KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson...KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson Barb Johnson, CPPO, CPPB,...

KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson

Barb Johnson, CPPO, CPPB, MPA

Manager, Contract & Procurement Administration Columbus Regional Airport Authority

Barbara Rich Johnson, MPA CPPB CPPO is the Manager of Contract and Procurement Administration for the Columbus Regional Airport Authority in Columbus, Ohio.

Prior to this position Barb served as a Buyer, Assistant Administrator and Procurement Manager during her 26 year career with the City of Columbus.

Barb is a certified Master Instructor for National Institute of Government Purchasing (NIGP.) She has achieved and maintained certificates from the Universal Public Procurement Certification Council (UPPCC) as both a Professional Public Buyer (CPPB) – 19 years, and the Public Purchasing Officer (CPPO) – 12 years.

Barb holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration in Finance, from The Ohio State University, John Glenn Institute of Public Policy. She was a charter member and was the first President of the Central Ohio Organization of Public Purchasers (CO-OPP), the local chapter of NIGP, The Institute of Public Procurement.

Since 1999, Barb has served on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Public Procurement (JOPP.) At the National NIGP level, Barb has served on the Governing, Finance and Research committees and as Chairperson of the Professional Development Committee. Through June 30, 2013, Barb is serving on the NIGP Board of Directors, representing Region 3; Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, & West Virginia.

Contact: [email protected]

On the Faculty of the following NIGP Courses:

Capital Acquisitions Contracting for Construction Services Contracting for Public Sector Services CPPB & CPPO Prep Developing and Managing RFPs Fundamentals of Leadership & Management

Introduction to Public Procurement Legal Aspects of Public Purchasing Logistics and Transportation Risk Management in Public Contracting

Strategic Procurement Planning Warehousing and Inventory Control

mailto:[email protected]

HOW ARE YOU DOING? PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MANAGEMENT METRICS

PRESENTED BY BARBARA R. JOHNSON MPA CPPO CPPB

HOW ARE YOU DOING? KPPA 2011 PAGE 1

The age-old question of “How are you doing” takes on new meaning in procurement. Do you really know what your clients

and the public think of your services? Find out what benchmarks to capture and how to report performance outputs and

outcomes. Do you know the difference between the two? Uncover those incremental success stories to bring management’s

attention to your agency’s good accomplishments.

WHY ARE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES DESIRABLE?

To communicate functions to management, employees, and the public

To provide objective decision-making tools/information

To align employee priorities with management objectives

To provide feedback and course correction information from client input

To assess organizational efficiency and effectiveness

TYPES OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

OUTCOMES = ULTIMATE RESULTS/ENDS = FEWER, TOUGH TO MEASURE

OUTPUTS = INTERIM RESULTS/MEANS= MORE, EASIER TO MEASURE

EFFICIENCY = ASSIGNING A VOLUME, TIME OR $ VALUE TO THE MEASURE

OUTPUT MEASUREMENT

NUMBER OF BIDS CANCELLED DUE TO POOR SPECIFICATIONS (OUTPUT.)

NUMBER OF ADDENDA DUE TO POOR SPECIFICATIONS (OUTPUT.)

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS COMPLETING SPECIFICATION WRITING COURSE (OUTPUT)

OUTCOME PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURE

TO SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT DELIVERY

OF PUBLIC SERVICES BY WRITING GOOD

SPECIFICATIONS FOR BIDS

TO CANCEL OR ISSUE ADDENDA FOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 10%

OF ALL WRITTEN BID DOCUMENTS. (EXPRESSED AS NUMBER OF

CANCELLED OR ADDENDA BIDS/TOTAL NUMBER OF BIDS ISSUED)




NIGP Resources: Public Agency Satisfaction Survey - Customer (PASS - Customer)

Today, more than ever, it is important for us to measure our performance with our customers. We want to know

how we are doing – where we are successful and where we can improve. One of the most expedient and

effective methods is to utilize a survey. NIGP is pleased to provide a Public Agency Satisfaction Survey (PASS

– Customer) through the NIGP Consulting Program This survey measures internal customer, or client

satisfaction with a procurement department’s service and support.

