But that promise has not been fully realized.
Even back then, I started hearing complaints about the system’s usability. I told vendors and departments alike to be patient, that we’d work out the kinks and improve functionality over time. But today, a decade later, many of those same complaints persist — and I now see them firsthand as a frequent user of the system.
Cal eProcure still meets its basic compliance requirements, but it falls short where it matters most: making it easy for vendors to find, understand and compete for state business. The user interface is clunky. Search functionality is limited. If you don’t already know the precise department name or code, it’s difficult to locate relevant solicitations. There’s no intuitive way to filter by service category, contract size or geographic location. Bidder conference dates and proposal deadlines are often buried deep inside attached PDFs. There’s no preview feature or summary page that lets you know at a glance whether an opportunity is right for you.
Even more frustrating, many solicitations issued through CMAS or other leveraged procurement vehicles are not posted publicly. That means many vendors never see them, and only a narrow set of preselected firms are invited to bid. This undermines transparency, limits competition and cuts off opportunities for newer or smaller firms looking to do business with the state.
The reality is Cal eProcure was not built with the end user in mind — whether that user is a department buyer or a prospective bidder. It performs the bare minimum, but it does not help the state achieve its larger goals of streamlining procurement, increasing participation and improving value.
This is not just an inconvenience. It is a missed opportunity.
But the good news is we can fix it.
This is exactly the kind of challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration should tackle as part of its broader procurement reform efforts. The governor’s Executive Order N-30-25, issued in July 2025, calls for improving government operations and making public services more accessible and efficient. Modernizing Cal eProcure is a clear and achievable way to deliver on that commitment.
To be truly effective, a redesigned Cal eProcure should reflect how vendors actually engage with procurement systems. It should function more like a modern e-commerce site than a bureaucratic filing cabinet.
A user should be able to:
- Search for solicitations by department, keyword or functional category, even if they don’t know the exact agency name
- Filter opportunities by type of service, contract size, solicitation method or due date
- Summarize with a clear, single-page summary of each solicitation that includes the scope of work, eligibility requirements, submission timelines and estimated value
- Identify whether there’s a pre-bid conference or whether the solicitation is limited to prequalified vendors or other restrictions
Just as importantly, Cal eProcure should be integrated with a vendor profile system that allows companies to share their areas of expertise, past performance, certifications, geographic service areas and preferred contract size ranges. The system could then use that information to match vendors to opportunities, and even push relevant solicitations to them automatically.
This kind of functionality already exists in other public procurement platforms. The federal government’s System for Award Management (sam.gov) lets vendors create detailed profiles and receive targeted notifications. Team Georgia Marketplace and Texas’ TxSmartBuy systems offer personalized dashboards and filtering options. California does not need to reinvent the wheel; it just needs to prioritize the user experience and build with intention.
To do this right, we should turn to the Office of Data and Innovation (ODI), which has already shown what is possible when government technology is developed through agile, user-centered design. ODI could lead a discovery and design sprint to map out vendor pain points and define the features most essential for usability. Working with DGS and the California Department of Technology, ODI could help procure or build a next-generation platform that makes it easier, not harder, to do business with the state.
This would not only benefit the vendor community, it would directly support the state’s equity and small-business goals. Right now, many smaller firms simply do not have the resources to navigate a system as complex and opaque as Cal eProcure. Larger firms can afford to dedicate staff to manually search and screen opportunities. Small businesses cannot. Fixing this imbalance is essential if we want to see a broader pool of bidders and generate more competitive, innovative proposals.
It would also send a clear message: that California values transparency, competition and efficiency, not just in theory but in practice.
This is not about tearing down what already exists. It is about modernizing a tool that has not kept up with the times. It is about making the most of our purchasing power to get better outcomes for the people we serve. And it is about recognizing that innovation does not always come from massive overhauls. Sometimes, it is about making targeted, thoughtful changes that open the door for broader transformation.
A better Cal eProcure is not just possible. It is necessary. Let’s use this moment to build something that reflects the best of what California can do to reform procurement and innovate government.
