Post on 18-Mar-2018
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
3 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
4 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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.
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
5 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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.
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
6 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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.
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
7 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
8 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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.
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
9 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
10 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
11 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Sealed Bids Respondents = 58
Number Issued per FTE Frequency Percent
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
Number Issued per FTE Frequency Percent
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
12 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Auctions Respondents = 24
Number Issued per FTE Frequency Percent
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
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 105 83% No 21 17% Not sure 1 1% Total 127 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
13 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
Other (please specify) 4 3%
Total 125 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
14 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
15 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
Other (please specify) 11 15%
Total 124 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
16 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
17 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
The senior / executive leader of my agency/organization goes beyond self-interest for the good of the agency. Respondents = 121
Response Frequency Percent
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
Response Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 6 5% Somewhat disagree 4 3% Neither agree nor disagree 13 11% Somewhat agree 30 25% Strongly agree 68 56%
Total 121 100% The senior / executive leader of my agency helps others to develop their strengths Respondents = 121
Response Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 9 7% Somewhat disagree 11 9% Neither agree nor disagree 25 21% Somewhat agree 35 29% Strongly agree 41 34%
Total 121 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
18 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
The senior / executive leader considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions Respondents = 120
Response Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 8 7% Somewhat disagree 5 4% Neither agree nor disagree 16 13% Somewhat agree 33 28% Strongly agree 58 48%
Total 120 100% The senior/executive leader of my agency/organization re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate Respondents = 120
Response Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 6 5% Somewhat disagree 5 4% Neither agree nor disagree 21 18% Somewhat agree 36 30% Strongly agree 52 43%
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
Response Frequency Percent
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
19 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
How "political" do you think is the external environment within which your agency operates? Respondents = 120
Response Frequency Percent
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
Response Frequency Percent
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
Response Frequency Percent
0% 3 3% 1 – 25% 6 5%
26 – 50% 22 19% 51 - 75% 32 28%
76 – 100% 53 46%
Total 116 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
20 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
What percentage of your full-time procurement personnel are minorities? Respondents = 71
Response Frequency Percent
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
Response Frequency Percent
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
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 7 6% No 108 94%
Total 115 100% Benefits: Performance pay Respondents = 114
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 22 20% No 82 80%
Total 114 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
21 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Benefits: Certification pay Respondents = 115
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 21 18% No 94 82%
Total 115 100% Benefits: Education reimbursement Respondents = 120
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 91 76% No 29 24%
Total 120 100% Benefits: Conference reimbursement Respondents = 117
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 106 91% No 11 9%
Total 117 100% Benefits: Training reimbursement Respondents = 118
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 106 90% No 12 10%
Total 118 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
22 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Benefits: Cost of living adjustments (COLA) Respondents = 111
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 57 51% No 54 49%
Total 111 100% Benefits: Cellphone plans Respondents = 114
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 56 49% No 58 51%
Total 111 100%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
23 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
D. Procurement Spend Total Spending Respondents = 53
Spending $ Millions Average $67
Median $80
Total Reported $3,550 Spending: Goods Respondents = 155
Spending $ Millions Average $27
Median $15
Total Reported $4,183 Spending: Services Respondents = 155
Spending $ Millions Average $22
Median $18
Total Reported $3,400 Spending: Construction Respondents = 155
Spending $ Millions Average $14.3
Median -
Total Reported $2,216
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
24 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
If your agency uses Cooperative Purchasing Agreements, approximately what percentage of procurement is completed via Cooperative Purchasing Agreements? Respondents = 101
Response Frequency Percent
1 - 10% 37 37% 11 - 25% 36 36% 26 – 50% 21 21% 51 – 75% 5 5%
76 – 100% 2 2%
Total 101 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
