The Vendor Management Office

It's Not Just a Job, It's an Adventure!

2010-03-10T14:45:00Z

I have a Senior Procurement Professional position open in my VMO and I'm looking to fill the position with the best in the business. If you're an ambitious procurement professional with a degree and certification (those are absolute requirements) who considers procurement to be a career and not just a job, I want to hear from you. This is an opportunity to work in one of the best and most-recognized VMOs in the world, and will be a great career experience for one sharp person. My folks are routinely sought out to speak at procurement events, deliver procurement training, write procurement-related articles, volunteer at the local ISM chapter, etc.--so a candidate needs to have those qualities / aptitudes as well. Good salary, relo, and--get this--a pension plan!

Senior Procurement Professional

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), with offices in Arlington, VA and Lincoln, NE is the trade association for over 900 consumer-owned electric cooperatives serving more than 40 million people.

NRECA is committed to harnessing the strength of America’s electric cooperatives into a single powerful voice.

100 Best Places to Work - ComputerWorld Magazine
50 Greatest places to work - AARP
CARE Award - Recognizing organizations that promote a positive work-life balance

SUMMARY:

If you are a top-notch procurement professional looking to advance your career and further enhance your skill sets with a progressive procurement department, NRECA is the place for you!

NRECA’s Vendor Management Office (VMO) has been featured in CIO Magazine, Contract Management, Inside Supply Management, and other trade journals for its advanced procurement operations.

NRECA’s VMO developed the Procurement Maturity Model^TM, now used by numerous procurement departments to benchmark their operations, was featured as the case study for the book, “Implementing a Vendor Management Office: Unleashing the Power of Strategic Sourcing,” and received the Member of the Year award from the Association for Technology Procurement Professionals.

The VMO staff, considered some of the best in the industry, are routinely sought out to speak at procurement-related events.

PURPOSE AND MISSION:

· Via competitive bidding, source insurance and financial products / services and other indirect categories such as MRO and professional services

· Act as the lead negotiator, responsible for obtaining service level agreements, pricing terms, and all other relevant contract terms and conditions

· Draft contracts, including legal terms and conditions and statements of work

· Manage contracts and supplier relationships

REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS:

Five years of Indirect Commercial Procurement spend experience with approximately $20M annualized spend
Track record of achieving significant cost savings and other concessions
Expert contract / terms and conditions drafting skills
Knowledge of commercial contract law / UCC
Bachelor’s degree and procurement certification (C.P.M. / CPSM or CCCM) required
Strong preference for a J.D. and active membership of at least one state bar

NRECA offers competitive wages and a world-class portfolio of employee benefits that includes a variety of options that allows our employees to customize their coverage to meet their individual needs.

Qualified candidates must apply on-line at www.nreca.jobs .

NRECA is an equal opportunity employer. All applicants are considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, disability or any status that is protected by law.

IRS Issues Request for Quotation--for Shotguns! Pow! Pow!

2010-02-03T13:34:00Z

If you've ever wondered what an RFQ for shotguns might look like, wonder no more! The IRS has issued an RFQ for shotguns, specifically:

"Sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns...with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend."

Moral of the RFQ? You better pay your taxes--or else!

Rotten Tomatoes: Safeway Foods Purchasing Agent Gets 20 Years

2010-02-01T20:23:00Z

I'm in the process of revising my employer's vendor gifts / entertainment / ethics policies and was doing a little Internet research when I came across a recent article that caught my attention. Apparently, a Safeway Foods purchasing agent is facing 20-years in prison for steering tomato contracts to a specific seller. Ouch! I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere, but I'm not creative enough to think of a good one.

Update: For what it's worth, someone sent me a joke... What did the purchasing agent say when he got busted for taking bribes to buy tomatoes? Hey, I was just trying to "ketchup" on my bills!

Semi-Off Topic Post: Gallup Employee Engagement Survey

2010-02-01T17:27:00Z

Actually, it's really on topic since, without engaged staff, procurement departments wouldn't be able to provide much value-add. Some managers find the Gallup Q12 frustrating--in my mind, it's an invaluable tool to build employee engagement. I came across a blog post from an employee engagement expert, David Zinger, who does a great job at getting to some of the controversy of the Gallup Q12 by proposing a tongue-in-cheek Q13. It's a short, enlightening read for any Gallup aficionados out there in my readership.

