Staff Report to Community Advisory Committee - Proposed “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0185-FIN)”

DATE

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

DEPARTMENT

Finance

SUBJECT

Proposed “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0185-FIN)”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present the proposed “Purchasing Policy (POL-0185-FIN)” to committee for recommendation to Council. The proposed policy:

• Revises authorized purchasing limits where expenditure is approved by Council through the City’s Financial Plan.
• Introduces a framework to consider “best value” when making purchasing decisions including by considering, where appropriate, sustainability, social value, and ethical standards.
• Prioritizes Indigenous vendors when the City is making purchases.
• Strengthens the conflict-of-interest and vendor disqualification provisions.
• Provides guidelines for the City participating in purchasing groups and joint purchasing ventures.

The proposed policy is intended to enhance good governance by updating the City’s purchasing processes, ensuring accountability and transparency in purchasing activities, and providing a flexible framework for aligning the City’s purchases with social, environmental, and ethical goals.

Attached is the proposed “Purchasing Policy (POL-0185-FIN)” (Attachment 1), for Committee’s consideration and recommendation to Council.

BACKGROUND

A purchasing policy, sometimes called a procurement policy, is a framework that governs how local governments acquire goods, services, and construction, and helps ensure that purchasing activities are conducted fairly and transparently, in a way that delivers the best value to the City and residents.

As directed by Council, staff have been reviewing City policies to identify those which need updating to provide clarity and update processes where necessary. The City’s current “Purchasing Policy (POL-0031-FIN)” was approved in 2009 and last updated in 2017. Since that time, staff positions and internal organizational structures have changed, and inflation has increased the cost of acquiring goods, services, and construction.

The City’s “Assets - Recording, Identification and Disposal Policy (POL-0038-FIN)”, implemented in 1995, addresses how the City disposes of obsolete or surplus inventory.

The City also has two policies regarding cheque signing authority which were last updated in 2009:

• Cheque Signing Authority (up to $50,000) – POL-0045-FIN; and
• Cheque Signing Authority (over $50,000) – POL-0046-FIN.

Staff have identified opportunities to modernize and consolidate the City’s purchasing processes. Given the scope of proposed changes, staff are proposing a comprehensive new “Purchasing Policy (POL-0185-FIN)” which incorporates cheque signing authority and processes for disposing of obsolete or surplus inventory.

COMMENTARY

For a City with a population of approximately 60,000, Langford is somewhat unique in that there is no centralized purchasing department or Purchasing Manager. Rather, purchasing activities are decentralized to directors, deputy directors, senior managers, managers, and other authorized staff. The proposed policy reflects this structure by emphasizing the role of directors in the purchasing activities of their departments.

The following are key features of the proposed policy: i) ensuring competitive process monetary thresholds align with applicable trade agreements;
ii) updating purchase authorization limits to align with Council’s role in directing expenditure through the approved Five-Year Financial Plan;
iii) introducing a “best value” approach to purchasing that may include, where appropriate, consideration for sustainability, ethical standards, past work and social value;
iv) introducing provisions for Indigenous procurement;
v) incorporating cheque signing authority;
vi) enhancing conflict of interest provisions;
vii) providing guidelines for joint purchasing groups or joint purchasing ventures;
viii) incorporating a disposal of assets policy that aligns with the City’s staff structure; and
ix) providing guidelines on the use of corporate credit cards by staff.

(1) Compliance with Applicable Trade Agreements

British Columbia is bound by several national and international trade agreements. The New West Partnership Trade Agreement (“NWPTA”) is the most pertinent of these trade agreements as it sets the lowest monetary threshold for non-discrimination in procuring goods, services, and construction.

The NWPTA requires that the City provide open and non-discriminatory access to procurement where the procurement value is: (i) $75,000 or greater for goods or services; and
(ii) $200,000 or greater for construction.

In accordance with the NWPTA, staff are proposing that where the estimate expenditure for a good or service is $75,000 or more, or for construction of $200,000 or more, generally the City will undertake a formal competitive process, subject to the exclusions in Schedule “B”.

Formal competitive processes often proceed by invitation to tender or requests for proposals, and Schedule “A” to the proposed Policy outlines at a high level the different purchasing processes.

(2) Purchase Authorization Limits

Council provides strategic direction to staff by approving expenditure through the City’s Five Year Financial Plan, which is adopted by bylaw each year. All expenditures must be in accordance with the Financial Plan. The current “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0038-FIN)” requires any purchase contract over $100,000.00 to be awarded by resolution of Council, unless a purchase is exempt.

On October 20, 2025, the District of Saanich (Saanich) approved a new Procurement Policy, which was informed by an assessment of Saanich’s purchasing processes undertaken by a recognized leader in the field of public procurement. In Saanich’s staff report, it was recommended that Saanich revise its approval framework to more appropriately reflect the separation of roles between Council and staff and increase the authority of staff to award contracts which are within the approved Financial Plan. Saanich’s new Procurement Policy authorizes the CAO to approve standard procurement up to any amount, and Directors may approve standard procurement up to $5,000,000.

