public procurement benchmark surveyengage.nigp.org/acton/attachment/24793/f-0230/1/-/-/-/-/2017...

Public Procurement Benchmark: 2017 Survey Report

Published by NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement. The contents of this benchmark survey report may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NIGP. Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc. 2411 Dulles Corner Park, Suite 350 Herndon, VA 20171 703-736-8900 www.nigp.org

2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report

2 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Section I: Overview and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Section II: Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. Respondent Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. Revenue, Expenditure and Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

C. Organization Structure, Development and Management . . . . . 13 D. Procurement Spend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 E. Cooperative Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 F. Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 G. Workload Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

H. Contract Cycle Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 I. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 J. Sustainability and Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

About the Authors and Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Appendix: Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55



Introduction

Purpose: NIGP’s Public Procurement Benchmarking Survey is a standardized process for gathering key public sector procurement data so that individual agencies have a structured way to compare their operations to those of other public procurement agencies. Survey results focus on specific operating practices and processes, which allow individual agencies to compare and identify potential opportunities to improve operating practices within their organization.

Conducted by: NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement (NIGP) and the Research

Institute for Public Management and Governance (RIPMG) at California State University San Bernardino.

NIGP – Developing, supporting and promoting public procurement practitioners through premier educational and research programs, technical services and advocacy initiatives since 1944. With over 2,600 member agencies representing over 15,000 professionals across the United States, Canada and countries outside of North America, the Institute is international in its reach. Our goal is simple: recognition and esteem for the government procurement profession and its dedicated practitioners. RIPMG – The Institute’s mission is to construct a professional community of scholars and practitioners devoted to achieving improved governance.

Research funded by: NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement



Executive Summary Since 1944 NIGP has been a leader in promoting and supporting specialists in public procurement. Due to the complexity of our members’ responsibilities, NIGP strives to provide practical and useful research findings that can assist everyday decision making. Benchmarks and benchmarking, due to increasing budgetary constraints, represent two dimensions that our members find particularly important in support of their daily work. This report emphasizes operating practices and processes that can be used by our members and the broader government procurement practitioner community to self-assess and evaluate opportunities for improvement. It is critical that the findings and recommendations presented in this report be interpreted only within the context of the surveyed sample and with a clear understanding of the methodological constraints. A total of 168 agencies from 35 states participated in this year’s study. There was a representative mix of agencies with small procurement functions (under 5 full time positions – over 60 percent) and very large procurement functions (11 and more full time positions – over 15 percent). On aggregate, these agencies serve more than 81 million constituents and their procurement spending surpasses 10 trillion dollars. Compared to 2012, we note similar cycle times for small purchases (approximately 8 days) and formal requests for proposals (approximately 72 days). However, we note an increase in average cycle times for formal bids (from approximately 42 days in 2012 to 51 days in 2017). In 2017, compared to 2012, agencies appear to be offering slightly more hours of training (when agencies do provide training) though the ratio of agencies offering training to its employees does not appear to have increased. Very encouraging is that in 2017 agencies report an average “hard cash” saving from procurement function of over $753,000 per full time position (this is significantly higher than what was reported in 2012 - $198,000). A similar encouraging finding can be noted in terms of “soft-cash” savings - $503,000 in 2017 compared to $345,000 in 2012. Also, similar to 2012, satisfaction surveys don’t appear to be heavily used by agencies with only approximately 1 in 4 agencies deploying them during the course of the year. External and internal customers’ satisfaction with the procurement function, too, seem to have remained at the 2012 levels (approximately 90%). Overall, while different response rates and sample representativeness make direct and exact comparisons difficult, we note that the procurement function within agency members have maintained high levels of efficiency. In fact, in many cases operational efficiency might have increased in 2017 over 2012 levels. The only major concern that this research uncovers is that of relatively low (compared to normative levels) strategic role played by the procurement function within the overall organizational operations. This also represents the main recommendation of this report – agencies should invest more in promoting procurement function into a more strategic organizational role.



Recommendations 1. Improve the tracking “hard-cash” savings. Fewer than one third of responding agencies indicated that they have systems and processes in place for tracking “hard-cash” savings. A failure to track the savings realized by the procurement function is a failure to emphasize the true impact and contribution that procurement makes to the organization.