Debarment and Suspension = I'd Rather Die in a Fire

2010-01-29T18:17:00Z

If you're a commercial buyer but do procurements under a CFR, you've probably run up against debarment and suspension. One of my staff attorneys, Rebecca Mordas, took on the task of explaining the rules in the context of USDA. Here is her analysis.

Understanding 7 CFR 3017 & 7 CFR 3018

Even experienced procurement professionals can become confused when delving into the world of government contracts for the first time. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), agency specific rules, define the responsibilities of recipients of both federal funding and direct federal contracts. CFRs house rules pertaining to every stage of a contract procurement relating to government contracts. This memo only addresses how and when recipients of federal funding, like RUS borrowers, must comply with the debarment and suspension rules and restrictions on lobbying in their contracts for procurement of goods and services.

Debarment & Suspension Rules

The debarment and suspension rules grew out a response to President Reagan’s 1986 Executive Order 12549 instituting a government-wide initiative to curb fraud, waste and abuse in Federal programs and increase agency accountability, the Department of Agriculture drafted 7 CFR 3017 containing the debarment and suspension rules for non-procurement transactions. Non-procurement is specifically defined in the regulations at 7 CFR 3017.970 as any transaction, excluding direct procurements with the federal government, including but not limited to grants, cooperative agreements, scholarships, fellowships, contracts for assistance, loans, loan guarantees, subsidies, insurances, payments for specified use and donation agreements.

If your company receives any of the above referenced government funding, subsidized treatment or government backed guarantees, then the debarment and suspension rules are directly applicable to your organization. As a recipient of federal funding, your organization owes several duties to the Department of Agriculture.

First, prior to even receiving a non-procurement award, your first obligation to the Department of Agriculture is to certify that your organization or the principal on the prospective project is not currently excluded or disqualified. An excluded person or entity refers to one who has been suspended or debarred by the Department of Agriculture or any other federal agency pursuant to each agency’s applicable regulations, whereas a disqualified person or entity is isolated to those who have been restricted through statutes, executive orders or any other official authorities from participating in federal programs. Disqualification is mandated by an official authority while exclusion is discretionary within each agency. Additionally, you as a prospective participant must disclose to the federal agency from which you are applying for aid or funding whether your organization or your principal have been criminally convicted within the past three (3) years for conduct enumerated in 7 CFR 3017.800 or have had any civil judgments rendered against you for conduct enumerated in the same section, whether your organization or principal is presently indicted or charged, both criminally or civilly, with any of the offenses referenced in 7 CFR 3017.800, and whether your organization or principal have had a federal, state or local contract cancelled with the preceding years for cause or default. Chiefly, the Department of Agriculture is concerned with whether your organization has run afoul of the key standards of good faith and fair dealing in your regular business dealings.

Your obligation to make these disclosures to the Department of Agriculture extends throughout the life of your non-procurement activity. For example, if you have a loan from RUS due in 2020, your disclosure obligation extends until that loan has been repaid. In the event that your organization or principal have a change in circumstances which would alter your initial response to any of the disclosure inquiries referenced above necessitating a new disclosure, you must provide the Department of Agriculture written notice of such additional information tending to incriminate your organization. Failure to make the requisite disclosures at any time in the process could result in the termination of the transaction and could also potentially result in your suspension and debarment from future government transactions in both procurement and non-procurement transactions. Debarment could be devastating to your organization as your exclusion from all government-wide contracts could last for up to three years.

Secondly, you have a regulatory obligation to do business with responsible individuals when entering into “covered transactions” where federal money is funding procurement activities for goods or services. This requirement mandates that prior to entering into a “covered transaction,” participants in non-procurement transactions that are using federal funds actively determine whether the individuals in which they are about to do business are excluded or disqualified. A procurement contract for goods or services will be considered a “covered transaction” under the regulations if a participant in a non-procurement transaction awards a procurement contract for goods or services and either the non-procurement award demands agency consent of all lower tier transactions or the amount of the contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Please note that the regulations specifically state $25,000 and make no reference to terms provided in other federal guidelines like small purchase threshold or simplified acquisition threshold.

