movement towards a standard presented by michael bevis, cppo, cpsm, pmp bevism@naperville.il.us

Movement Towards a Standard

Presented byMichael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP bevism@naperville.il.us

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 byMichael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP bevism@naperville.il.us