2. Improve the tracking “soft-cash” savings. Even fewer agencies track “soft-cash” savings. While the former might be easier to track than the latter, there are numerous opportunities for the procurement function to demonstrate its strategic procurement role by validating the far-reaching impact of procurement decisions.

3. Enhance the use of auctions for procurement purposes. Less than 15% of agencies indicated that they make use of auctions for procurement purposes. Given the savings opportunities achieved through auction practices, this ratio is relatively low.

4. Increase the strategic standing of the procurement function within the organization. In less than 15% of agencies the top procurement officer reports to the highest ranked administrator within the organization. In most cases (60%), the head of procurement reports to the CFO or Director of Finance. More than 40% of respondents indicated that the procurement function is not perceived as strategic within their organization.

5. Grow the use of e-procurement systems and platforms for procurement purposes. Less than 20% of agencies report significant use of e-procurement systems. Given the potential for competition and savings offered by e-procurement platforms this ratio is relatively low.

6. Increase the number of training opportunities offered to procurement specialists. Less than half of the agencies participating in this study indicated that they offer training for their procurement specialists. And in more than 40% of those reporting training, the amount of training was under 30 hours.

7. Maintain and, if possible, improve dedication to education requirement. Less than 5% of those responding indicated that their agency does not have any minimum education requirement. Such a low number is commendable; however, it still can be improved upon.

8. Undertake efforts to shield the procurement function from politicization. Close to 1 in 4 of those reporting has indicated that their agencies are operating within highly politicized environments.

9. Increase the prevalence of performance pay. Of those responding, less than 20% have indicated that their agencies provide performance pay incentives. Given the benefits associated with performance management / motivation, this ratio is relatively low.

10. Emphasize feedback functions. Less than one quarter of those responding have indicated that their agencies conduct end of the year internal procurement customer satisfaction surveys. Along similar lines less than 12% of those responding have indicated that their agencies have conducted a supplier satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year.



Section I: Overview and Background The role of public procurement as a profession and a pillar for good governance has been steadily growing. The same goes for the recognition that the function increasingly receives both in academia and the broader practitioner community. Further, most organizational leaders currently realize that operational efficiency cannot be achieved without a strong procurement function. At a time when governmental agencies are expected to be “hyper-efficient” – procurement provides the avenue and tools for achieving that efficiency. Indeed, the administrative future of public agencies is intimately linked with that of the procurement function. The road towards operational efficiency, however, is not without challenges. Procurement functions within organizations are often understaffed, undertrained and underfunded. Perhaps the most significant challenge that procurement specialists face is overcoming the unrepresentative image of the procurement function held by procurement’s stakeholders. Daily, professionals operating in the field struggle with the myths and misconceptions of public procurement that others carry. Procurement is often criticized for being slow, convoluted and lacking innovation. Yet, with the same breath the very same critics suggest that procurement needs to be more transparent, more precise and more predictable. Dealing with these conflicting demands is not easy and that is why learning within and outside the procurement professional boundaries (seeking innovative ways of reaching a balance between conflicting demands) becomes so critical. It is within this later context that the research provided here makes its contribution.



Section II: Findings A. Respondent Demographics Entity Type Respondents = 163

Geographic Location Respondents = 91

Alabama 1 Kentucky 1 New York 5

Alaska 1 Louisiana 1 North Carolina 2

Arizona 2 Maine 1 Ohio 2

Arkansas 1 Maryland 2 Oregon 6

California 8 Michigan 5 Pennsylvania 1

Colorado 4 Minnesota 1 South Carolina 4

Florida 17 Mississippi 1 Tennessee 5

Georgia 6 Missouri 4 Texas 5

Idaho 2 Nevada 1 Virginia 9

Illinois 2 New Hampshire 1 Washington 5

Iowa 3 New Jersey 1 Wisconsin 2

Kansas 1 New Mexico 1 Not Disclosed 55



Population Served Respondents = 98

Average Population 834,372 Median Population 195,000 Grand Total of Reporting Entities 81,768,455

Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Procurement Staff Of the agencies reporting, the predominant number of full time procurement personnel was five or less. Only three percent of reporting agencies had procurement functions employing more than 20 full time professionals.