In validating the accountability of a party to a covered transaction, the agency gives three options for the participants making the determination: checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from individuals or adding a clause or condition to your contracts stating that the individual represents and warrants that he or she is and will remain eligible to participate in government contracts throughout the duration of the contract. The EPLS is a publicly available source managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) which houses information regarding the disqualified and excluded individuals. You may access EPLS through the Internet at http://epls.arnet.gov or subscribe to a printed version by calling the Government Printing Office Inquiry and Order Desk at (202) 783-3238.

Finally, 7 CFR 3017.330(b) requires participants to non-procurement transactions to mandate incorporation of the debarment and suspension rules into all contractor’s subcontracts which either require consent or are expected to exceed the $25,000 threshold, as well as create the obligation on the procurement contractor to determine the accountability of all its subcontractors in accordance with any of the methods stated above. The inclusion of these clauses in a subcontract would not be subject to any negotiation, unless the subcontractor simply walks away from the negotiations altogether.

In the event that you find that your organization or principal or your business partners are excluded individuals, please be mindful that there are regulatory procedures that allow you to seek an exemption from the Department of Agriculture to enter into a contract or continue to fulfill a contract (7 CFR 3017.120) or appeal the excluded status (7 CFR 3017.720 - 890). Please note that disqualification is not appealable under the Department of Agriculture’s regulations; however disqualification under a statutory scheme may not necessarily prevent the Department of Agriculture from entering into a non-procurement transaction with a participant nor will it automatically prevent a participant from entering into a contract with a disqualified lower tier participant. The regulations emphasize disclosure allowing some room for agency flexibility if the parties act candidly in the initial disclosure phase.

Restrictions on Lobbying

Restrictions on lobbying originated from the notion that it is improper for the government to subsidize special interests. This principle of responsible government spending attempts to ensure contracts are rewarded fairly, thus securing the public’s trust in their government and in their elected officials. Codified at 7 CFR 1726.17, RUS Borrowers complying with 7 CFR 1726 must adhere to the restrictions on lobbying contained in 7 CFR 3018. These regulations place constraints on how recipients of federal grants, loans or cooperative agreement may use federal monies. The regulations restrict the advocacy voice of recipients by prohibiting the direct or indirect use of funding to “pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress” in connection with the receipt, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any federal contracts, grants, loans or cooperative agreements.

There are three specific exclusions from the bar on the use of appropriated funding to lobby. First, the Department of Agriculture allows an employee or officer to receive reasonable compensation if acting as an agency and legislative liaison as long as the liaison’s activities are not directly related to the federal opportunities. Pursuant to 7 CFR 3018.200(c), permissible liaison efforts may include discussions with the agency concerning the value of products or services, any specifics related to the terms or conditions of sale, or the potential to adapt or create products or services for agency’s specific use or purpose. Only prior to the official submission for federal opportunities may the legislative liaison discuss the proposal with the agency or provide information requested by the decision-making branch of the government awarding the federal money.

The second exclusion the Department of Agriculture allows on the use of appropriated funds is for professional and technical services. According to 7 CFR 3018.205 and 7 CFR 3018.300, you may reimburse employees, officers or other contracted individuals for professional and technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for the federal opportunities or for professional and technical services related to your contractual or regulatory compliance with the terms of the federal arrangements. This exclusion is limited to professional and technical positions rendering advice or providing analysis that affects either the technical or legal aspects of your submission and would not extend to those who are in professional or technical positions who are advocating the selection of your bid or proposal. Contracted individuals who are not employees are not required to file the disclosure discussed below of their lobbying activities related to the federal award under which they are receiving reimbursements if their services were employed only in the preparation, submission, or negotiation phase of the federal procurement or non-procurement process.

The third exclusion for utilizing appropriated funds extends to the reimbursement for the reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees involved in the preparation, submission or negotiation of any bid, proposal or application for federal support.

In making a request for agency consideration for a federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement that exceeds $100,000 or a federal loan exceeding $150,000, you must certify that you have not and will not charge the government for costs you incurred to influence your receipt or continued receipt of the appropriated funding. In addition, you must disclose, at the same time, whether you have made or have agreed to be made any payments using non-appropriated funds to attempt to gain influence over governmental decision-makers involved in managing and controlling federal appropriations. Any subgrants, contracts or subcontracts under any of the aforementioned federal opportunities which exceed $100,000 must make the same certifications and disclosures concerning their lobbying activity related to the federal opportunity under which they have contracted.

