Comparison of cooperative and noncooperative purchasing in school foodservice

School districts operating Child Nutrition Programs must use competitive bidding to purchase food and supplies. Purchasing cooperatives are a resource used by districts to meet competitive purchasing requirements and increase purchasing power through combining purchasing with other districts that have similar needs. The purpose of this research was to compare school foodservice directors\u27 satisfaction with current purchasing methods and prices paid for selected food items between cooperative members and nonmembers.;Electronic questionnaires were sent to a random sample of foodservice directors (N = 1630). Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included satisfaction with competitive bidding, costs of selected food items, and district characteristics. Cooperative members provided reasons for entering into this type of purchasing arrangement.;A convenience sample (n = 14) of cooperative directors and foodservice directors were selected from the information provided in the electronic survey. Historical costs of selected food items were compared between the groups. Competitive bid contract documents were compared for terms and conditions.;Study results indicated about half the respondents (n = 185) participated in purchasing cooperatives. This represents an increase in the percentage of cooperative membership by school districts from previous studies. The majority of districts in cooperatives had student enrollment of less than 5,000 students. The largest group of respondents reported using line-item bidding. Significantly, more cooperatives used cost-plus-fixed-fee bidding.;Mean price for eight selected food items were compared. Limited differences between the two groups were found. Cooperative members reported significantly lower prices for three of the eight items studied. Districts that were not members of cooperatives had no lower prices. Cooperatives\u27 percentage change in price over 3 years was significantly less than the national index. Those not members of cooperatives did not report the same level of cost containment.;Director satisfaction with current purchasing methods was also compared. Directors indicated level of satisfaction on 17 items using a 5-point Likert-type scale. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction between cooperative members and nonmembers. Significant differences were found for only 5 of the 17 items. Cooperative members were more satisfied than nonmembers with four items, whereas nonmembers were more satisfied than cooperative members for only one item. Cooperative members were more satisfied with frequency of delivery, brands bid by vendors, competitive bid method, and administrative cost savings. Nonmembers were more satisfied with vendor responsiveness to problems. The primary reason districts reported joining a cooperative was to lower food costs, gain increased competition among vendors, and reduce paperwork related to bidding. Other reasons that appeared to be important were saving staff time and increasing the number of bidders.;From this study, no one best way to conduct school foodservice purchasing was identified. Cooperative membership appears to be a growing trend, particularly for districts with fewer than 5,000 students. Further research is needed to determine what factors influence competitive bidding by vendors and the bid price. It would also be important to determine why a high percentage of school foodservice directors were not aware of competitive purchasing practices in their district or cooperative. Recommendations for further research also include the need for empirical evidence to provide data from a representative sample of school foodservice directors about current purchasing methods to assist in school foodservice purchasing decision-making