It is to be expected that the State purchasing agency should work closely under the supervision of the Governor, or probably under his appointed head of the finance department. In the majority of the States the purchasing agency is connected with the department of finance or its equivalent.

Purchases are generally made for all State departments, bureaus, and institutions. In a few States purchases are made only for State penal and charitable institutions.

Almost all orders for State supplies are placed by means of written specifications. However, few States are using standard specifications, since, in the majority of the cases supplies are ordered by brand or trade name. In many instances the brand is used only as a description, or a guide to the buyer, and it is understood that another brand of equal merit may be substituted. Sometimes purchase orders which mention a brand must include at least three brands, any of which may be supplied.

As a general rule, the formulation of specifications for purchases is left to the purchasing agent or agency, often with the advice of the department for which the purchase is being made, or with technical assistance if it is available. Only in a few States are specifications prepared by a special committee appointed for this purpose.

It is interesting to note that in 26 States Federal Specifications or nationally recognized specifications are used extensively, frequently, or wherever possible.

Almost all of the States have set up specifications on at least certain items, such as foodstuffs, highway materials, gasoline and oil, and construction materials.

In most of the States some effort is made to test samples of materials before placing the order, or upon delivery. Thirteen States have testing laboratories in connection with their purchasing agencies, and in some of the States the testing facilities of the purchasing agency laboratories are supplemented by commercial or university laboratories. The results of this survey show that much could be accomplished if the present purchasing methods of the States were placed on a scientific basis. The utilization of standards and specifications established by the Federal Government or by nationally recognized standardizing agencies, used tentatively for a trial period in the original form and modified when necessary to meet local requirements would undoubtedly improve the quality of the goods purchased and result in savings to the States. It seems that the testing facilities of taxsupported colleges or universities should be used most extensively to ascertain that the commodities delivered conform to the purchase specifications.

COUNTY PURCHASING METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A survey of purchasing methods used by counties was made in 1939 by the National Bureau of Standards, United States Department of Commerce. A questionnaire was sent to the official in charge of purchasing in each of the 3,070 counties in the country requesting the following information: The establishment of purchasing agency; method of appointing a purchasing agent; the extent of purchasing for county agencies; whether purchases are made on contracts based on written specifications or by trade-name or brand; how standards and specifications are formulated; adoption and use of specifications of national technical organizations and those of the Federal Government; arrangements made for testing samples submitted with bids and samples of deliveries; maintenance of testing laboratories by counties; and, use made of the facilities of college or university testing laboratories.

A total of 1,177 replies was received from counties in every State except Delaware. Of this number, 430 were not considered because of failure to give any information of value. The discussion which follows is based, therefore, on returns from 747 counties, or approximately 25 percent of the total number of counties.

This survey shows that the authority of counties to make purchases of equipment, materials, and supplies needed for the operation of their governments is derived from acts passed by State legislatures.

Centralized Purchasing.

Centralized purchasing, defined by Dr. Russell Forbes, commissioner of purchase, New York City, as "the delegation to one office of the authority to buy supplies, materials, and equipment needed by all the operating branches of an organization," occurs in not more than 75 Counties. California leads all States in the number of counties which have adopted the centralized system of purchasing by the establishment of purchasing departments and the appointment of purchasing agents in accordance with the political code of that State; 18 counties in California have already adopted the centralized form of purchasing. In North Carolina, county purchasing agents have been appointed to handle purchases of materials and supplies in nine counties.

Under an act passed by the Legislature of Wisconsin relating to county officers acting as purchasing agents, the county boards in six counties have appointed purchasing agents. Two counties have also appointed purchasing agents, but their purchases are limited to materials and supplies needed for courthouse purposes only.

In Ohio full-time or part-time purchasing agents are employed in seven counties. Perhaps the outstanding system of centralized purchasing in Ohio is in effect in Hamilton County. All purchases for all administrative departments and institutions of the county are handled by the purchasing department. There are no laws in the State of Ohio requiring centralized or coordinated purchasing by counties. The plan of Hamilton County is extralegal by resolution of the board

or county commissioners, by approval of the city council of the city of Cincinnati, and by the board of education, through a committee known as the coordinating committee of Hamilton County. This committee consists of the city manager of Cincinnati, the president of the board of county commissioners, the president of the board of education, and a member of the board of trustees of the University of Cincinnati.

In Michigan five counties have employed purchasing agents who devote their full time to purchasing problems. In Iron County, the chairman of the board of supervisors appoints a purchasing committee at each annual meeting. In Kalamazoo County, the purchasing department, which is under the direction of the finance committee, purchases for all departments of the county which are not incorporated bodies.

Although the General Assembly of Virginia passed an act in 1932 with respect to county purchasing, replies to the questionnaire received from counties in this State show that only four have adopted the centralized system of purchasing. Arlington County has made rapid progress in its system of centralized purchasing which was installed about 9 years ago. The three other counties have also made some progress in the use of centralized purchasing methods.