The regulations do not limit an organization’s ability to lobby with non-federal resources, the regulations do require disclosure of any lobbying activities related to the receipt, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any of the federal opportunities referenced above. Disclosures are collected by the head of the Department of Agriculture and then submitted in a report to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. The reports become publicly available unless the information is deemed sensitive because it pertains to intelligence or contains classified information.

If you are asking the government for a commitment to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000, you must file a statement with the appropriate government party indicating whether you have made or have agreed to make any payments to influence or attempt to influence any government body in connection with receipt of the loan insurance or guarantee. If you have made or agreed to make such payment(s), you must file a disclosure with the appropriate department or agency revealing the proposed or actual amount(s), the identity of the individual(s) attempting to influence government behavior and the government officers, employees or Members that are potentially being influenced.

After receipt of federally appropriated money, you must determine at the end of each calendar quarter whether any events have occurred which materially affected the accuracy of the information previously certified to or disclosed to the federal agency. The regulations give examples of material changes to include an increase of $25,000 in the amount of private funds given to influence the receipt of federal funding, a change in the person lobbying, or a change in the parties being lobbied.

There are costly ramifications for noncompliance. Failure to abide by the lobbying restrictions or amend the disclosures may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 per infraction not to exceed $100,000. In addition, the federal government reserves the right to pursue other remedies, possibly criminal sanctions, for the same conduct that was the basis for the imposition of any civil penalties.

Conclusion

If already receiving a federal grant of money, whether it is a loan, grant or cooperative agreement, you should consult the terms specific to your agreement before looking to the regulations. The regulations contain a standard for conduct, however, each agency reserves the right to set conditions for receiving funds within the actual award documents. Remember the intent of these regulations is to foster the public’s trust which rests upon the government being openly accountable for its decisions to enter contracts with responsible individuals like you. Therefore, you must be particularly cognizant of the public’s trust when carrying out obligations under government contracts.

Got Some Grant-Based Stimulus Money? Congrats! Here's How to Spend It.

2010-01-21T13:12:00Z

Did your organization get a grant from a Federal agency under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? If so, congratulations, but you need to start thinking about the process by which you go about spending the grant money. Your procurement process will need to conform and comply with the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and with any grant-specific procurement requirements. If you've just started looking at this, you know there's an appropriate amount of red tape involved (hey, it's my tax money and I want to make sure it gets spent properly so I'm OK with a little red tape). The good news is that most Federal agencies have very similar CFRs as they relate to the subject of procurement. For example, the procurement regulations in USDA's 7 CFR 3019 look very much like those contained in USAID's 22 CFR 226 which look very much like those contained in DOE's 10 CFR 600. (However, there are nuances from CFR to CFR.) I recently drafted a procurement policy and a Master Purchase Agreement to comply with the DOE codification of OMB Circular A-110 at 10 CFR 600. My work (attached below) is yours for free. As implied above, you can easily convert this work product from DOE to USDA to USDAID to any other Federal agency. The attached Master Purchase Agreement contains all of the contract provisions required by 10 CFR 600. Both the attached policy and the Master Purchase Agreement contain specific CFR citation references, so you don't have to figure it out for yourself as to where the content was derived from.

P.S. and a disclaimer: The attached are "as-is" without any representations. The Internet is still the wild, wild West and my work product is free, so use it at your own risk

DOE 10 CFR 600 Purchasing Policy

DOE Master Purchase Agreement

VMOs, Organizationally

2010-01-08T17:36:00Z

A blog reader recently asked me this question (I'm paraphrasing): "How do VMO / procurement roles differ and how are the responsibilities divided organizationally?"

Roughly 10-years ago, companies with large IT consumption became dis-satisfied with their purchasing departments' attention and focus. It was hard to get the purchasing folks engaged, and when they did get engaged, their focus was lowest cost. That lowest cost focus didn't work when it came to complex IT goods and services because the consumers of those strategic, competitive edge-providing goods and services were worried first about getting what they paid for and less about squeezing costs out the old-fashioned way (i.e., vendor bashing).