25 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
26 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
27 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
28 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Threshold: Requiring formal competition Responses = 110
Dollars Average $45,512
Median $25,000
Total Reported $2,896,305
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
29 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Requiring written quotes Responses = 103
Dollars Average $18,072
Median $10,000
Total Reported $1,861,401
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Threshold: Requiring at least three quotes Responses = 107
Dollars Average $35,970
Median $5,000
Total Reported $3,848,809
Responses = 117
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
30 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Threshold: Requiring formal governing or "special" approval Responses = 85
Dollars Average $135,600
Median $50,000
Total Reported $11,526,002
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Threshold: Requiring formal sealed bids (non-construction) Responses = 108
Dollars Average $57,207
Median $50,000
Total Reported $6,178,401
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
31 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Threshold: Requiring formal sealed bids (construction) Responses = 97
Dollars Average $3,160,221
Median $50,000
Total Reported $306,541,401
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
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%
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
32 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Procurement director / chief procurement officer / manager Responses = 67
Dollars Average $108,172
Median $49,999
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
33 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Chief executive officer Responses = 53
Dollars Average $1,408,896
Median $100,000
Total Reported $74,671,494
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
34 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Chief operation officer Responses = 39
Dollars Average $417,397
Median $50,000
Total Reported $16,278,497
Threshold value Frequency Percent
$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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
35 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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
Dollars Average $81,869,972
Median $34,707,534
Total Reported $9,005,696,966
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
36 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Total value of purchase orders issued by other departments under delegated authority Responses = 98
Dollars Average $12,740,357
Median -
Total Reported $1,248,555 Total value of purchasing undertaken through a p-card program Responses = 88
Dollars Average $3,722,294
Median $780,937
Total Reported $327,561,835 Total procurement spending Responses = 93
Dollars Average $110,324,243
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 Reported 3,760
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
37 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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 Reported 2,113
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
38 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Total number of emergency contracts Responses = 98
Count Average 7
Median 1
Total Reported 673 Total value of emergency procurement Responses = 75
Dollars Average $269,660
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
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
39 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Total value of sole-source contracts Responses = 68
Dollars Average $2,760,702
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%
Total 124 101% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
40 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
H. Contract Cycle Times
Does your agency have an emergency vendor list? Responses = 125
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 59 47% No 56 45% Not sure 10 8%
Total 125 100%
Length of initial contract (in months) Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Length of contract extension (in months) Responses = 109
Response Frequency Percent
0 2 2% 12 75 69% 24 14 13% 36 5 5% 48 7 6% 60 5 5%
120 1 1%
Total 109 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
41 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Number of contract extensions allowed Responses = 103
Response Frequency Percent
0 1 1% 1 9 9% 2 30 30% 3 20 19% 4 34 33% 5 7 7% 6 2 2%
Total 103 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
42 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
I. Performance Management Have you conducted an internal procurement customer satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year? Responses = 121
Response Frequency Percent
Yes (please indicate overall score) 30 25% No 89 74% Not sure 2 2% Total 121 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Have you conducted a supplier satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year? Responses = 120
Response Frequency Percent
Yes (please indicate overall score) 14 12% No 104 87% Not sure 2 2% Total 120 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
43 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
44 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
J. Sustainability and Social Responsibility Preferences
Local Responses = 120
Response Frequency Percent
Yes (please indicate overall score) 39 32.5% No 81 67.5%
Total 120 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Small business Responses = 116
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 24 21% No 92 79%
Total 116 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
45 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Small business preference - percentage of dollar value Responses = 10
Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent
2 2 20% 3 1 10% 5 2 20%
10 4 40% 14 1 10%
Total 10 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Minority-owned Responses = 113
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 27 24% No 86 77%
Total 113 101% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Minority owned preference - percentage of dollar value Responses = 17
Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent
0 3 18% 3 1 6% 4 2 12% 5 2 12% 5 2 12%
10 6 35% 17 1 6%
Total 17 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