B. Revenue, Expenditure and Savings Cash Savings ("hard-cash") Respondents = 45

The agencies that tracked “hard-cash” savings reported on average more than $5 million in savings generated through procurement activity during the most recently completed fiscal year.

Average Savings $5,219,516

Median Savings $975,000

Grand Total of Savings Reported $234,878,239

Reported Savings Frequency Percent

Less than $100k 8 18% $100k - $500k 11 24% $501k - $2m 15 33% More than $2m 11 24% Total 45 100%

Non-Cash Savings ("soft-cash”) Respondents = 36

The agencies that tracked “soft-cash” savings reported on average more than $2 million in savings generated through procurement activity during the most recently completed fiscal year.

Average Savings $2,788,114

Median Savings $450,000

Grand Total of Savings Reported $100,372,102

Reported Savings Frequency Percent

Less than $100k 13 36%

$100k - $500k 10 28%

$501k - $2m 3 8%

More than $2m 10 28%

Total 36 100%



Does the Procurement Function within the Agency Process (Handle) Construction and Public Works Bids? Respondents = 129

Procurement Responsibility Frequency Percent

Construction only 23 18% Public works only 4 3% Both construction & public works 76 59% Neither 24 19% I am not sure 2 2%

Total 129 100% Quotes Respondents = 57

Number Issued per FTE Frequency Percent

0 4 7% 10 15 26% 20 3 5% 30 6 11% 40 3 5% 50 6 11% 60 3 5% 70 5 9% 80 3 5% 90 5 9%

100 4 7%

Total 57 100%



Sealed Bids Respondents = 58


0 3 5% 10 3 5% 20 1 2% 30 2 3% 40 1 2% 50 3 5% 60 2 3% 70 4 7% 80 2 3% 90 4 7%

100 33 57%

Total 58 100% Proposals Respondents = 53


0 4 8% 10 3 6% 20 2 4% 30 2 4% 40 0 0% 50 3 6% 60 2 4% 70 3 6% 80 0 0% 90 2 4%

100 32 60%

Total 53 100%



Auctions Respondents = 24


0 5 21% 10 2 8% 20 0 0% 30 0 0% 40 0 0% 50 0 0% 60 0 0% 70 0 0% 80 0 0% 90 2 8%

100 15 63%

Total 24 100% Does your agency have a warehouse or receiving area? Respondents = 127

Response Frequency Percent

Yes 66 52% No 60 47% Not sure 1 1% Total 127 100%

Does your agency have a P-Card program? Respondents = 127


Yes 105 83% No 21 17% Not sure 1 1% Total 127 100%



C. Organization Structure, Development and Management

Who does the head of procurement "report" to in your agency? Respondents = 133

Title / role Frequency Percent

CEO / city manager / county administrator / other highest ranked administrator

18 14%

CFO / director of finance / controller / other highest ranked finance staff 80 60%

COO / director of operations / other highest ranked operations staff 10 8%

Elected official / city council / other elected board 6 5%

Other (please specify) 19 14%

Total 133 100% Which organizational structure listed below BEST describes your purchasing function? Respondents = 125

Reporting structure Frequency Percent

Decentralized with central review (almost all procurement is performed by departments, but subject to review by central procurement)

29 23%

Centralized with delegated authority (most procurement is performed through a central procurement function, with some procurement delegated to departments)

62 50%

Centralized (almost all procurement is performed through a central procurement function)

30 24%


Total 125 100%



Does your agency employ electronic (e-procurement) systems for purposes of the agency's procurement function? Respondents = 127

Use of e-procurement system Frequency Percent

Yes 23 18%

No 47 37%

Not sure 3 2%

If yes, please specify the system used 54 43%

Total 127 100%

How many procurement specialists (FTEs) hold appropriate (in your judgment) procurement certification for their current position? (“Procurement specialist” = procurement staff who spend more than 50% of their time on procurement related work) Respondents = 115