Cost based on the number of email invitations

Invitations Up to 50 51 - 200 Over 200

Member $199 $349 $499

Non-Member $398 $698 $998

Survey pricing includes a Summary Report (PDF) and a Detailed Report (EXCEL) and is based on the number

of email invitations the customer would like sent out. Depending upon the membership category, by joining

NIGP, entities can realize a savings for the survey and gain the benefits of NIGP membership.

Scope of Service NIGP will prepare a survey based upon your needs that includes the following areas:

Overall Satisfaction – are our customers satisfied with the quality of service we provide?

Communication – do we clearly communicate the procurement process?

Accessibility – are we available when our customers need us?

Responsiveness – are we responsive to our customers’ requests and do we respond in a reasonable amount

of time?

Solutions – are we able to provide effective solutions to our customers’ problems and complaints?

Quality – are the goods and services we provide to our customers of high quality?

Deliverables After completion of the survey, the Consultant will issue a summary and a detailed report on the survey results. Schedule Work will commence after execution of contract or issuance of purchase order with anticipated completion of 3-4 weeks. Client Responsibilities The Client will work with an NIGP Consultant to provide information for the survey, including recipients for the survey and e-mail addresses. The Client also has responsibility to ensure that payments are made in accordance with NIGP payment terms.

Payment Terms NIGP will issue an invoice at the completion of the project. NIGP’s payment terms are net 30.

To take advantage of this offer, please contact Connie Hinson, NIGP Consulting Services Manager, 404-353-

0753, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Key Performance Indicator Report/Public Agency Satisfaction Survey

Comparison of CRAA 2005, 2009 and 2010 Results plus -2007 and 2008 All Authorities Results PAGE 1

CFO/FINANCE DEPT/FINANCE, AUDIT & TREASURY

OFFICE OF CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATION

(OCP)

Key Performance Indicator Report

Public Agency Satisfaction Survey

Comparison of CRAA 2005, 2009 and 2010 Results plus –

2007 and 2008 All Authorities Results

The Columbus Regional Airport Authority Mission:

To operate Port Columbus, Rickenbacker and Bolton Field airports in a manner that provides

passengers, businesses and the community the highest level of safety, satisfaction and

economic benefit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Client satisfaction is a key performance measure of the success of our contract and procurement administration function.

Whether or not the client receives the right quality of product or service at the right time, at the right price, from the right

source, delivered in the right way, are reflections on the performance of agents that practice acquisition and contract

administration. In essence, our mission is to enable our clients (such as Facilities Management, Operations, Public Safety,

Administration, and Airfield Maintenance) to fulfill the CRAA Mission (see cover.)

In November of 2010, the Office of Contract and Procurement Administration (OCP) conducted a survey to measure

client satisfaction. This survey had also been conducted at the end of 2009. The same survey had been taken by

Legal/Purchasing in 2005, shortly after the new Procurement Manager was hired, to establish a baseline measurement of

client satisfaction and to record responses related to the performance of previous management and staff.

During 2009, a best practices study (conducted in 2008) was implemented; realigning the contract and procurement

administration functions under the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and into the Finance Department; consolidating several

resources towards a more centralized function, that added a focus beyond purely acquisition. The same survey was

administered at the end of 2009 and again in 2010 to gauge the client satisfaction of the realigned function, and to

highlight areas that required more attention.

In almost every measure, from overall satisfaction to professionalism, the 2009 and 2010 survey results were superior to

both the 2005 baseline survey AND a composite of all special authorities tracked by the National Institute of

Governmental Purchasing. We were able to benchmark against these other special authorities because we employed this

standardized survey being used in North America. The other special authorities included publicly owned utilities and

some authorities that administer mostly federal funding such as housing authorities.

Our overall satisfaction rating went from 34.2% satisfied or extremely satisfied in 2005; to 89.4% satisfied or extremely

satisfied in 2009 and 84.4% in 2010. In addition, there were no respondents that were extremely dissatisfied in 2009 or

2010, and there had been 5.3% of respondents in 2005 that did indicate they were extremely dissatisfied. Last, the overall

dissatisfied rating went from 13.2% in 2005 to 10.5% in 2009 and 15.6% in 2010. Although the “extremely dissatisfied”

ratings are going in the right direction, we will strive to reduce the “dissatisfied” client response to 0%.

