstrated operational or governance benefit while avoiding unnecessary complexity or
unintended operational impacts.
During the engagement, City staff identified a number of additional policy and procedural concepts for
future consideration. These concepts have not been evaluated in sufficient detail to determine
whether they should be implemented or whether they would require adoption, modification, or
departure from provisions of the state procurement code. They are provided in Appendix D as
reference items for future evaluation rather than recommendations for implementation.
Recommendation
The City should continue to exercise its home-rule authority strategically by evaluating procurement
policy changes—including adoption, modification, or departure from provisions of the state
procurement code—on a case-by-case basis. Policy changes should be supported by appropriate
operational, legal, governance, and administrative analysis and considered in the context of the
procurement improvements recommended throughout this report.
The policy and procedural changes recommended throughout this report represent targeted
modifications intended to improve procurement efficiency, governance, and process integrity. These
recommendations should be prioritized and implemented before the City considers broader changes
to its procurement framework. Evaluating the operational impacts of these changes will provide a
stronger foundation for determining whether additional procurement policy changes are warranted.

Procurement Process Review | 44
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
D. Other Supporting Opportunities for Improvement
TRAINING
15. Observation Departments do not receive consistent, role-based procurement
training, contributing to inconsistent application of procurement
requirements, submission errors, and increased reliance on reactive
support from Purchasing.
Recommendation Implement a structured, role-based Purchasing training program to
improve consistency and capability.
Effective procurement organizations establish formal, standardized training programs that provide
employees with the knowledge and tools necessary to consistently perform procurement
responsibilities in accordance with policy and applicable requirements.
Current procurement training for user departments remains largely informal and inconsistent.
Although Purchasing has recently introduced recurring training sessions and office hours, training is
not governed by a comprehensive program with standardized curriculum, role-based learning
objectives, onboarding requirements, or periodic refresher training. As a result, department staff
members are underprepared to navigate procurement requirements, contributing to inconsistent
execution, submission errors, and increased reliance on Purchasing for reactive, one-on-one support.
These challenges are particularly pronounced in a hybrid procurement environment, where
responsibilities are shared between central Purchasing and decentralized departmental staff. Without
clear, standardized training and guidance, departments may interpret policies differently, apply
inconsistent practices, or bypass established controls which can undermine compliance, efficiency,
and equitable vendor treatment.
According to the 2025 NIGP benchmarking report, 61.6% of 385 surveyed agencies have a formal
procurement training program for internal stakeholders, reinforcing that structured training is a
common capability among mature procurement organizations.2
Recommendation
To address these challenges, the City should implement a structured, role-based procurement
training program that is centrally managed by Purchasing and aligned with a broader, standardized
training and change management framework. This program should provide clear, consistent guidance
tailored to different roles, such as requestors, approvers, and departmental liaisons.
Training should include formal onboarding for new staff, regularly scheduled refresher sessions, and
targeted modules focused on key topics such as:
2 2025-CARE-Public-Procurement-Benchmark-Report.pdf

