# Andrew S.

Andrew Sachs writes about modernizing municipal parking programs, arguing that cities need outcome-focused procurement and RFPs that make room for technology and better customer service.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/andrew-s/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewsachs
- LinkedIn followers: 2,101
- Based on 11 dated posts, latest 2026-10-04

## Summary

Andrew Sachs is most useful for procurement-led thought leadership on municipal parking RFP modernization.

- Best for: A parking technology company selling to municipal parking agencies wants to win RFPs and sharpen go-to-market positioning.
- Not for: Consumer parking apps or B2C mobility brands seeking short-form video and sponsored creator posts.
- Check first: Confirm reach into municipal buying committees and request a media kit with rates.

### Takeaways

- Innovation in parking is a procurement problem before it is a technology problem.
- New parking contracts look like old ones because procurement asked for the old model.
- Five outdated assumptions in legacy parking RFPs include labor over technology and tasks over outcomes.

## Main ideas

- **Innovation in parking is a procurement problem before it is a technology problem**: The core claim, repeated most often: a municipality can say it wants customer convenience, data transparency and stronger compliance, but an RFP built on decade-old assumptions has already constrained the outcome. The document, not the toolkit, tells vendors what matters. Andrew S. argues that innovation is filtered out before real competition begins, and the evaluation criteria favour proposers best at answering yesterday's questions.
- **New parking contracts look like old ones because the procurement asked for the old model**: A causal explanation rather than a complaint. Andrew S. says agencies are puzzled when a replacement contract resembles the one it replaced, and treats that as the expected result of the procurement document: it told vendors exactly what mattered, and it was not meaningful change. The question is not whether better tools exist—the posts say they do—but whether the framework lets anyone propose them.
- **Buy results, not headcount: task lists versus outcome scopes**: The concrete remedy. Andrew S. contrasts a parking RFP written as a shopping list of tasks—provide patrol, issue citations, manage permits, answer phones—with a scope written around desired results. In their account, task-based documents buy activity rather than performance, lock the agency into a potentially obsolete management model, and measure success by inputs such as patrol hours rather than outcomes such as improved compliance or reduced customer friction. An outcome-shaped document challenges the market to improve compliance, digitize permit administration, strengthen revenue controls, deliver actionable operational intelligence and offer a scalable modernization roadmap.
- **The five outdated assumptions baked into legacy parking RFPs**: The posts' most concrete diagnostic: Andrew S. enumerates labour treated as the core of parking rather than technology-enabled management; responsibilities written as narrow task lists instead of performance goals; administrative continuity ranked above the actual customer experience; reporting treated as a back-office formality rather than a core management tool; and replication of the current program set as the goal instead of asking the market to improve it. Together, these assumptions filter out innovation before competition starts.
- **The procurement trap repeats across city government, transit, higher education, and the private sector**: Andrew S. says the same pattern has appeared across the private sector, municipal government, transit and higher education, drawing on experience across those operating contexts. They argue that the problem is not a shortage of new tools or better service models, but a procurement framework designed—deliberately or not—to reward vendors for answering yesterday's questions. Their priority: parking procurement must catch up with parking practice.
- **The argument is compressed into short, repeatable lines**: Andrew S. states the position at several lengths. The shortest version gives the thesis without supporting reasoning: municipalities say they want innovation, their RFPs ask for continuity, decade-old assumptions filter out modernization before competition begins, and the problem is old procurement language rather than old technology. Repetition across posts suggests a settled position, and the phrasing travels well in short form.

## Work to read

- [Procurement is still buying the past: the five outdated assumptions](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewsachs_procurement-is-still-buying-the-past-while-activity-7500643667611848704-6wC2)
- [Procurement is still buying the past: tasks versus outcomes](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewsachs_procurement-is-still-buying-the-past-while-activity-7497744567451189248-GLB1)
- [Procurement is still buying the past: innovation is filtered out before competition begins](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewsachs_procurement-is-still-buying-the-past-while-activity-7512551632484630528-pNEe)
- [Procurement is still buying the past: the pattern holds across sectors](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewsachs_procurement-is-still-buying-the-past-while-activity-7512550720349306880-JmBi)
- [Municipalities say they want parking innovation](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewsachs_municipalities-say-they-want-parking-innovation-activity-7499224319210946560-uhIR)

## Partnerships

No partnership or sponsorship offer appears in Andrew Sachs's posts. They argue that municipal parking procurement — and RFP language in particular — steers vendors toward legacy operations instead of measurable results. The posts do not describe sponsored formats, rates, or commercial terms. Each carries the same shortened link, but none identifies it as a partnership or sponsorship route. For a parking technology company, there is no published sponsorship product to buy; any collaboration would need to be negotiated directly and fit the posts’ procurement-modernization argument. Ask Sachs for a sponsor policy, media kit, rate card, or partnership contact before costing a campaign.

## Alternatives

- Mark Anthony F.: Pick Mark Anthony F. over Andrew Sachs when the campaign's job is to reopen a decision an agency has already made, not shape a specification while it is still being written. The two posts argue that a lowest-bid municipal software contract often produces a second, unofficial system that staff build around the one they bought. They measure the cost through the agency's current process—staff hours per month—rather than the software price. The second post frames vendor lock-in through three questions to ask before signing: Can the agency export all of its data in a standard format at any time? What happens to that data if the vendor is acquired? How long does implementation take, and who does the work? For a parking technology vendor whose prospect is stuck in an incumbent contract, or whose bid has to beat a cheaper one, that cost-of-ownership and lock-in argument speaks directly to the buying moment.
- Will Menkhaus, PE: Pick Will Menkhaus when the people being persuaded are the owners and engineers who decide how proposals are scored, rather than the vendors answering them. The posts examine selection methods: best-value procurement rewards firms that keep past clients happy because reputation drives the next award, while hard-bid lets a firm cut corners and still win. They also argue that one-on-one proprietary meetings between an owner and each proposing team tend to raise proposal quality and make the process more defensible, not less. A vendor selling into an agency that is choosing or revising how it selects a technology vendor can use that owner-side explanation of why an outcome or best-value structure suits the purchase better than a task list.
- Danielle Lares: Consider Danielle Lares only if the parking or mobility program is funded through an infrastructure or workforce channel that carries labor and compliance obligations, and the campaign's real job is to show project readiness rather than procurement language. The posts treat compliance as part of the deliverables rather than a separate administrative track, connecting apprenticeship, DOT oversight, funding eligibility, and project delivery. One post frames workforce supply as a question of matching skills to the phases of work rather than counting available workers.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/