1. Movement Towards a Standard Presented by Michael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP bevism@naperville.il.us

2.  Phase 1 NIGP Membership 2009  Phase 2 GFOA Membership 2010

3.  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..

4.  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

5.  Build Consensus  Actual Practice  Supporting Theory and Analysis  Stakeholder Input

6.  Actual Practice  Survey 1 Public Procurement Practitioners  Survey 2 Senior Management

7.  Supporting Theory and Analysis  Public Administration and Economic Underpinnings  Academic Research and Practitioner case Studies

8.  Stakeholder Input  Focus Groups  Open Forums  WELCOME to this session

9.  Efficiency measures  Time in Process  Resources Used  Service Level Comparisons  Level of Delegation

10.  Efficiency measures  Time in Process  Resources Used  Service Level Comparisons  Level of Delegation

11.  Effectiveness  Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance  Customer/Client Satisfaction  PASS

12.  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

14. Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance derived from competitive bids.

15.  Senior management 77%/85%  The Public 49.5%/62%  Procurement Management 40%/47%

16.  Communicate the value of procurement (63%/80%)  Evaluate/manage Performance (48%/85%)  Justify Budget Requests (38%/35%)

17.  91% /89% of survey say an important indicator  Only 53% actually measure savings/avoidance  Over a dozen different methods in use

18.  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%)

19.  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%)

20.  Supporting Theory and Analysis  Public Administration and Economic Underpinnings  Academic Research and Practitioner case Studies  A statement and comment period

21.  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

22. Movement Towards a Standard Presented by Michael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP bevism@naperville.il.us