Number of certified FTEs Frequency Percent

Less than 1 25 22% 1 – 2 59 51% 3 - 10 25 22% More than 10 6 5%

Total 115 100%

How many procurement specialists (FTEs) are actively pursuing an appropriate (in your judgment) procurement certification? (“Procurement specialist” = procurement staff who spend more than 50% of their time on procurement related work) Respondents = 107

Number FTEs pursuing certification Frequency Percent 0 31 29% 1 44 41% 2 12 11% 3 11 10% 4 3 3% 5 1 1%

15 1 1% 20 1 1% 25 2 2% 55 1 1%

Total 107 100%



How many total hours did procurement spend on internal training for its professional staff? Respondents = 81

Number of training hours Frequency Percent

0 – 5 14 17% 6 – 10 7 9% 11 – 30 13 16% 31 – 75 22 27% More than 75 25 31%

Total 81 100% Is the procurement function perceived as "strategic" within the context of your agency? ("Strategic" = Procurement is perceived as a central process for achieving the strategic and performance goals set by the agency. To not be strategic would mean that the procurement function is not part of the decision-making process associated with long-term strategic planning and visioning.) Respondents = 123

Considered strategic Frequency Percent

Definitely not 11 9% Probably not 20 16% Might or might not 22 18% Probably yes 39 32% Definitely yes 31 25%

Total 123 100%

Does your agency require entry level full-time procurement personnel to hold some form of certification? Respondents = 124

Certification required? Frequency Percent

Yes (upon hire) 5 4%

Yes (within 6 months or other period) 19 15%

No 89 72%


Total 124 100%



Other requirements noted Frequency Certification preferred, not required 2 College degree 1 Deputy Purchasing Agent 1 Encouraged within 3 years, not required 1 Not to hire, but must be willing to get one 1 Only 1 procurement person. CPPB required. 1 Only 1 purchasing/contracts administrator; two account clerks 1

Purchasing/contracts administrator requires certification; account clerks do not 1

Within 3 years 1 Work towards it 1

Does your agency impose a minimum educational requirement for full-time procurement entry level positions? Respondents = 120

Minimum educational requirements? Frequency Percent

Yes – high school diploma 39 33% Yes – undergraduate university degree 51 43% Yes – graduate university degree 8 7% Other (please specify) 17 14% No 5 4%

Total 120 100%

Other requirements noted Frequency

AS or 6 years of experience 1 Associates degree 4 Depends on position, agents have a BA requirement with an MA preferred 1

Education and experience equiv. to CPPO or bachelor’s 1

HS diploma required; undergrad degree highly preferred 1

Minimum two-year college degree or Associates degree 1

Minimum Associates degree or 5 years’ experience 1 Not sure 1 Only one; required a CPPB 1 Or combination of education and experience 1 Prefer higher education but experience can make up 1 Undergraduate degree and 3-years’ experience 1 University degree or HS or AA with years of experience 1

Will accept a combination of educ., exp., cert. 1



The senior / executive leader of my agency/organization goes beyond self-interest for the good of the agency. Respondents = 121


Strongly disagree 7 6% Somewhat disagree 8 7% Neither agree nor disagree 13 11% Somewhat agree 34 28% Strongly agree 59 49%

Total 121 100% The senior / executive leader of my agency talks positively about the future. Respondents = 121



Total 121 100% The senior / executive leader of my agency helps others to develop their strengths Respondents = 121



Total 121 100%



The senior / executive leader considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions Respondents = 120



Total 120 100% The senior/executive leader of my agency/organization re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate Respondents = 120



Total 120 100% What is the degree of procurement oversight engaged in by your agency’s elected officials (e.g., city council, state elected officials)? Respondents = 112


0% 8 7% 1 – 5% 8 7%

6 – 10% 21 19% 11 - 30% 17 15% 31 – 50% 22 20% 51 – 75% 15 13%

76 – 100% 21 19%

Total 112 100%



How "political" do you think is the external environment within which your agency operates? Respondents = 120