Procurement Process Review | 45
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
• Scope development
• Contract requirements
• System usage, particularly for OpenGov
Establishing a defined and recurring training cadence will help ensure all users receive consistent
foundational knowledge and remain informed as processes evolve. Additionally, training should be
embedded into major process or system changes so that updates to policies, templates, or tools are
consistently accompanied by clear instruction on how to apply them in practice.
The City should consider the following user department training best practices when developing a
training program:
• Role-Based Curriculum Design: Develop tailored training paths based on user roles, ensuring
staff receive relevant, practical instruction aligned to their level of procurement involvement and
decision-making authority.
• Standardized Core Content: Implement a consistent baseline curriculum covering procurement
policies, thresholds, ethical standards, documentation requirements, and system usage to
promote uniform understanding across departments.
• Mandatory Onboarding and Periodic Refreshers: Require new hires and newly assigned
procurement users to complete foundational training, with periodic refresher courses to reinforce
compliance and incorporate policy updates. These sessions should include key process
stakeholders across the procure-to-pay cycle include risk management, legal, and accounts
payable representation to help new hires and those with newly assigned procurement-related
responsibilities understand roles and responsibilities.
• Blended Learning Approach: Combine instructor-led sessions, on-demand e-learning modules,
job aids, and quick-reference guides to accommodate different learning styles and improve
accessibility.
• Embedded Process Guidance: Integrate step-by-step guidance, checklists, and templates
directly into procurement systems and workflows to support users at the point of need and reduce
reliance on institutional knowledge.
• Departmental Super-User or Liaison Model: Designate and train departmental procurement
liaisons to serve as first-line resources, reinforcing best practices and ensuring more consistent
application of policies at the department level (see Observation No. 13).
• Performance Metrics and Feedback Loops: Track training participation, satisfaction, and
common issue themes to continuously improve training content and target high-risk areas.
• Governance and Accountability: Establish clear expectations for compliance with training
requirements and procurement procedures, supported by leadership reinforcement and periodic
audits.

Procurement Process Review | 46
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
COMMUNICATION
16. Observation Procurement-related changes are not communicated through a
consistent, proactive change management process, resulting in
confusion, inconsistent adoption, and process inefficiencies.
Recommendation Implement a structured change management and communication
framework to improve awareness, adoption, and consistent
implementation of procurement-related changes.
Effective procurement organizations establish formal change management and communication
processes to ensure procurement policy, procedure, system, and workflow changes are consistently
communicated, understood, and implemented across the organization. Timely stakeholder
communication, coordinated training, and accessible guidance help promote consistent adoption of
new requirements, reduce operational disruption, and improve compliance with procurement policies
and procedures.
While Purchasing has made substantial efforts to modernize procurement processes and implement
new tools, stakeholder interviews consistently identified communication and change management as
ongoing challenges. Departments reported that procurement policies, procedures, forms, roadmaps,
and workflow requirements are frequently updated without a structured communication process,
resulting in staff learning about changes only after a transaction is rejected or delayed. Several
departments noted that they rely on procurement roadmaps and guidance documents as their primary
source of information, yet updates to these resources are not always communicated proactively,
leading to confusion, rework, inconsistent application of requirements, and frustration among
stakeholders.
These communication gaps have been amplified by significant process changes, including the
implementation of OpenGov, revised purchasing workflows, updated approval requirements, and
evolving procurement practices. Although many stakeholders acknowledged that Purchasing has
become more collaborative and responsive in recent years, they also noted that changes are often
implemented faster than departments can absorb and operationalize them. As a result, departments
frequently develop local workarounds, rely on informal communication channels, or interpret
requirements differently, contributing to inconsistent practices across the organization.
The City’s 2025 Procurement Operational Review similarly found that the City faced challenges
effectively managing change and providing the training necessary to support departments through
procurement process changes. The report specifically recommended implementing a standardized
training and change management process to improve communication, adoption, and accountability
related to procurement-related changes. Continued feedback gathered during this review indicates
that while progress has been made, a more structured approach to change management remains
necessary to achieve sustainable improvements.
Without a formal change management framework, the City risks ongoing process inefficiencies,
reduced stakeholder confidence, inconsistent compliance with procurement requirements, and
increased administrative burden associated with correcting avoidable errors. As additional
recommendations within this report are implemented, the need for a coordinated and proactive

