movement towards a standard presented by michael bevis, cppo, cpsm, pmp [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
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