Areas that were cited for more attention are reflected in our 2009 Strategic Objective Goals:

1. Contract and Procurement Administration training

2. Improving Process Turnaround times

3. Upgrading our Business Solutions - by working with greater understanding of our clients’ needs and becoming

more familiar with the markets for those products and services.

This report includes the results from the 2005, 2009, 2010 and composite authorities’ surveys; the demographic data

regarding who answered the survey; the 2005, 2009 and 2010 responses to anecdotal questions; the 2010 letter inviting

stakeholders to take the survey; and the list of CRAA employees that were solicited to take the 2010 survey.

We look forward to surveying our clients on an annual basis.

RAW DATA COMPARISON



Q.1 Overall Satisfaction - How do you rate your overall satisfaction with the quality of our Service?

CRAA 2005 CRAA 2009 CRAA 2010 AUTHORITIES

Extremely Dissatisfied 5.30% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

Dissatisfied 13.20% 10.5% 15.6% 8.0%

Neutral or N/A* 47.40% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9%

Satisfied 23.70% 78.9% 59.4% 62.5%

Extremely Satisfied 10.50% 10.5% 25.0% 15.3%

Q.2 Communication - How do you rate our ability to clearly communicate procurement processes?


Poorly Communicated 7.9% 5.3% 9.4% 2.8%

Somewhat Communicated 31.6% 42.1% 25.0% 19.3%

Neutral or N/A* 34.2% 0.0% 0.0% 16.8%

Adequately Communicated 18.4% 36.8% 40.6% 42.6%

Very Clearly Communicated 7.9% 15.8% 25.0% 18.5%

Q.3 Accessibility - How do you rate our accessibility when you need us (i.e. in person, by telephone, by E-mail)?


Not Accessible 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%

Occasionally Accessible 7.9% 22.2% 18.8% 15.1%

Neutral or N/A* 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1%

Mostly Accessible 47.4% 55.6% 28.1% 46.9%

Very Accessible 26.3% 22.2% 53.1% 26.1%

Q.4 Responsiveness - How do you rate our timely responsiveness to your request and needs?


Not At All Responsive 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%

Occasionally Responsive 15.8% 23.5% 15.6% 17.3%

Neutral or N/A* 23.7% 0.0% 0.0% 11.9%

Responsive 39.5% 47.1% 50.0% 49.4%

Very Responsive 21.1% 29.4% 34.4% 20.7%

Q.5 Solutions - How do you rate our ability to provide effective solutions to your problems and/or complaints?


Very Ineffective Solutions 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.9%

Ineffective Solutions 7.9% 11.1% 12.9% 6.3%

Neutral or N/A* 60.5% 5.6% 3.2% 24.1%

Effective Solutions 28.9% 61.1% 61.3% 54.8%

Very Effective Solutions 2.6% 16.7% 22.6% 13.9%

Q.6 Quality of Goods and Services - How do you rate the quality of goods and services procured for your department?


Very Poor Quality 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%

Poor Quality 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 2.3%

Neutral or N/A* 31.6% 23.5% 16.1% 23.6%

Good Quality 63.2% 64.7% 64.5% 56.5%

Very High Quality 5.3% 5.9% 19.4% 17.0%

Q.7 Professionalism - How do you rate the professionalism and courtesy of our staff?


Extremely Unprofessional/Discourteous 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Generally Unprofessional/Discourteous 2.6% 5.6% 0.0% 2.0%

Neutral or N/A* 10.5% 0.0%% 3.1% 10.2%

Occasionally Professional/Courteous 42.1% 11.1% 21.9% 27.8%

Extremely Professional/Courteous 44.7% 83.3% 75.0% 59.9%

RAW DATA COMPARISON



Q.8 Performance Admin Support - How do you rate the performance of our administrative support staff who work with your department to meet your needs?