0% 1 1% 1 – 5% 3 3%

6 – 10% 9 8% 11 - 30% 32 27% 31 – 50% 20 17% 51 – 75% 29 24%

76 – 100% 26 22%

Total 120 100% What is the level of collaboration among the procurement function and other departments in your agency? Respondents = 121


0% 2 2% 1 – 5% 1 1%

6 – 10% 2 2% 11 - 30% 10 8% 31 – 50% 15 13% 51 – 75% 35 29%

76 – 100% 56 47%

Total 121 102%

* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding

What percentage of your full-time procurement personnel are women? Respondents = 116


0% 3 3% 1 – 25% 6 5%

26 – 50% 22 19% 51 - 75% 32 28%

76 – 100% 53 46%

Total 116 101%




What percentage of your full-time procurement personnel are minorities? Respondents = 71


0% 6 8% 1 – 25% 24 34%

26 – 50% 17 24% 51 - 75% 7 10%

76 – 100% 17 24%

Total 71 100% What percentage of your full-time procurement personnel are under 30 years old? Respondents = 54


0% 12 22% 1 – 25% 24 44%

26 – 50% 11 20% 51 - 75% 6 11%

76 – 100% 1 2%

Total 54 100% Benefits: Bonus pay Respondents = 115


Yes 7 6% No 108 94%

Total 115 100% Benefits: Performance pay Respondents = 114


Yes 22 20% No 82 80%

Total 114 100%



Benefits: Certification pay Respondents = 115


Yes 21 18% No 94 82%

Total 115 100% Benefits: Education reimbursement Respondents = 120


Yes 91 76% No 29 24%

Total 120 100% Benefits: Conference reimbursement Respondents = 117


Yes 106 91% No 11 9%

Total 117 100% Benefits: Training reimbursement Respondents = 118


Yes 106 90% No 12 10%

Total 118 100%



Benefits: Cost of living adjustments (COLA) Respondents = 111


Yes 57 51% No 54 49%

Total 111 100% Benefits: Cellphone plans Respondents = 114


Yes 56 49% No 58 51%

Total 111 100%



D. Procurement Spend Total Spending Respondents = 53

Spending $ Millions Average $67

Median $80

Total Reported $3,550 Spending: Goods Respondents = 155


Median $15

Total Reported $4,183 Spending: Services Respondents = 155


Median $18

Total Reported $3,400 Spending: Construction Respondents = 155

Spending $ Millions Average $14.3

Median -

Total Reported $2,216



E. Cooperative Purchasing

Does (can) your agency use Cooperative Purchasing Agreements? Respondents = 127

Use of cooperative agreements? Frequency Percent

Yes 121 95%

No 3 2%

Not sure 3 2%

Total 127 100%


If your agency uses Cooperative Purchasing Agreements, approximately what percentage of procurement is completed via Cooperative Purchasing Agreements? Respondents = 101


1 - 10% 37 37% 11 - 25% 36 36% 26 – 50% 21 21% 51 – 75% 5 5%

76 – 100% 2 2%

Total 101 101%


Types of Cooperatives Respondents = 101

Cooperative program type Frequency

Regional or local 83

Provincial or state 87

National 99

“Piggy-back” type contracts 86

Total 124



Other cooperative program types not listed above

Any that will accept our business status Consortium for chemicals (pooled) Federal Transit Authority prohibits the use of cooperative purchasing agreements Interagency agreements Permissive cooperatives Regent-wide contracts State contract



F. Thresholds Cycle Time: Small purchases Reporting = 98

Days Average 8

Median 5

Number of Days Frequency Percent 1 10 10% 2 24 25% 3 12 12% 4 3 3% 5 13 13% 7 5 5%

10 7 7% 14 11 11% 15 4 4% 20 2 2% 21 2 2% 28 1 1% 30 2 2% 48 1 1% 84 1 1%

Total 98 99%


Cycle Time: Formal requests for proposals Responses: 101

Days Average 73

Median 60

Cycle time: number of days Frequency Percent 5 1 1% 7 1 1% 9 1 1%

10 3 3% 14 2 2%



20 1 1% 21 2 2% 25 1 1% 30 11 11% 32 1 1% 40 3 3% 42 1 1% 45 15 15% 50 3 3% 60 14 14% 70 1 1% 75 7 7% 90 6 6%

