Public Procurement Benchmark - 2017 Survey Report
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.
2016 Public Procurement Compensation & Retention Benchmark Study
NIGP offers its sixth biennial Compensation Survey Report on positions within public sector procurement. The primary goal of this biennial study is to provide comparative compensation information to assist in classifying public procurement positions and determining appropriate salary ranges. This year the report has a supplement on retention and turnover rates.
NIGP issued its first Compensation Survey Report in 2003 and was repeated in the first quarter of 2005, the first quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2009, 2011, and, most recently, the first quarter of 2016. The current report covers the 2016 study and includes key data from the previous four studies. Each of the studies covered two years of data as respondents were asked to report their current year salary (as of the previous December), as well as their previous year’s salary. Therefore, for the first time, this report includes a twelve-year salary trend for procurement professionals starting with 2001 through 2016. No data was collected between 2011 and 2015.
A Guide to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) - What Public Procurement Specialists Need to Know
Facing increasingly constrained budgets and with an inability to generate additional revenues, many governments have turned to partnerships with the private and nonprofit sectors.
The main purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive discussion of PP/NP arrangements. And while the rhetoric surrounding their development has been overwhelmingly positive – in reality, there is much confusion.
It is important that public procurement specialists remain realistic about the possibilities of PP/NPs and proceed with caution when advocating or establishing such contractual relationships.
The Value of Procurement Certification
This report presents the findings of research undertaken to gain insight into how North American public procurement officials perceive the value of professional certification in public procurement and contract management (PPCM). The results indicate that most of the PPCM practitioners believe professional certification is beneficial for both PPCM officials and their employers. This report also presents findings related to why some PPCM officials do not seek professional certification; why public entities do or do not require or consider certification; how managers who are themselves PPCM officials compare the performance of PPCM employees who are certified with the performance of PPCM employees who are not certified; and the extent to which organizations that employ PPCM officials provide support and incentives to promote and recognize certification.
Characteristics and Contract Type Report
Products vary on two key dimensions, how easy or difficult it is to define the product’s requirements and the degree to which specialized investments are required to produce the product. While contracts for complex products pose greater risks of cost overruns, delivery delays, and failed products, these risks are exacerbated when there is a mismatch between the type of contract used to acquire the product and the product’s characteristics. Consistent with contracting best practice and regulatory guidance, fixed price contracts are best suited for simple products and cost reimbursement contracts are best suited for complex products.
This report provides measures of product characteristics that are sources of risks in contracting, namely the degree to which it is difficult to specify the product’s attributes or requirements, and the degree to which specialized investments are required to produce the product.