Saanich is not alone in implementing higher authorization limits. Abbotsford, Nanaimo, Victoria, Kelowna, and other communities have similar policies which provide that the CAO (or City Manager) may approve a purchase to any amount where the purchase fits within the Financial Plan.

The proposed policy states that the following positions are authorized to commit the City to a purchase in accordance with the following limits:

There are several controls in the proposed policy to ensure the City’s purchasing is properly governed with sufficient oversight, including:

• That all expenditures must be in accordance with the City’s Financial Plan, and any expenditure not within the City’s Financial Plan must be referred to Council for direction.
• The CAO may direct that any contract or agreement be referred to Council for approval, even if it is within the limits set by the proposed policy.
• Any contract, agreement, or document resulting in an expenditure of over $100,000 must also be signed by the CAO.
• Directors are responsible, within their area of control, for ensuring that:
  • all expenditures comply with the City’s Financial Plan,
  • staff are following the proposed policy, and
  • measures are implemented to minimize the risk of fraud, embezzlement, or error.
• Purchases must not be split or separated into parts with the intention of avoiding the requirements of the proposed policy.
• Any purchasing powers delegated to authorized staff must be approved by the Director of Finance or CAO.
• Staff must document all purchases and store all receipts and related documents in accordance with City policies.
• Change orders which result in more than a 5% increase to the total contract price (excluding GST) of a good, service, or construction, or more than a 20% increase to the total contract price (excluding GST) of earthworks must be approved by the CAO or Financial Officer.

The City’s annual audit, and related policies and procedures, also help identify and respond to any discrepancies.

Further, staff are bringing forward the proposed “Statutory Officers and Delegation of Authority Bylaw No. 2260, 2026”, which contains an appendix containing which staff are authorized to sign different types of contracts and agreements, all in accordance with this Purchasing Policy.

Staff believe the proposed policy provides greater clarity regarding the City’s purchasing process and makes purchasing more expedient by reducing referrals to Council while maintaining sufficient oversight and accountability.

(3) Evaluation Criteria and Best Value

Langford is somewhat unique in that there is no centralized purchasing department, and Directors are responsible for purchases within their area of control. There is also a range of different goods, services, or construction projects that the City may purchase, which requires a set of flexible guidelines that can be used to customize the evaluation criteria for different needs.

Price and quality are significant factors in evaluating any potential expenditure. However, they may not be the only factors that determine whether the City is obtaining the “best value” for its expenditure. Many local governments have also adopted evaluation criteria that considers the “best value” for expenditure, including considering social, environmental, and ethical considerations, and not only the lowest price.

While the lowest price will continue to be the only criteria in evaluating an invitation to tender, the proposed policy allows staff who are leading a request for proposal (RFP) formal competitive process to create an evaluation criterion which considers schedule, price, quality, and where appropriate: (a) training, maintenance, delivery, warranties, methodology, experience, and performance;
(b) environmental sustainability and reducing negative environmental impacts;
(c) ethical standards such as where vendors incorporate fair trade opportunities or employment standards that exceed minimum requirements; and
(d) social value, such as where vendors facilitate employment, training and apprenticeship opportunities in the community.

Incorporating these factors into evaluation criteria can achieve the goal of obtaining best value for expenditure by prioritizing products and services that promote wider social value and enhance the well-being of the community. This includes considering goods and services that support local employment, encourage training and apprenticeship opportunities, foster economic development, and strengthen community connections. Additional social value factors may involve supporting vendors who facilitate inclusion, accessibility, and positive outcomes for diverse and equity seeking groups, advancing environmental sustainability and reducing negative impacts, and upholding ethical standards such as fair trade and improved employment practices. By broadening evaluation criteria to include these wider social, economic, and environmental outcomes, the City can ensure its purchasing decisions contribute meaningfully to the holistic health, prosperity, and resilience of the community.

Staff may also consider these criteria when making a direct purchase or when evaluating a quote.

As an example, when conducting an RFP, the purchaser may set aside 10 out of 100 points for these considerations and would include a scoring guide for how these points would be awarded in the RFP document.

Staff have researched initiatives such as the British Columbia Social Procurement Initiative (BCSPI) and the Canadian Collaboration for Sustainable Procurement (CCSP), which provide resources and training to members to assist them in implementing social, environmental, and ethical considerations into their purchasing processes. Resources available from CCSP include peer exchange webinars, an online resource library with guides and templates, and other opportunities which may help put the City’s social, environmental, and ethical procurement goals into action. The City of Victoria and the District of Saanich are both members of CCSP, as are other local governments from across Canada. For both CCSP and BCSPI membership costs are based on size.

(4) Indigenous Procurement

The proposed policy invites Indigenous businesses to work with the City and provides that the City may prioritize Indigenous vendors when obtaining goods, services or construction services.

(5) Cheque Signing Authority

The proposed policy incorporates cheque signing authority, which is currently the subject of two separate policies. The cheque signing authority and threshold amount of $50,000 remain the same in the proposed policy, to align with the City’s current banking agreements.