105 1 1% 120 15 15% 150 2 2% 180 6 6% 189 1 1% 198 1 1% 199 1 1%

Total 101 101% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding

Cycle Time: Formal bids Responses = 102

Days Average 51

Median 45

Number of Days Frequency Percent

1 – 10 2 2% 11 – 29 23 23%

30 21 20% 31 – 45 15 14% 46 – 90 29 27%

> 90 16 15%

Total 102 101%




Threshold: Small purchase Responses = 105

Dollars Average $12,297

Median $5,000

Total Reported $1,291,189

Threshold value Frequency Percent

$0 - 5,000 68 65% $5,001 - 10,000 16 15%

$10,001 – 25,000 9 9% $25,001 – 50,000 8 8%

> $50,000 4 4%

Total 105 101%


Threshold: Requiring formal competition Responses = 110


Median $25,000



$0 - 5,000 15 14% $5,001 - 10,000 10 9%

$10,001 – 25,000 32 29% $25,001 – 50,000 32 29%

> $50,000 21 19%

Total 110 100%




Requiring written quotes Responses = 103


Median $10,000



$0 - 5,000 40 39% $5,001 - 10,000 20 19%

$10,001 – 25,000 25 24% $25,001 – 50,000 13 13%

> $50,000 5 5%

Total 103 100%


Threshold: Requiring at least three quotes Responses = 107


Median $5,000


Responses = 117


$0 - 5,000 58 50% $5,001 - 10,000 19 16%

$10,001 – 25,000 15 13% $25,001 – 50,000 14 12%

> $50,000 11 9%

Total 117 100%




Threshold: Requiring formal governing or "special" approval Responses = 85


Median $50,000



$0 - 5,000 5 6% $5,001 - 10,000 3 4%

$10,001 – 25,000 24 28% $25,001 – 50,000 19 22%

> $50,000 35 41%

Total 85 101%


Threshold: Requiring formal sealed bids (non-construction) Responses = 108


Median $50,000



$0 - 5,000 2 2% $5,001 - 10,000 4 4%

$10,001 – 25,000 39 36% $25,001 – 50,000 35 32%

> $50,000 28 26%

Total 108 100%




Threshold: Requiring formal sealed bids (construction) Responses = 97

Dollars Average $3,160,221

Median $50,000



$0 - 5,000 2 2% $5,001 - 10,000 6 6%

$10,001 – 25,000 29 30% $25,001 – 50,000 30 31%

> $50,000 30 31% Total 97 100%


What is the highest contract award authority for the following?

Departments with delegated authority Responses = 90

Dollars Average $12,631 Median $2,750

Authority Threshold Frequency Percent

$0 27 30% $300 1 1% $500 1 1% $999 1 1%

$1,000 6 7% $2,000 2 2% $2,500 7 7% $3,000 2 2% $4,000 1 1% $4,999 1 1% $5,000 16 18% $7,500 1 1%

$10,000 6 7% $19,999 1 1% $25,000 4 4%



$30,000 2 2% $40,000 1 1% $50,000 6 7% $75,000 1 1%

$100,000 2 2% $150,000 1 1%

Total 90 98%


Procurement director / chief procurement officer / manager Responses = 67


Median $49,999


$1,000 1 1.5% $5,000 1 1.5% $7,500 1 1.5% $9,999 1 1.5%

$10,000 6 9% $15,000 1 1.5% $19,999 1 1.5% $20,000 5 8% $24,999 2 3% $25,000 12 18% $40,000 2 3% $49,999 1 1.5% $50,000 7 10% $75,000 2 3% $99,000 1 1.5%

$100,000 12 18% $150,000 2 3% $200,000 2 3% $250,000 3 4.5% $300,000 1 1.5%

$1,000,000 3 4.5%

Total 67 100.5%




Chief executive officer Responses = 53


Median $100,000



$2,500 1 2% $5,000 2 4%

$15,000 1 2% $20,000 1 2% $24,999 3 6% $25,000 7 13% $35,000 1 2% $40,000 1 2% $49,999 1 2% $50,000 5 9% $75,000 2 4% $99,000 1 2%