These IT departments also wanted to establish strategic relationships with value-adding vendors--predominately, IT systems have a lot of "stickiness," so IT departments want long-lasting (read "maintenance and support") relationships. So, unable to control the purchasing departments (usually buried many layers below a CFO), CIOs went on the hunt for procurement talent that had the ability to get a fair (fair for both parties) deal but, more importantly, could extract value out of IT vendors without decimating the relationship. These small groups of procurement talent commonly took on the name of a "vendor management office" or "VMO." One reason for the name was to mask the purpose of the group: the organizational redundancy and budget questions that a corporate procurement department and an IT procurement department raised wasn't something a CIO wanted to explain. The other reason was to emphasize the mission to manage vendors, not dollars.

The CIOs implementing these types of vendor management departments could have been wrong, but they weren't. In fact, VMOs were such a success that other C-levels, also tired of crusty and grizzled purchasing agents, wanted their own VMO function to boost their business lines. That presented an organizational problem--the CIO could get away with having a psuedo-procurement department but everyone having their own little VMO in addition to the purchasing department wasn't going to fly. So, around 2004, companies started to implement enterprise-wide VMOs.

There were, and are, two major variants: one is with the vendor management and purchasing functions combined and the other is with the functions are separate. Having the functions separate (in my opinion) is a symptom of a problem--the leadership doesn't want to take the time or energy to revamp the purchasing function... So, the thought is, just push purchasing to the side, build-up the VMO, and hope the purchasing folks take early retirement.

The better organizational move is to combine the functions, horizontally / vertically align the staff, and have it report into the C-level. Some staff cut POs, other staff order piece parts, other staff just do competitive bids, and other staff manage / monitor strategic vendor performance. While there may be distinct differences in skills, roles, and focus (you have to match job requirements to staff strengths), the overarching benefit of having a combined VMO is to drive the right attitude when it comes to managing vendors--and that's to get value.

News You Can Use: Insurance Terms and Clauses

2010-01-05T18:17:00Z

The following article was contributed by Ki W. Nam, Esq., who is Contracts Counsel at NRECA.

In most commercial contracts, commercial insurance will be required, particularly in those instances where a purchaser is procuring goods and services over an extended period of time. As a purchaser of goods or services, the buyer seeks and is entitled to protect itself from third-party claims and damages arising from the seller’s intentional or unintentional acts such as negligence. Liability insurance coverage from licensed, solvent and reputable insurers can substantially provide most protections to a purchaser in a commercial contract.

As any contracts professional is aware, insurance terms and conditions are laced with confusing and complex words, terms and phrases. Even for seasoned contracts professionals, such insurance language is a quagmire of arcane and confusing terminology. The following is a brief summary of some of the more esoteric insurance provisions commonly seen in contracts.

"Additional Insured" — An insurer providing extended coverage under an existing insurance policy to cover a third party for a special purpose or purposes. As an "additional insured," the covered party does not have primary insurance. Compare this to "additional named insured" which is primary coverage.

"All-Risk Insurance" — Obsolete terminology.

"Broad Form Indemnity" — A very broad insurance coverage obligating the insurer to indemnify against any and all claims submitted under the insurance policy even in cases where the insured party is not at fault.

"Causes of Loss-Special Risk" — Current and updated terminology replacing obsolete "all-risk insurance" terminology.

"Comprehensive General Liability" — Obsolete terminology.

"Commercial General Liability" — Current and updated terminology replacing obsolete "comprehensive general liability" terminology.

"Disclaimer" — A denial or disavowal (waiver) of a legal claim or rights.

"Guaranty" — An undertaking to assume or to be liable for the debt or obligation of another party.

"Surety" — The party undertaking a guaranty obligation.

"Self Insured" — Protecting against loss by setting aside one's own money. This can be done on a mathematical basis by establishing a separate fund into which funds are deposited on a periodic basis. Most often seen where the entity does not want to pay insurance premiums, usually very high, or a particular transaction is not insurable by commercial insurers. Generally not a favored form of risk protection as a bankruptcy proceeding will wipe out any "self insurance."

"Self-Insured Retention (SIR)" — Amount specified usually in a liability insurance policy that the insured must pay before the insurance company (insurer) pays. Unlike a deductible (which the insured pays to the insurer), SIR is paid directly to the claimant by the insured.