Procurement Process Review | 47
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
communication strategy will become increasingly important to ensure successful adoption and long-
term sustainability.
Recommendation
To reduce process friction, rework, and stakeholder frustration, the City should implement a
standardized change management and communication framework for procurement-related updates.
This framework should shift the organization from a reactive communication model to a proactive,
consistent, and centralized approach, helping to ensure that all stakeholders are informed, prepared,
and accountable when changes occur.
This recommendation builds upon the 2025 Procurement Operational Review recommendation to
implement a standardized training and change management process. Given the number and scope of
the procurement improvements recommended in this report, a more formalized and proactive change
management framework will be essential to ensure consistent communication, effective
implementation, and long-term adoption across the organization.
Key elements of this framework include:
• Establish a formal change management framework. Adopt a clear and formalized approach to
department communications. Consider a recognized change management methodology (e.g.,
Prosci ADKAR, PMI Change Management, or ITIL Change Enablement) to standardize how
procurement-related changes are introduced and adopted.
• Identify which methods user departments prefer. Conduct engagement with user departments
to understand how and when they want to receive updates.
• Centralize communication and policy updates. Create a single authoritative source of truth
(e.g., intranet hub, OpenGov portal page) for all procurement policies, templates, and guidance.
• Establish clear roles. Define clear roles and responsibilities (e.g., Purchasing, departmental
liaisons, system administrators) for initiating, approving, communicating, and monitoring changes.
• Monitor, measure, and continuously improve. Introduce Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to
track communication effectiveness (see Observation No. 18).
TECHNOLOGY
17. Observation Procurement technology is fragmented, creating duplicate work,
manual processes, and administrative inefficiencies.
Recommendation Develop a coordinated procurement technology strategy that
evaluates opportunities to consolidate systems, improve integration,
standardize workflows, and strengthen governance of procurement-
related technology.
Efficient and effective procurement organizations implement integrated technology solutions that
support the end-to-end procurement lifecycle through standardized workflows, coordinated data
management, and appropriate system interoperability. Technology should minimize duplicate data

Procurement Process Review | 48
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
entry, reduce manual handoffs, maintain a single source of reliable information where practical, and
provide users with efficient visibility into procurement activities.
The City’s procurement technology environment remains fragmented, requiring staff to navigate
multiple systems, perform duplicate data entry, and manually transfer information throughout the
procure-to-pay lifecycle. While recent investments, particularly OpenGov, have improved visibility and
process structure, the benefits of these tools are limited by insufficient integration, inconsistent
implementation, and a lack of enterprise-wide coordination.
Process mapping identified at least seven platforms that support procurement activities, including
Outlook, OpenGov, JotForm, Box, Adobe Sign, CivicPlus, and Tyler Munis. Although each platform
serves a specific purpose, stakeholders consistently reported that information must be repeatedly
entered, uploaded, downloaded, reconciled, and tracked across systems. This creates unnecessary
administrative effort, increases the risk of errors, and disrupts workflow continuity.
The effects of this fragmentation are particularly evident during contract development, review,
approval, and execution. Contract documents are often drafted in one system, routed through another
for legal review, signed in a separate platform, uploaded into OpenGov, transferred to CivicPlus for
agenda management, and then entered into Munis for contract and purchase order processing. Staff
reported frequently downloading and re-uploading the same contract packages to satisfy approval,
documentation, and recordkeeping requirements. As a result, workflows are difficult to track and
heavily dependent on manual coordination across departments.
Stakeholders also cited challenges associated with duplicate records, inconsistent data, and the
inability of systems to communicate effectively. Procurement status is often tracked through emails,
spreadsheets, or direct follow-up because workflow information is dispersed across multiple platforms
rather than maintained within a single source of truth. These system handoffs consume staff time and
create opportunities for delays, errors, and inconsistent data entry.
These concerns were also identified in the City’s 2025 Procurement Operational Review, which
recommended further integration of procurement workflows and consolidation of legal review
processes currently managed through JotForm and Box. Although the City has made meaningful
progress in modernizing procurement technology, stakeholder feedback and process mapping
indicate that system fragmentation, duplicative documentation requirements, and limited integration
continue to create inefficiencies and administrative burden.
Recommendation
Develop and implement a coordinated procurement technology strategy that evaluates opportunities
to consolidate systems, improve integration, standardize workflows, and strengthen governance of
procurement-related technology.
As part of this effort, the City should conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit and efficiency assessment
of its procurement technology environment, evaluating both direct system costs and indirect impacts
such as staff time, duplicate work, manual reconciliation, rework, and process delays. The
assessment should identify opportunities to eliminate redundant systems and documentation
requirements, improve interoperability, and streamline end-to-end procurement workflows.