$100,000 8 15% $149,999 1 2% $150,000 2 4% $200,000 1 2% $250,000 4 8% $300,000 1 2% $500,000 2 4% $999,999 1 2%

$1,000,000 4 8% $2,000,000 1 2% $3,000,000 1 2% $6,000,000 1 2%

Total 53 103%




Chief operation officer Responses = 39


Median $50,000



$1,000 1 2.5% $2,500 3 8% $5,000 2 5% $15,00 1 2.5%

$20,000 1 2.5% $24,999 2 5% $25,000 4 10% $30,000 1 2.5% $49,999 1 2.5% $50,000 7 18% $75,000 2 5%

$100,000 2 5% $150,000 2 5% $200,000 1 2.5% $250,999 2 5% $300,000 1 2.5% $500,000 2 5%

$1,000,000 3 8% $10,000,000 1 2.5%

Total 39 99%




G. Workload Indicators

Total number of purchasing orders Responses = 127

Count Average 6,001

Median 2,000

Total Reported 762,066

Total number of change orders Responses = 83

Count Average 595

Median 55

Total Reported 49,355 Total number of purchasing orders issued by other departments under delegated authority Responses = 106

Count Average 2,258

Median -

Total Reported 239,302 Total value of purchasing orders Responses = 110


Median $34,707,534

Total Reported $9,005,696,966



Total value of purchase orders issued by other departments under delegated authority Responses = 98


Median -

Total Reported $1,248,555 Total value of purchasing undertaken through a p-card program Responses = 88


Median $780,937

Total Reported $327,561,835 Total procurement spending Responses = 93


Median $53,000,000

Total Reported $10,260,154,601 Total number of Letters of Interest to determine the field of suppliers available and interested Responses = 88

Count Average 43

Median -




Total number of letters or Requests for Qualification used to prequalify suppliers Responses = 96

Count Average 121

Median -

Total Reported 11,658 Total number of Requests for Quotes Responses = 94

Count Average 418

Median 81

Total Reported 39,295 For Total number of Request for Proposals Responses = 107

Count Average 38

Median 20

Total Reported 4,086 Total number of competitive negotiations Responses = 85

Count Average 25

Median 5




Total number of emergency contracts Responses = 98

Count Average 7

Median 1

Total Reported 673 Total value of emergency procurement Responses = 75


Median -

Total Reported $20,224,495 Total number of sole source contracts Responses = 90

Count Average 32

Median 9

Total Reported 2,897 Total number of sole source contracts over formal threshold Responses = 78

Count Average 10

Median 3

Total Reported 784



Total value of sole-source contracts Responses = 68


Median $500,000

Total Reported $187,727,792 Total number of protests Responses = 113

Count Average 0.6

Median 0

Total Reported 63 Total number of protests determined in agency's favor Responses = 80

Count Average 0.7

Median 0

Total Reported 59 Is the procurement function involved (allowed to engage in) negotiations? Responses = 124

Frequency Percent

No involvement at all 7 6% Very little involvement 15 12% Some involvement 38 31% High involvement 62 50% I am not sure 2 2%




H. Contract Cycle Times

Does your agency have an emergency vendor list? Responses = 125


Yes 59 47% No 56 45% Not sure 10 8%

Total 125 100%

Length of initial contract (in months) Responses = 111


12 55 50% 18 2 2% 24 11 10% 36 30 27% 48 2 2% 60 9 8% 84 1 1%

120 1 1%

Total 111 101%


Length of contract extension (in months) Responses = 109


0 2 2% 12 75 69% 24 14 13% 36 5 5% 48 7 6% 60 5 5%

120 1 1%

Total 109 101%




Number of contract extensions allowed Responses = 103


0 1 1% 1 9 9% 2 30 30% 3 20 19% 4 34 33% 5 7 7% 6 2 2%

Total 103 101%




I. Performance Management Have you conducted an internal procurement customer satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year? Responses = 121


Yes (please indicate overall score) 30 25% No 89 74% Not sure 2 2% Total 121 101%


