To be transparent, I’ll start off stating that I ran supplier diversity for the State of Michigan.  It wasn’t much of a program, since there are only two legislatively approved purchasing preferences at the state level.  Regardless, disclaimer made.

Lately, we’ve heard soap box experts questioning the rationale for supplier diversity programs.  As someone who believes that these programs help expand the supplier base in the public sector, I happily defend the use of diversity initiatives.  As someone who recognizes the massive volume of public sector contracting opportunities available to bidders, I also happily call haters out.  If a solicitation is set aside or has a preference that makes you less competitive, this is a factor in your bid/no-bid decision.  If you decide to no-bid the opportunity, move on to the next one.  No whining.  If you oppose purchasing preferences on some ideological basis, stop bidding entirely.  You’ll show them.

However, recent challenges question whether companies should maximize their diverse supplier status when given the opportunity.  (I should add that we have experienced these questions firsthand, publicly and rather aggressively.)  We counsel clients to understand and follow the law, know the opportunities and whenever possible, maximize diverse supplier status for a competitive advantage.  We also counsel clients against bidding when preferences indicate an opportunity is better suited for another company.

I’m floored that supplier diversity is suddenly so interesting.