Dissatisfied 0.0% 5.3% 3.1% 4.5%

Neutral or N/A* 36.8% 21.1% 12.5% 27.8%

Satisfied 42.1% 36.8% 43.8% 44.6%


Q.9 Overall Satisfaction - How do you rate our ability to work with you as partners by understanding your needs and working with you towards common goals?


Poor Understanding 5.3% 5.6% 6.3% 3.1%

Occasionally Understands 21.1% 11.1% 9.4% 11.9%

Neutral or N/A* 21.1% 0.0% 3.1% 12.5%

Usually Understands 39.5% 44.4% 43.8% 52.3%

Excellent Understanding 13.2% 38.9% 37.5% 20.2%

Q.10 Buying - How do you rate the performance of the Purchasing/buying personnel who work together with your department in the procurement of goods and services?

CRAA 2005

CRAA 2009

CRAA 2010

AUTHORITIES


Dissatisfied 10.5% 5.6% 3.3% 6.8%

Neutral or N/A* 44.7% 11.1% 30.0% 18.5%

Satisfied 23.7% 50.0% 40.0% 49.7%


Q.11 Selection - How do you rate the performance of the personnel in Purchasing who work with your department in the selection process for professional and non-professional services?

CRAA 2005

CRAA 2009

CRAA 2010

AUTHORITIES


Dissatisfied 7.9% 11.8% 9.7% 4.5%

Neutral or N/A* 52.6% 11.8% 12.9% 27.6%

Satisfied 31.6% 41.2% 45.2% 45.7%


Q.12 Appropriateness - How do you rate the overall quality level and appropriateness of the requirements (term, annual etc) contracts in meeting the needs of your department?

CRAA 2005

CRAA 2009

CRAA 2010

AUTHORITIES

Not At All Appropriate 2.6% 5.3% 3.2% 1.1%

Sometimes Appropriate 15.8% 15.8% 12.9% 6.3%

Neutral or N/A* 57.9% 26.3% 12.9% 26.4%

Appropriate 21.1% 26.3% 54.8% 49.1%

Very Appropriate 2.6% 26.3% 16.1% 17.0%

Q.13 Delegation Satisfaction - How do you rate your level of satisfaction with the current delegation methods? (i.e. those purchases that you can make through your own department.)?



Dissatisfied 13.2% 0.0% 21.9% 5.7%

Neutral or N/A* 28.9% 23.5% 12.5% 25.0%

Satisfied 39.5% 52.9% 43.8% 50.6%


*this choice was “don’t know” in the 2009 & 2010 surveys

RAW DATA COMPARISON



Q.14 Training Effectiveness - How do you rate the effectiveness of the customer training sessions conducted for your staff that have purchasing responsibilities (i.e. requisitioners, secretarial staff, etc.)?


Not at All Effective 2.6% 0.0% 3.2% 5.7%

Somewhat Effective 10.5% 5.9% 12.9% 12.5%

Neutral or N/A* 52.6% 52.9% 41.9% 40.1%

Effective 28.9% 35.3% 29.0% 33.0%

Very Effective 5.3% 5.9% 12.9% 8.8%

*this choice was “don’t know” in the 2009 & 2010 surveys

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

These questions enabled us to gauge some parameters of frequency of service, actual experience levels and position descriptions for those that

responded to the survey.

The majority of respondents in 2005 and for all other authorities required services at least monthly or more. The majority of respondents in 2009

required services only occasionally.

The majority of respondents in 2010 required services only occasionally, however there was a significant increase in the number of respondents

from 2009 to 2010 that required monthly services.

For all years and other authorities, the majority of responses came from folks that were administrative support or “other” positions; and from

departments with less than 40 employees

Q.15 Frequency - How often does your department require services from Purchasing?


Daily 13.2% 0.0% 3.2% 22.2%

Weekly 21.1% 16.7% 19.4% 31.3%

Monthly 23.7% 5.6% 25.8% 21.9%

Occasionally 39.5% 77.8% 45.2% 22.7%

Semi-Annually 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%

Annually 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 1.4%

Q.16 Description - Which category best describes your position? CRAA 2005 CRAA 2009 CRAA 2010 AUTHORITIES

Agency Head 5.3% 0.0% 7.4% 5.4%

Assistant Agency Head 7.9% 12.5% 14.8% 8.0%

Financial Officer/Liaison 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%

Admin Support/Office Manager 23.7% 31.3% 25.9% 38.6%

Other 60.5% 56.3% 51.9% 44.6%

Q.17 Employees - Please indicate the number of employees in your department.


