Movement Towards a Standard Presented by Michael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP
Phase 1 NIGP Membership 2009 Phase 2 GFOA Membership 2010
NIGP: 453 Responses >100 Cities 60 Counties 43 State Agencies The rest were Schools, Universities, Special Districts, etc.. GFOA 80 Responses 40 Cities 13 Counties 6 State Agencies 21 Schools, Universities, Special Districts, etc..
There is no generally accepted standard for procurement performance measurement Is performance reporting important NIGP = 92% said YES GFOA = 85% said YES Is a standard needed NIGP = 90% said YES GFOA = 84% said YES
Build Consensus Actual Practice Supporting Theory and Analysis Stakeholder Input
Actual Practice Survey 1 Public Procurement Practitioners Survey 2 Senior Management
Supporting Theory and Analysis Public Administration and Economic Underpinnings Academic Research and Practitioner case Studies
Stakeholder Input Focus Groups Open Forums WELCOME to this session
Efficiency measures Time in Process Resources Used Service Level Comparisons Level of Delegation
Efficiency measures Time in Process Resources Used Service Level Comparisons Level of Delegation
Effectiveness Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance Customer/Client Satisfaction PASS
The survey information on the following performance measurement areas Cost savings/avoidance on bids Cost savings/avoidance on competitive negotiations Cost saving/avoidance in other activities Cost savings/avoidance for revenue contracts Other performance indicators
Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance derived from competitive bids.
Senior management 77%/85% The Public 49.5%/62% Procurement Management 40%/47%
Communicate the value of procurement (63%/80%) Evaluate/manage Performance (48%/85%) Justify Budget Requests (38%/35%)
91% /89% of survey say an important indicator Only 53% actually measure savings/avoidance Over a dozen different methods in use
No clear preferred method for NIGP respondents A majority of GFOA respondents (65%) preferred Awarded Price v. Average of all Responsive Bids The top three Award Price v. Budget (16.3%/40%) Award Price v. Highest Bid (18.7%/45%) Award Price v. Average of all Responsive Bids (16.3%/65%)
Award price v. previous price plus inflation adjuster (9.1%/43%) Award price v. retail price (3.3%/29%) Award price v. wholesale price (1.4%/15%) Award price v. GSA or other established price (7.9%/40%) Other (12.9%/9%)
Supporting Theory and Analysis Public Administration and Economic Underpinnings Academic Research and Practitioner case Studies A statement and comment period
The survey information on the following performance measurement areas Cost savings/avoidance on bids Cost savings/avoidance on competitive negotiations Cost saving/avoidance in other activities Cost savings/avoidance for revenue contracts Other performance indicators
Movement Towards a Standard Presented by Michael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP