1 / 22

Toward Standardizing Government Procurement Performance: Survey Results and Next Steps

This presentation by Michael Bevis addresses the lack of a standard for measuring procurement performance, highlighting the survey results from NIGP and GFOA members. The importance of performance reporting and the need for a standard are emphasized, urging stakeholders to build consensus. The plan includes surveys of practitioners and management, theoretical analysis, and stakeholder input. Efficiency and effectiveness measures in procurement processes, cost savings, and client satisfaction are tackled, with a focus on cost-savings methods and audience needs. The session outlines the journey towards establishing a standard for government procurement performance measurement.

stacia
Download Presentation

Toward Standardizing Government Procurement Performance: Survey Results and Next Steps

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Movement Towards a Standard Presented by Michael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP bevism@naperville.il.us Measuring Performance in Government ProcurementPhase 2

  2. Phase 1 NIGP Membership 2009 Phase 2 GFOA Membership 2010 The Surveys

  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 . . The Survey Results

  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 The Issue

  5. Build Consensus • Actual Practice • Supporting Theory and Analysis • Stakeholder Input The Plan

  6. Actual Practice • Survey 1 Public Procurement Practitioners • Survey 2 Senior Management The Process

  7. Supporting Theory and Analysis • Public Administration and Economic Underpinnings • Academic Research and Practitioner case Studies The Process

  8. Stakeholder Input • Focus Groups • Open Forums • WELCOME to this session The Process

  9. Efficiency measures • Time in Process • Resources Used • Service Level Comparisons • Level of Delegation Efficiency and Effectiveness

  10. Efficiency measures • Time in Process • Resources Used • Service Level Comparisons • Level of Delegation Efficiency and Effectiveness

  11. Effectiveness • Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance • Customer/Client Satisfaction • PASS Efficiency and Effectiveness

  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 The Survey

  13. How do you eat an Elephant?

  14. Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance derived from competitive bids. A first bite:

  15. Senior management 77%/85% • The Public 49.5%/62% • Procurement Management 40%/47% Who is the Audience

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

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

  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%) The Most Often Used Measures

  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%) The other choices

  20. Supporting Theory and Analysis • Public Administration and Economic Underpinnings • Academic Research and Practitioner case Studies • A statement and comment period What’s Next for Cost Savings/Avoidance for Bids

  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 After Cost Savings/Avoidance for Bids

  22. Movement Towards a Standard Presented by Michael Bevis, CPPO, CPSM, PMP bevism@naperville.il.us Measuring Performance in Government ProcurementPart 2

More Related