Overall Score Frequency Percent

55 1 4% 60 1 4% 65 1 4% 80 2 8% 90 6 24% 92 2 8% 93 1 4% 95 5 20% 96 1 4% 99 1 4%

100 4 16%

Total 25 100%


Have you conducted a supplier satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year? Responses = 120


Yes (please indicate overall score) 14 12% No 104 87% Not sure 2 2% Total 120 101%




Satisfaction Survey - Overall Score Frequency Percent

80 2 17% 85 1 8% 89 1 8% 90 2 17% 92 1 8% 93 1 8% 94 1 8% 95 1 8% 97 1 8% 98 1 8%

Total 12 100%




J. Sustainability and Social Responsibility Preferences

Local Responses = 120


Yes (please indicate overall score) 39 32.5% No 81 67.5%


Local preference - percentage of dollar value Responses = 168

Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent

1 2 1% 2 5 3%

2.5 1 1% 5 1 1% 7 9 5% 8 1 1%

10 1 1%

Total 168 101%


Small business Responses = 116


Yes 24 21% No 92 79%




Small business preference - percentage of dollar value Responses = 10


2 2 20% 3 1 10% 5 2 20%

10 4 40% 14 1 10%

Total 10 100%


Minority-owned Responses = 113


Yes 27 24% No 86 77%


Minority owned preference - percentage of dollar value Responses = 17


0 3 18% 3 1 6% 4 2 12% 5 2 12% 5 2 12%

10 6 35% 17 1 6%

Total 17 100%




Women-owned Responses = 112


Yes 22 20% No 90 80%


Women-owned - percentage of dollar value Responses = 12


0 3 25% 4 1 8% 5 3 25%

10 4 33% 30 1 8%

Total 10 99%


Veteran-owned Responses = 111


Yes 20 18% No 91 82%


Veteran-owned - percentage of the dollar value Responses = 8


2 2 25% 3 1 13% 5 3 38%

10 2 25%

Total 8 101%




Disabled-owned Responses = 110


Yes 14 13% No 96 87%


Disabled-owned - percentage of dollar value Responses = 1


10 1 100%


Environmental Responses = 109


Yes 8 7% No 101 93%


Environmental - percentage of the dollar value Responses = 3


0 1 33% 5 2 67%

Total 3 100%




Energy conservation Responses = 113


No 79 70% Yes – part of evaluation process 30 27% Yes – condition for award 4 4% Total 113 101%


Recyclability Responses = 111




Water pollution Responses = 111




Air quality Responses = 111






Greenhouse gas emissions Responses = 110




Reduced packaging Responses = 112




Volatile organic compounds Responses = 111




Biodiversity Responses = 108






Other green practices Responses = 112




Worker health insurance coverage Responses = 115




Working conditions of workers Responses = 110




Ethically sourced items Responses = 109






Other health practices Responses =109




Living wage requirements Responses = 114




Local workers Responses = 111




Use of women-owned vendors/sub-vendors Responses = 114






Use of minority-owned vendors/sub-vendors Responses = 110




Use of veteran-owned vendors/sub-vendors Responses = 110




Other economic practices Responses = 86






Other economic practices Responses = 10

Other economic practice Frequency Percent

30 DBE for all procurement 1 10% Cost of ownership 1 10% Fair labor standards 1 10% Local vendor preference 1 10% Resident vendor, if requested 1 10% Section 3 3 30% Trade agreement 1 10% Varies by scope 1 10%

Total 10 100%




About the Authors and Contact Information

Researchers: Dr. Mohamad G. Alkadry University of Connecticut [email protected] Dr. Alexandru V. Roman California State University San Bernardino [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Appendix: Method Survey Method: Self-administered survey (via Qualtrics) Invitation method: E-mail Target Group: NIGP agency members Email Invitations sent: March 6, 2017 Reminder Sent: March 13, 2017 Final Reminder Sent: April 25, 2017 Survey Closed: May 6, 2017 Number of Responses: 168

public procurement benchmark surveyengage.nigp.org/acton/attachment/24793/f-0230/1/-/-/-/-/2017...

Documents