The eProcurement Modernization Project is approaching the conclusion of requirements gathering and market analysis and is transitioning into the vendor selection phase. As part of this transition, we are launching a 30 second Partner Engagement Poll to gather input on how we can best communicate, collaborate, and engage with stakeholders in the months ahead. The team is also inviting agencies to share brief walkthroughs of current procurement workflows. You can use our bookable appointments to schedule a walkthrough or to connect with the team for any project discussions. 

Over the past several months, the team has conducted research and interviews with public sector entities at various stages of eProcurement modernization. We have also partnered with NASPO to better understand pricing models, cooperative purchasing strategies, and approaches that will help the State maximize value within the defined Minimum Viable Product (MVP) scope.

Initial vendor communications have been issued requesting detailed responses from NASPO vendors aligned to our requirements. Concurrently, a cross-agency Selection Committee has been established to represent statewide perspectives during the system selection process. This committee will be responsible for reviewing vendor submissions and, ultimately, evaluating system demonstrations to support a well-informed procurement decision.

As part of the eProcurement Modernization effort, the project team conducted interviews and surveys with procurement leaders in 18 states and public sector entities at various stages of their procurement system journey. These conversations provided practical insight into governance models, implementation sequencing, reporting capabilities, and long-term sustainability.

Several consistent themes emerged. States emphasized the importance of cross-agency alignment and disciplined configuration decisions to prevent unnecessary complexity over time. While modern systems offer flexibility, many cautioned that long-term success depends on resisting unnecessary customization and instead prioritizing configuration within the core platform wherever possible.

Reporting and data visibility were also common priorities and, in many cases, among the most frequent pain points cited by peer states. Leaders described challenges with siloed data, cross-module reporting limitations, and unclear ownership of reporting governance. Many emphasized the need to define reporting expectations early and establish strong data governance across sourcing, contracts, purchasing, and financial integrations.

Another lesson consistently stressed was the importance of testing early and often. States advised incorporating hands-on validation as soon as possible, including requesting access to a test environment during the evaluation. Early testing allows teams to assess usability, configuration flexibility, reporting functionality, and integration assumptions in a practical setting rather than relying solely on demonstrations. This approach was also supported by the Colorado Digital Service, which reinforced the value of iterative testing to reduce implementation risk and improve long-term adoption.

Finally, states consistently reinforced that successful modernization depends on effective change management. Early stakeholder engagement, executive sponsorship, and comprehensive training were identified as critical to long-term adoption and system value.

These national insights continue to inform Colorado’s evaluation process, helping position the project to select a solution that is sustainable, transparent, and aligned with statewide needs.