Procurement Process Review | 49
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Based on the results, the City should establish a phased technology roadmap that prioritizes system
consolidation, stronger integration between procurement, legal, agenda management, contract
management, and financial systems, and greater standardization of procurement-related workflows.
This should include revisiting prior recommendations to better integrate OpenGov with systems used
by the City Attorney’s Office and other key stakeholders.
A more coordinated and integrated technology environment will improve data integrity, reduce
administrative burden, increase process transparency, and support a more efficient, scalable, and
user-friendly procure-to-pay process.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
18. Observation The City does not maintain a formal procurement performance
management program, limiting its ability to evaluate operational
performance, demonstrate results, and drive continuous improvement.
Recommendation Establish a procurement performance management program that
measures, monitors, and reports KPIs to support operational decision-
making and continuous improvement.
Leading procurement organizations establish performance management frameworks that define
meaningful performance measures, monitor operational results, and communicate outcomes to
management and stakeholders. Performance metrics should align with organizational objectives and
provide reliable information to evaluate service delivery, resource utilization, process efficiency,
compliance, and continuous improvement efforts.
While Purchasing has made substantial investments in process improvements, technology
modernization, workflow redesign, and increased stakeholder engagement, it has not established a
comprehensive performance management framework to measure and communicate the effectiveness
of those efforts. As a result, management, City leadership, and stakeholders have limited visibility into
procurement performance, service levels, workload trends, and the outcomes achieved through
recent process improvements.
The City’s 2025 procurement review identified this same issue, noting that Purchasing had not
established formal KPIs and recommending implementation of performance metrics aligned with
service goals and strategic objectives. Although significant operational changes have occurred since
that review—including implementation of OpenGov, process redesign efforts, and increased
centralization of procurement activities—formal KPI reporting remains limited. Consequently, the City
lacks objective data to determine whether process changes are reducing cycle times, improving
customer service, increasing compliance, or creating the intended operational efficiencies.
The absence of performance metrics also limits the City’s ability to identify emerging issues, prioritize
improvement efforts, support staffing decisions, and demonstrate accountability to departments and
elected officials. During interviews, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding consistency,
timeliness, communication, training, and process transparency. Without meaningful performance
measures, leadership cannot readily determine whether these concerns are isolated incidents or

Procurement Process Review | 50
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
systemic issues requiring corrective action. Similarly, the City has limited ability to quantify
improvements, compare performance over time, or benchmark against peer organizations.
As the City continues implementing the recommendations contained in this report, performance
measurement will become increasingly important. A formal KPI program would provide management
with actionable data to monitor implementation progress, evaluate service quality, identify workflow
bottlenecks, and support a culture of continuous improvement.
Recommendation
The City should establish and routinely report procurement performance metrics that provide
meaningful insight into efficiency, effectiveness, customer service, compliance, and organizational
outcomes. Examples of KPIs are provided in the table below.
POTENTIAL KPIS
KPIs Target Metric(s)
● Cycle times for informal and formal solicitations ● Number completed and percentage within target
● Cost savings achieved through best value
negotiations (requests for proposals)
● Dollar difference between submitted and
negotiated cost
● Cost savings achieved through supplier
consolidation
● Dollar difference between current and
consolidated cost
● Cost avoidance through negotiated/fixed price
increases for multi-year contracts
● Dollar value of savings from negotiated price
increases
● Percentage of lowest-bid fixed price increases
● Amount of center led spend under management ● Percentage compared to total spend
● Supplier diversity to promote socioeconomic
goals
● Percentage within target
● Sustainable spend to advance ESG goals ● Percentage within target
● Internal and external customer/stakeholder
satisfaction
● Overall satisfaction rating (percentage compared
to target)
● Quality and consistency of service provided
(percentage compared to target)
Key steps to establish an effective KPI process include:
• Establish core procurement KPIs. Develop a balanced set of metrics that measure operational
performance, customer service, compliance, and resource utilization.
• Define baselines and performance targets. Establish current-state performance benchmarks
and identify realistic future-state goals for each metric.
• Develop leadership dashboards. Create monthly or quarterly KPI dashboards to provide
visibility into procurement performance, trends, and emerging issues.
• Measure customer experience. Implement periodic stakeholder satisfaction surveys to assess
perceptions related to communication, responsiveness, training, consistency, and overall
procurement support.

