There are certain functions where property managers and acquisition personnel (i.e., requisitioners or buyers) should interface. One of the more obvious ones relates to receipt of purchased property and subsequent payment. Organizations continue to make extensive investments to integrate their purchase order, property receipt and invoice payment processes.
However, the function of internal screening is one that organizations have struggled with. Internal screening is essentially the consideration of property items deemed unneeded by one business unit to be potentially reused by other units within the organization. FAR 45.602 outlines the various inventory disposal schedules property items should be placed through. The disposal schedules, also known as screening periods, outlined in FAR 45.602 include guidelines for internal reutilization and GSA screening. So why has the function of internal screening received such little organizational attention? Who is responsible for instituting internal screening processes? How can organizations invest in and is there any return on investment by strengthening internal screening process? These are literal questions and I would like hear from organizations that have made strides in strengthening their internal screening processes.
What I have observed in many organizations is that property managers do not believe there are internal procurement policies, processes and/or tools to enable the internal screening period. Thus, the internal screening cycle is typically skipped and the property is either directly screened for GSA or donation disposal. Conversely, procurement officials do not believe they have been provided the mechanisms to evaluate property to be reutilized. How can property be considered to be reutilized if is nothing known about it, such as its condition? Procurement officials cannot put their programs at risk by possibly providing inadequate property. So the question remains, if there is no internal mechanism to advertise the property's information and if no one is reviewing internal property for reuse, has it been truly internally screened?
My guess if that instituting policy needs to be the first approach organizations should use to position themselves to comply with FAR 45.602. To be successful, the policy needs to be jointly established within both the property management and procurement offices. It is moot to organizationally approach implementing internal screening processes in a stovepipe manner - no gains can be made unless procurement and property management embrace internal screening as a joint initiative. After instituting policy, organization needs to assess for themselves the value that can be achieved through the reutilization of property. Understanding the value should drive the extent each organization invests in their internal screening processes. Avoiding unnecessary acquisitions and reducing disposal costs are just two cursory examples of its benefits. Some potential initial investments or combination of investments may come in the form of process re-engineering, resources activities and/or technology. I am curious to hear what drivers have lead organizations to refine their internal screening processes. I am also interested in hearing what obstacles or deterrents have kept organizations from making strides.
It seems in this day-and-age there are many incentives to avoid disposing of property unnecessarily. Green initiatives, cleansing sensitive/confidential property, and rising logistical costs (e.g., fuel) are just a handful of reasons that come to mind that should drive an organization to refine their internal screening processes to reflect the guidelines outlined in FAR 45.602.
What I have observed in many organizations is that property managers do not believe there are internal procurement policies, processes and/or tools to enable the internal screening period. Thus, the internal screening cycle is typically skipped and the property is either directly screened for GSA or donation disposal. Conversely, procurement officials do not believe they have been provided the mechanisms to evaluate property to be reutilized. How can property be considered to be reutilized if is nothing known about it, such as its condition? Procurement officials cannot put their programs at risk by possibly providing inadequate property. So the question remains, if there is no internal mechanism to advertise the property's information and if no one is reviewing internal property for reuse, has it been truly internally screened?
My guess if that instituting policy needs to be the first approach organizations should use to position themselves to comply with FAR 45.602. To be successful, the policy needs to be jointly established within both the property management and procurement offices. It is moot to organizationally approach implementing internal screening processes in a stovepipe manner - no gains can be made unless procurement and property management embrace internal screening as a joint initiative. After instituting policy, organization needs to assess for themselves the value that can be achieved through the reutilization of property. Understanding the value should drive the extent each organization invests in their internal screening processes. Avoiding unnecessary acquisitions and reducing disposal costs are just two cursory examples of its benefits. Some potential initial investments or combination of investments may come in the form of process re-engineering, resources activities and/or technology. I am curious to hear what drivers have lead organizations to refine their internal screening processes. I am also interested in hearing what obstacles or deterrents have kept organizations from making strides.
It seems in this day-and-age there are many incentives to avoid disposing of property unnecessarily. Green initiatives, cleansing sensitive/confidential property, and rising logistical costs (e.g., fuel) are just a handful of reasons that come to mind that should drive an organization to refine their internal screening processes to reflect the guidelines outlined in FAR 45.602.