Recognition should be given to the fact that a large number of counties in this country are small both geographically and in size of population. The establishment of a purchasing department and the maintenance of a purchasing agent in a majority of these counties might constitute an undue burden on the taxpayers with the result that any savings which might be effected by centralized purchasing may be offset by the maintenance of a purchasing department. Presumably, the General Assembly of Virginia considered this fact in the act of 1932 relative to county purchasing by the inclusion of the following section:

The board of supervisors of any two or more adjoining counties shall have power to appoint, in accordance with the provisions of this section, a joint purchasing agent. Such joint purchasing agent shall carry out the provisions of this act as they shall apply to each of the counties concerned. He shall be subject to rules and regulations mutually formulated and agreed upon by the county boards which designate him as their joint purchasing agent.

No counties in Virginia, according to replies received, have taken advantage of this plan. It would be interesting to note the effect in savings which a plan of this nature would bring to a group of counties adopting it. There is no doubt that under proper administration and careful procedure in buying it would produce beneficial results.

In Alabama three counties reported that they maintain purchasing departments. In Tuscaloosa County, a resolution adopted by the board of revenue in 1930 provides that no department of the county shall buy anything, but shall send its requisitions to the purchasing agent, who shall make all necessary purchases. By an act of the State legislature approved in 1935 there was created in Henry County a purchasing agency "dealing with and having reference to all purchases" for the county.

In North Dakota, purchasing boards or committees have been established in five counties, and all purchasing is centralized in these boards or committees.

In New York State several counties have also centralized their methods of purchasing. In Chemung County, a purchasing department was established by the county board with the appointment of a county agent who makes purchases for all county departments. A similar arrangement has been made in Chenango County, and the county purchasing agent does the buying for all departments except highways. The same is true in Erie, Jefferson, Madison, Oneida, Nassau, and Westchester Counties. In Genesee County, a purchasing committee, operating under the direction of the board of supervisors, handles all ordinary purchases for the county departments. The department of purchase of the city of New York buys all materials, supplies, and equipment required by all the agencies of the five counties within greater New York; namely, New York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, and Richmond. This includes equipment and foodstuffs for the sheriffs' jails and office furniture and supplies as well as stationery for the various county officers.

Purchasing departments have also been established in several counties of the following States: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Utah.

Replies received from two-thirds of the counties in Vermont indicate that centralized purchasing is in effect in that State. Counties present their requirements to the State purchasing agent who, in turn, does practically all of the buying. Some purchasing is done by the county courts in each county, but it is limited solely to materials needed for repairs to jails and courthouses.

Purchasing Procedure.

Purchasing as it is conducted today is quite different from that of a quarter of a century ago. It has developed into a science in the sense that persons who are engaged in it must possess at least a fair knowledge and understanding of the technical problems involved in connection with the purchasing of commodities or services. The elements entering into purchasing are many and require sound judgment on the part of those who do the buying. There is no doubt that a good purchasing department with a competent personnel can effect real savings to an organization whether industrial or governmental.

Purchasing in the county actually begins when the head of a department or an institution notifies the officers in charge of purchasing of his needs. While such notification may and probably often does take the form of a mere verbal request, it is properly done by submitting a written requisition. After the requisition has been approved sources of supply are informed what material or service is required. This is done in various ways, the most common of which is direct request for quotations or bids. The ultimate responsibility for approving invoices for payment in counties is usually the function of the county board. Use of Standards and Specifications.

Obviously, in order to make an intelligent bid, the bidder ought to be fully informed as to what he will be expected to furnish. Such details are generally predicated upon certain standards and specifications established by Federal, State, and local governments, and by various national technical societies and trade associations. Of course, all commodities used by a government cannot be standardized, but many can be

and are, with a resultant reduction in cost and an improved delivery service for the purchaser.

It is a significant fact that approximately 70 percent of the 747 coun ties, whose returns were considered, reported the use of standards and specifications on which contracts for purchases are based.

In more than 30 percent of the counties either the county engineer, county auditor, or superintendent of highways drafts the specifications, chiefly for road and bridge construction and the necessary materials. In many counties purchases for county roads and highways are procured in accordance with specifications prepared by the State highway departments.

Purchasing agents, purchasing boards, or committees prepare specifications for materials, supplies, and equipment in about 10 percent of the counties reporting. The county boards, or officials designated by them, formulate the specifications in 32 percent of the reporting counties. In a number of counties specifications are prepared by the various departments, and in others by technical officers in cooperation with the using agency.

The following is only a partial list of the commodities for which written specifications have been prepared by one or more of the counties replying to the questionnaire:

Approximately 15 percent of the counties state that they have adopted and use Federal Specifications as a basis for contracts for purchase, while 10 percent employ standards and specifications prepared by national technical organizations. More than 20 percent of the counties rely on trade-brands or trade-names as a guide to purchases. It should, of course, be borne in mind that certain counties indicate the use of some or all of the methods referred to, depending upon the nature of the commodity procured.

It is believed that, with a few exceptions, it would be advantageous for county officials who are in charge of purchasing to utilize Federal Specifications tentatively throughout a trial period. It is suggested that they be used first in their original form and modified later when necessary to meet special conditions or requirements.

Use of Testing Laboratories.

Comparatively few counties of the United States report the maintenance by their own governments of laboratories for testing and inspection of commodities, or the employment of commercial, university, or other laboratories for such purposes. Of the 162 counties in 28 States reporting the use of laboratories for testing commodities