Procurement Process Review | 51
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
• Use KPI data to drive improvement. Incorporate performance measures into management
discussions, process improvement initiatives, staffing evaluations, change management efforts,
and strategic planning activities.
• Report progress regularly. Share high-level performance results with City leadership,
departments, and other stakeholders to reinforce accountability and demonstrate the impact of
procurement modernization efforts.
PROCUREMENT MANUAL
19. Observation The Procurement Manual was last updated in 2020 and lacks
procedural guidance in some areas, resulting in inconsistencies and
increased confusion around purchasing processes.
Recommendation Update the Procurement Manual and establish a process for
maintaining it to reflect policy and procedural changes, incorporate
procurement best practices, and provide clear, user-friendly guidance
to City staff.
Effective procurement organizations maintain comprehensive, current, and accessible policies and
procedures that clearly communicate procurement requirements, roles, responsibilities, and
standardized processes. Procurement manuals should serve as the authoritative source of procedural
guidance, be regularly updated to reflect changes in laws, policies, systems, and business practices,
and be organized in a manner that is practical and easy for users to navigate.
The 2025 report recommended the comprehensive review and updating of the 2020 Procurement
Manual as a critical path item to help City employees navigate complex policies and procedures.
Although Purchasing has developed helpful standard operating procedures and visual guides, this
comprehensive update has yet to occur. Additionally, procedural information is in different places,
which challenges user department staff members from easily accessing information.
Given the numerous recommended updates in this report and updates that occurred after 2020 when
the Procurement Manual was last updated, it is essential that the Manual be overhauled to reflect
policy and procedural modifications, modernize the format for clarity and user-friendliness, and add
provisions currently absent that help reinforce public procurement concepts and process integrity. The
Procurement Manual is the most important policy and procedural document for City staff awareness
because it is viewed as the source of truth for all requirements and should be structured for ease of
use and understanding (as opposed to the legalese in codes and regulations that can be hard to
decipher).
Recommendation
The Procurement Manual should be comprehensively updated to incorporate the policy, procedural,
and workflow changes recommended throughout this report and to serve as the City’s primary
reference document for procurement activities. The Procurement Manual should also be maintained
as a living document, with updates incorporated on a regular basis as policies, procedures, and
systems evolve. Helpful examples of formatting changes and additional provisions include:

Procurement Process Review | 52
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
• Use of graphics to portray high level workflows and summary information on solicitation
requirements and dollar thresholds
• Inclusion of examples and scenarios of policy and procedural challenges commonly encountered
such as determining appropriate bidding methods, types of services, and contract approval
authorities associated with transaction types
• Hyperlinks to important reference information such as relevant local and state laws and federal
regulations, purchasing cooperatives, state price agreements, standard operating procedures,
etc.
• Addition of a front-forward section on conduct and ethics in public procurement
• Inclusion of a separate section on procurement approval authorities and roles and responsibilities
• Addition of sections on preparing specifications and scopes of work, how to determine
appropriate solicitation procedures, and procurement risk management
The 2025 Procurement Operational Review provides numerous recommendations that remain
relevant and should be incorporated into the updated Procurement Manual. However, certain
recommendations, such as those related to service determinations and Purchasing Memo
preparation, should be revisited during the update process to ensure they align with the workflow
changes recommended in this report.

