1. NIGP 2014 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey
Daniel G. Bauer, Managing Director
Public Procurement Research Center
Florida Atlantic University
©NIGP 2013

2. Today’s Agenda Executive Summary Overview and Background
Why Benchmark at all?
Q&A Session
©NIGP 2013

3. What We Will be Discussing Today
Findings
Implications
Recommendations
©NIGP 2013

4. Agenda Items – Executive Summary
Overall Trend Line indicative of increasing importance and visibility associated with Public Procurement
Public Agencies are increasing time, human resources, financial resources, and public relations
Varied Complexity of the Profession
©NIGP 2013

5. Overview and Background
- Generalizability of Survey Data
Limitations surrounding Methodology
Multiple Lessons and Courses of Action
©NIGP 2013

6. Overview and Background
Post Great Recession of
Fiscal and Economic Readiness
Criticality compelling Procurement to Lead From the Front
Increasing Financial Performance (38% Survey)
Stakeholder Customer Satisfaction Rates (75%+)
Public Procurement and the Five Factor Analysis
©NIGP 2013

7. Why Benchmark at All?
Obtaining efficiency, effectiveness, excellence necessitates continuous reform
Reform is contextual demanding benchmarking (a point in time & place)
Too Tedious – here are your challenges
©NIGP 2013

8. Why Benchmark at All? The Challenges of Complexity
Proliferation of Public Organizations
Increasing Volume and Types of Transactions leading to:
Innovative Technology Delivery Systems
Methodological Scorecard denoting Performance

9. Survey Findings Categories (45 Questions) General Demographics 1-7
Entity’s General Procurement Parameters 8-15
Contract Award Authority
Protests
Estimated Savings and Revenues
©NIGP 2013

10. Survey Findings Categories
Positions, Training, and Certifications
Organizational Structure
Thresholds
Performance and Practice Indicators
e-Procurement

11. Survey Data Findings Major Points General Demographics
Level of Government Worked
Regional/State 43.56%
Local municipal/township 33.66%
Other: special district authority 19.80%
Total Expenditures during Fiscal Year
Of 38 respondents, 68.4% indicate between US$1M-500M
62.38% of total respondents unable to provide this information

12. Survey Data Findings Entity’s General Procurement Parameters
Use of numerous cooperative procurement solutions and Programs (all >50% use)
Piggy Back Contracts
Multiple Award Schedule Contracts
Joint Solicitation
Third-Party Managed

13. Survey Data Findings Contract Award Authority Client Departments
32.73% do not delegate authority to client departments
Unlimited Authority 3.64%
64.63% possess delegation of authority levels tied to dollar value

14. Survey Data Findings Protests How many during last fiscal year?
39.28% either do not track or prefer not to answer

15. Survey Data Findings Revenue Sources
Surplus property disposal
Rebates from P-Card Programs
Administrative Fee use of procurement contracts
Estimated Cash Savings and Revenues
71.70% (36) do NOT track this information

16. Survey Data Findings Positions, Training and Certifications
Dollars Spent on Staff Professional Development (18/42) 42.85% do not know
Organizational Structure
Centralized with Delegated Authority 36.73%; Centralized for ALL 26.53%
Thresholds
22.45% do NOT use minimum amount required for multiple informal quotes

17. Survey Data Findings Performance and Practice Indicators eProcurement
Entity does NOT report savings and/or cost avoidance on competitive sealed bid/tenders (21/39) 53.85%
eProcurement
30.43% of entities do NOT use any procurement software.

18. Implications Critical Thinking Steps Overcoming Inefficiencies
Consequences
Intended
Unintended
Outcomes
©NIGP 2013

19. Recommendations Contract Authority Cooperative Procurement
Increase the level of authority under the purview of a procurement officer
Cooperative Procurement
Increase both percentage of dollar amount spent as well as percent of budget spent to 10% threshold leading to greater efficiency
Increase efforts to emphasize cooperative networks while still performing due diligence in contracting
Spend Management
Tracking of Spend Management by type of purchase and dollar amount transforming into a management tool
©NIGP 2013

20. Recommendations Use of Technology and eProcurement
Increase spend/transaction (eventually to a point where small transactions are done electronically and you can spend time managing outcomes)
Implement a program leading to greater total cash savings and lower opportunity costs

21. Recommendations Training and Professionalization
Increase the percentage of FTEs holding appropriate certification
Target annual professional development spend as a minimum percent of total spend per procurement FTE
Maintain and/or increase annual number of training hours per FTE to a minimum of 40 hours across all procurement related FTE positions

22. Recommendations Other Recommendations
Implement Tracking Program for monitoring and performance of
Protests
Cash Savings
Opportunity Costs
Revenues
Thresholds

23. Questions/Comments: dbauer9@fau.edu
Thank You!
Questions/Comments:
©NIGP 2013