"Waiver of Subrogation" — Subrogation means the assumption by or transfer to a third party of the legal rights of another party. In case of insurance, most insurance policies stipulate that any legal claims (i.e., basis for a lawsuit) under which an insurer pays a claim under the insurance coverage is subrogated — transferred — to the insurer so the insurer can recoup the payment from any other parties potentially at fault. Any "waiver of subrogation" must generally be affirmatively consented to by the insurer.

Hopefully, the above information will assist you with negotiating favorable terms and conditions. Check with your insurance broker and your attorney before executing contracts with provisions that include use of confusing and complex words, terms and phrases like those in this article.

Test Your Procurement Skills: Find the One Word Death Trap

2009-12-31T13:37:00Z

A supplier recently tried to get the following indemnification provision past one of my staff. I'm always preaching that contracts should contain identifiable remedies for specified breaches. If you don't include identifiable breaches, and a breach does occur, the parties end up arguing over an appropriate remedy. What a waste of time! That's why I actually like the following provision--it clearly specifies potential breaches and then provides a number of potential remedies. Actually, the provision is quite strong and favorable for the customer except that there is one word (yep, only ONE word) which renders the entire provision utterly worthless. My guess is that most folks would blow right past this one word and think that they were golden--in reality, that one word leaves the customer holding the bag if things go sour. Oops!

So, drop your sudoku or crossword puzzle! Test your skills and post your thought (which word and why) on what I'm calling the One Word Death Trap! I'll post the right response in a few days. Have fun!

Indemnity by Supplier. Supplier will indemnify, defend and hold harmless at its own expense any suit or action against Customer brought by a third party to the extent that the suit or action is based upon a claim that the Software infringes any U.S. copyright or U.S. patent, or misappropriates any trade secrets recognized as such in the U.S., and Supplier will pay those costs and damages finally awarded (or agreed to in settlement) against Customer in any such suit or action that are specifically attributable to such suit or action. The foregoing obligations are conditioned on Customer providing Supplier with prompt written notice of the suit or action for which indemnity is claimed(provided that any failure to give notice will not affect Supplier’s liability for reimbursement hereunder unless such failure has resulted in the loss of substantive rights with respect to its ability to defend such suit or action); giving Supplier sole control of the defense thereof and any related settlement negotiations; and providing (at Supplier’s expense) Supplier with all assistance, information and authority reasonably required to defend or settle the suit or action. Notwithstanding the foregoing,Customer may participate at its own expense in the defense of such suit or action. Supplier will have no obligation under this Section or otherwise for any infringement suit or action based on (i) the use of a superseded or altered release of the Software, (ii) the combination,operation or use of the Software with software, hardware, data, or other materials not furnished by Supplier, (iii) the combination, operation or use of the Embedded Software other than with the Hardware, (iv) use of the Software other than as permitted under this Agreement or the Documentation, (v) modification to the Software made by a party other than Supplier, if a suit or action would not have occurred but for such modification, or (vi) Supplier’s compliance with any specifications or plans provided by Customer. If the Software becomes, or Supplier believes is likely to become, subject to an infringement suit or action, Supplier may,at its option and expense: (a) replace or modify the Software so that it becomes non-infringing; (b) procure for Customer the right to continue using the Software under the terms of this Agreement, or (c) accept return of the infringing Software, terminate this Agreement as to the infringing Software,and refund or credit for the fees paid by Customer for such infringing Software less a reasonable allowance for the period of time Customer has used the Software. The foregoing states Supplier’s entire liability and Customer's sole and exclusive remedies for infringement or misappropriation suits and actions of any kind.

UPDATE: DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER! Try to find the word yourself and then check out the comments for the right answer (thanks, Jeff Gordon).

Stephen Guth to Speak at the Institute for Supply Management's Annual Conference

2009-12-19T13:09:00Z

For those of you heading to the must-attend premier annual conference for procurement professionals, the 95th Annual Institute for Supply Management International Supply Management Conference and Educational Exhibit, please consider attending my presentation on procurement best practices or please stop by just to say hi.

My presentation is "Session CH, Implementing Best Practices: The Procurement Maturity Model" and will be held on Monday, April 26, 10:40 - 11:40 a.m.

If you've purchased one or more of my books, please bring your copy so that I can shake your hand, thank you personally, and sign your book (signed copies will be worth more when I become super-famous one of these days).

See you in San Diego!