(6) Conflicts of Interest and Vendor Disqualification

The proposed policy contains conflict of interest provisions to enhance fairness and transparency in purchasing activities. Staff must not give preference to a vendor in order to obtain a personal benefit or be the decision maker in awarding expenditure if that staff or the staff’s immediate family is involved with a prospective vendor.

Vendors may be disqualified from participating in a quote or formal competitive process for up to three years where there are consistent failures to meet standards specified by the City, or there is a serious breach of contract, a criminal conviction related to a vendor, or there is an improper gift or offer to staff which is intended to influence a competitive process.

These provisions are intended to ensure the City is obtaining quality for its expenditure while minimizing conflicts of interest.

(7) Purchasing Groups and Joint Purchasing Ventures

A purchasing group is an organization that facilitates public sector entities to pool their purchasing power to obtain competitive pricing and streamline procurement processes. Examples include Canoe Procurement, a Canadian not-for-profit built by public sector entities. Joint purchasing ventures are where two or more entities purchase goods, services, or construction together.

The proposed policy permits the CAO or Financial Officer to approve the City’s participation in a purchasing group or joint purchasing venture where it is determined to be in the City’s best interests.

(8) Disposing of Surplus, Obsolete, or Damaged Assets

The City’s “Assets – Recording, Identification and Disposal” policy was approved in 1995. The current policy provides that Council must authorize the disposal of any asset worth more than $2,000. The current policy also requires that any asset must be disposed of by trade-in, auction, invitational or closed tender, or destruction. These requirements are limiting and not in alignment with the decentralized nature of the City’s purchasing activities.

The proposed policy allows directors, in consultation with the CAO or CFO, to dispose of any surplus, obsolete, or damaged assets in their department by any method the director considers to be in the City’s best interest, including by public auction or tender, negotiated sale, trade-in, destruction, or donation to other governments or non-for-profit organizations. Staff are not permitted to receive or take any surplus assets, nor purchase them from the City, unless the sale is open to the public. Council must approve any donation valued at over $50,000.

(9) Corporate Credit Cards

The current policy provides guidelines for the use of corporate credit cards. The proposed policy incorporates these guidelines, and the pre-existing Agreement to Accept the Credit Card.

In summary, the proposed policy is intended to modernize and consolidate the City’s purchasing processes, ensure accountability and transparency in purchasing activities, and provides a flexible framework for aligning the City’s purchasing with social, environmental, and ethical goals.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed new Purchasing Policy can be managed within existing resources.

If the City joins a procurement initiative such as BCSPI or CCSP, there may be additional resources required which are not in the current Financial Plan.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Purchasing Policy can help minimize potential legal risk by ensuring fairness and consistency in the City’s purchasing processes.

There are no noted legal implications in respect of the proposed Purchasing Policy.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT

• 3 – Economic Development
• 5 – Good Governance
  • 5g – Maintain the City’s Long-Standing Corporate Efficiencies
• 6c – Continue to Take Action Towards Reconciliation

OPTIONS

Option 1

THAT the Community Advisory Committee recommend:

1. THAT Council approve “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0185-FIN)”; AND
2. THAT Council rescind “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0031-FIN)” and “Assets – Recording, Identification and Disposal Policy – (POL-0038-FIN)” and “Cheque Signing Authority (up to $50,000) – (POL-0045-FIN)” and “Cheque Signing Authority (over $50,000) – (POL-0046-FIN)”.

OR Option 2

THAT the Community Advisory Committee recommend that Council take no action with respect to the proposed “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0185-FIN)”, until such time as the following items are addressed: a. __________________;
b. __________________;
c. __________________.

OR Option 3

THAT the Community Advisory Committee recommend that Council take no action with respect to the proposed “Purchasing Policy – (POL-0185-FIN)” at this time.

SUBMITTED BY

Richard Wagner, Policy Analyst and Legislative Drafter

Concurrence

• Melisa Miles, Manager of Legislative Services
• Donna Petrie, Senior Manager of Communications & Economic Development
• Yari Nielsen, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities
• Leah Stohmann, RPP, MCIP, Director of Community Planning and Development
• Katelyn Balzer, P.Eng., Director of Engineering and Public Works
• Michael Dillabaugh, CPA, CA, Director of Finance
• Marie Watmough, Director of Legislative & Protective Services
• Braden Hutchins, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
• Darren Kiedyk, Chief Administrative Officer

Attachments

• Attachment 1 – Proposed Purchasing Policy (POL-0185-FIN)
• Attachment 2 – Current Purchasing Policy (POL-0031-FIN)
• Attachment 3 – Current Assets – Recording, Identification and Disposal Policy (POL-0038-FIN)
• Attachment 4 – Current Cheque Signing Authority (up to $50,000) (POL-0045-FIN)
• Attachment 5 – Current Cheque Signing Authority (over $50,000) (POL-0046-FIN)