46 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Women-owned Responses = 112
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 22 20% No 90 80%
Total 112 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Women-owned - percentage of dollar value Responses = 12
Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent
0 3 25% 4 1 8% 5 3 25%
10 4 33% 30 1 8%
Total 10 99%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Veteran-owned Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 20 18% No 91 82%
Total 111 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Veteran-owned - percentage of the dollar value Responses = 8
Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent
2 2 25% 3 1 13% 5 3 38%
10 2 25%
Total 8 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
47 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Disabled-owned Responses = 110
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 14 13% No 96 87%
Total 110 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Disabled-owned - percentage of dollar value Responses = 1
Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent
10 1 100%
Total 110 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Environmental Responses = 109
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 8 7% No 101 93%
Total 109 100% * Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Environmental - percentage of the dollar value Responses = 3
Percentage of Dollar Value Frequency Percent
0 1 33% 5 2 67%
Total 3 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
48 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Energy conservation Responses = 113
Response Frequency Percent
No 79 70% Yes – part of evaluation process 30 27% Yes – condition for award 4 4% Total 113 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Recyclability Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
No 73 66% Yes – part of evaluation process 30 27% Yes – condition for award 8 7% Total 111 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Water pollution Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
No 92 83% Yes – part of evaluation process 13 12% Yes – condition for award 6 5% Total 111 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Air quality Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
No 96 86% Yes – part of evaluation process 10 9% Yes – condition for award 5 5% Total 111 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
49 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Greenhouse gas emissions Responses = 110
Response Frequency Percent
No 91 83% Yes – part of evaluation process 15 14% Yes – condition for award 4 4% Total 110 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Reduced packaging Responses = 112
Response Frequency Percent
No 93 83% Yes – part of evaluation process 15 13% Yes – condition for award 4 4% Total 112 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Volatile organic compounds Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
No 94 85% Yes – part of evaluation process 13 12% Yes – condition for award 4 4% Total 111 101%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Biodiversity Responses = 108
Response Frequency Percent
No 98 91% Yes – part of evaluation process 8 7% Yes – condition for award 2 2% Total 108 99%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
50 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Other green practices Responses = 112
Response Frequency Percent
No 77 69% Yes – part of evaluation process 29 26% Yes – condition for award 6 5% Total 112 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Worker health insurance coverage Responses = 115
Response Frequency Percent
No 85 74% Yes – part of evaluation process 16 14% Yes – condition for award 14 12% Total 115 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Working conditions of workers Responses = 110
Response Frequency Percent
No 82 75% Yes – part of evaluation process 18 16% Yes – condition for award 10 9% Total 110 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Ethically sourced items Responses = 109
Response Frequency Percent
No 96 88% Yes – part of evaluation process 10 9% Yes – condition for award 3 3% Total 109 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
51 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Other health practices Responses =109
Response Frequency Percent
No 99 91% Yes – part of evaluation process 7 6% Yes – condition for award 3 3% Total 109 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Living wage requirements Responses = 114
Response Frequency Percent
No 80 70% Yes – part of evaluation process 17 15% Yes – condition for award 17 15% Total 114 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Local workers Responses = 111
Response Frequency Percent
No 82 74% Yes – part of evaluation process 21 19% Yes – condition for award 8 7% Total 111 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Use of women-owned vendors/sub-vendors Responses = 114
Response Frequency Percent
No 79 69% Yes – part of evaluation process 27 24% Yes – condition for award 8 7% Total 114 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
52 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
Use of minority-owned vendors/sub-vendors Responses = 110
Response Frequency Percent
No 78 71% Yes – part of evaluation process 25 23% Yes – condition for award 7 6% Total 110 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Use of veteran-owned vendors/sub-vendors Responses = 110
Response Frequency Percent
No 86 78% Yes – part of evaluation process 21 19% Yes – condition for award 3 3% Total 110 100%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
Other economic practices Responses = 86
Response Frequency Percent
No 75 87% Yes – part of evaluation process 8 9% Yes – condition for award 3 3% Total 86 99%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
53 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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%
* Total percentage may not equal 100% due to rounding
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
54 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
About the Authors and Contact Information
Researchers: Dr. Mohamad G. Alkadry University of Connecticut mohamad.alkadry@uconn.edu Dr. Alexandru V. Roman California State University San Bernardino aroman@csusb.edu
2017 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report
55 Copyright 2017 NIGP, Inc.
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