Procurement Process Review | 53
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Appendix A: Current State Process Map

Procurement Process Review | 54
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 55
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 56
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 57
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 58
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 59
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 60
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Appendix B: Future State Process Map

Procurement Process Review | 61
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 62
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 63
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 64
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 65
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY

Procurement Process Review | 66
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Appendix C: Recommended Workflow
Changes for Procurement-Related Tasks
This appendix summarizes the recommended workflow changes by procurement cycle phase,
implementation complexity, and recommended implementation timing. While many routine workflow
changes can be implemented in the short term, others will require additional planning because of
policy, procedural, technology, structural, and change management considerations. Successful
implementation will also require continued collaboration between Purchasing and user departments to
help ensure anticipated efficiency gains and quality improvements are realized while staffing and
organizational changes are implemented.
The level of complexity is defined as follows:
• Low: Straightforward, can be implemented without delay with minimal workload impacts
• Medium: Some process complexity that requires policy and/or procedural changes, basic system
configurations, and higher levels of collaboration between departments
• High: Significant policy and procedural considerations and/or systems
configurations/consolidations that have cost implications
RECOMMENDED WORKFLOW CHANGES FOR PROCUREMENT-RELATED TASKS
Procurement Cycle Phase/Task Workflow Change Level of
Complexity
Implementation
Timing
Pre-Solicitation Planning (Recommendations 1, 2, and 3)
● Improved procurement planning ● Within departments ● Low ● Short-term (1 to 3
months)
● Department review and approval of
work scopes
● Within departments ● Medium ● Short-term
● Services determinations, State Use
Act compliance, and identification of
alternative procurement methods
● Departments to
Purchasing
● Medium ● Short-term
Solicitation
(Recommendation 4)
● Facilitating pre-proposal conferences ● Departments to
Purchasing
● Low ● Short-term
● Preparing evaluation summaries ● Departments to
Purchasing
● Low ● Short-term
Contract Negotiation
(Recommendations 5 and 6)
● Earlier review of vendor-requested
changes by City Attorney
● Departments to
Purchasing
● Low ● Short-term under
pilot approach

Procurement Process Review | 67
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
RECOMMENDED WORKFLOW CHANGES FOR PROCUREMENT-RELATED TASKS
● Changes to clarification meetings
workflow
● Departments to
Purchasing
● Low ● Short-term under
pilot approach
Contract Preparation
(Recommendations 5 and 6)
● Purchasing preparation of draft
contract
● Departments to
Purchasing
● Medium ● Short-term under
pilot approach
● Vendor signature routing change ● City Attorney to
Purchasing
● Medium ● Medium-term (3–6
months)
● Move City Attorney contract approval
as to form and legal sufficiency
● Within City
Attorney’s Office
● Medium ● Medium-term
Contract Review and Approval
(Recommendations 7, 8, and 9)
● Purchasing memo preparation
● Memo review workflow
● Departments to
Purchasing
● Interdepartmental
● Medium ● Longer-term
(greater than six
months)
● Systems consolidation (OpenGov
and Civic Plus to Civic Plus)
● Not applicable ● High ● Longer-term
● Finance Director funding verification ● Not applicable ● Medium ● Medium-term
● Incorporation of City Manager in
workflow
● Not applicable ● Medium ● Short-term
● Elimination of Committee review
process
● Not applicable ● Medium ● Medium-term
● Policy and procedural changes for
RFP process integrity
● Not applicable ● High ● Longer-term
Contract Execution
(Recommendation 10)
● Delegation provisions for contract
signing authority
● Mayor to City
Manager
● High ● Longer-term
● Code of Ordinance changes for
clarity
● Not applicable ● High ● Longer-term

Procurement Process Review | 68
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
Appendix D: Additional Considerations
for Policy Changes
This appendix summarizes potential opportunities for policy and procedural changes discussed with
staff members throughout the engagement. A thorough analysis has not been conducted to determine
which of opportunities would constitute departures from the state procurement code, which would
require resources beyond the scope of our engagement. However, we wanted to provide the City with
a list of items surfaced so a more comprehensive list is included in this document for future
consideration.
• Dollar threshold alignments. In 2023, the City Manager’s contract approval threshold was
increased to $200,000, while the threshold for budget authorization requests to accept grants3
(BARs) is $60,000. Consideration may be given to increasing the authorization threshold for
approving BARs to $200,000 for consistency with contract approval thresholds.
• Indexing provisions for dollar threshold adjustments. The upward adjustment of market
prices is inevitable over time, yet local contract approval thresholds typically do not keep pace,
which can lead to process inefficiencies. Consideration could be given to establishing an indexing
provision based on the regional consumer price index or a similar indicator. Such a provision can
help facilitate timely changes. Policy changes could include authorization to index thresholds via
resolution adoption or delegation of the authority to the City Manager with periodic reporting to
the Governing Body.
• Clarify definitions of contract approval authority. The authority for approving contract changes
is not clear and greater policy clarity is desired. In our experience, determining contract approval
authority by what constitutes a “single transaction” can be helpful for decision making. For
example, an initial purchase contract would constitute a single transaction. If an amendment to
that contract is needed to add cost, the single transaction would be the amount of the initial
contract plus the added amount. On the other hand, the single transaction associated with the
approval of a multi-year contract should be the total value of the purchase over the course of the
agreement term.
Additional clarity could be gained by specifying the differences between contract amendments
(material scope changes and dollar value increases that may impact approval authority) and
contract extensions (lengthening of contract duration to complete work without impacting scope or
cost).
• Clarify differences between solicitation exceptions and exemptions. Certain purchases of
goods and services may not adapt well to competitive solicitations and may be entirely exempted
from such processes. Examples include bonds, insurance, utility payments, membership dues
and subscriptions, conferences, and media advertisements.
Conversely, certain goods and services that could otherwise be procured via competitive
solicitations may be eligible for an exception to such a solicitation. Examples include sole or
3 The City is currently considering other changes to the way grants are authorized to create administrative efficiency.

Procurement Process Review | 69
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA FE ONLY
single source procurements, equipment or component parts that must be compatible with existing
equipment, or purchases made in conjunction with cooperative purchasing programs.
The City may wish to build these distinctions into policy and/or procedural requirements for clarity
and consistency. From this perspective, exemptions would not be considered as part of the
process used to determine if a solicitation is required or whether the sourced procurement
method is justified.
• Bid protest procedures. To the extent the City is following state procurement code requirements
for bid protests, the City may wish to consider establishing alternative bid protest procedures. As
one example, the state procurement code allows any “aggrieved bidder or offeror” to file a protest
without clearly defining whether the aggrieved party is an actual or prospective bidder/offeror, or if
the aggrieved bidder/offeror was reasonably in line for contract award. These scenarios can result
in increased protest activity that requires process pauses and/or solicitation cancellation.4
• Local business preference policy. During our engagement, it was mentioned that the City is
contemplating changes to its local business preference policy, which currently includes variable
percentage bid or proposal discounts to qualified local vendors based on the type of solicitation
and estimated dollar value.
Depending on many factors, local preference policies can range from generalized support for
doing business with local vendors to highly specific and complex evaluation factors. Some cities
apply local preferences only to procurements for goods based on lowest-bid contract awards due
to the complexities of applying preference percentages to best value procurements that consider
factors in addition to cost.
The level of complexity can be dictated by state law (or federal regulations associated with grant-
funded purchases) as well as local policies tied to socio-economic or environmental goals, data
analysis, or the results of a contracting disparity study.
Our engagement did not include analysis that would support specific recommendations for policy
changes to the City’s local business preferences. Rather, our intent is to highlight some of the
approaches and complexities associated with these policies so they may be considered as part of
future discussions.
4 Some states have laws that specifically and literally allow “any aggrieved party” to file protests whether an actual bidder or
not. Consequently, protest activity can be significantly higher and operationally disruptive.