1-10 44.7% 50.0% 41.9% 31.3%

11-40 36.8% 44.4% 45.2% 38.1%

41-100 13.2% 5.6% 12.9% 19.3%

101-500 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9%

501-1000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

Over 1000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

Q.24 May we contact you if we have any questions regarding an answer?


No 34.2% 72.7% 66.7% 34.4%

Yes 31.6% 27.3% 33.3% 41.5%



2010 RESPONDENT COMMENTS

Q.18 Please describe a project in the last year in which the Purchasing function was instrumental for your agency to meet your goal/mission: (Sample Answering: 13/32 responses)

Purchasing of Airfield snow removal equipment and snow removal chemicals.

A project called curb front improvements which include many small contracts

Needed assistance in completing the process with new vendors to enable online ordering. Two new vendors were added with ease.

N/A

DME Replacement Project at LCK. Procurement facilitated the necessary contract documents.

RFP for a contractor to assist with exercise development. Quick and smooth. Great job.

benches for curbside project

Assisted in creating a service contract.

Purchasing helped me to secure a new software product.

Project: vendor approval for property owners & tenants in the property acquisition area for the replacement runway. Yvette Lewis processes vendor approvals quickly (with a smile) which are critical to timely payments to displaces and the overall success of the project. P. Channa also provides good service when acting as backup to Yvette for vendor approvals. Kim Burtis processes requests (contract amendments) in a timely manner.

The Procurement Dept. was very helpful in understanding our needs for capital improvements to our Jet Fuel Storage Facility at Rickenbacker and helping to devise a plan to accomplish the project goals. This was not a simple capital project with one standard contract. It required multiple non-standard contracts. Tracy was extremely helpful and responsive to our needs and helped bring all the projects to completion.

All my construction projects bids and contracts were processed in efficient and professional manner. Little or no problems Procurement. Usually problems arise or the things get bogged down in the authorization/approval process.

Parking contractors for parking / shuttle operations Q.19 Please describe a project in the last year in which the Purchasing function was an obstacle for your agency to meet your goal/mission: (Sample Answering: 12/32 responses) N/A (4)

the only obstacles are the many layers of approvals from the various departments in addition to key personnel within the Purchasing department consistently take time off, in training or attending meetings and therefore not being available.

Purchasing team itself is not necessarily an obstacle - the process, procedure, etc. seems to be the challenge. I accept that as a public organization we must follow process, procedure, etc. but it seems that it still takes a significant amount of time to accomplish something (obtaining professional services, for example - 4-6 months for a quals-based selection???)

Can't think of any at this time.

Comm. Center/ EOC upgrade, it has taken all year and we still do not have a contract to move forward with. Not sure why this particular RFP and contract has taken so long.

None (2)

I don't have any examples of how the Purchasing Dept. was an obstacle in meeting our Dept. goals.

Completing a contract requiring a combination of goods and services that ended up lasting over 6 months, only to conclude with the original proposal following the RFP process

Q.20 Please indicate how you would improve the performance of the Purchasing function: (Sample Answering: 13/32 responses)

perhaps possible on line forms?

take out the many layers of approvals needed to execute contracts, pay requests, change orders etc.

Better communication with Audit services

N/A

The times that I have dealt with Purchasing, I have been most pleased with the assistance that has been provided to me.

Figure out a way to have professional services for a wide variety of specialties "on retainer" for 5 year periods and then have a "task order" process that is very efficient & quick. The "on retainer" concept should be for all CRAA departments - not just the department that manages the relationship.

Provide clarity and differentiation between procurement laws and CRAA policies/best practices. The latter should permit flexibility when circumstances require.

Length of time - no need for bidding "many" items under $5000.

No suggestions, the functions are beyond my level of expertise.

None

The consultant contracting pre-approval and approval process is too lengthy. It often takes 2 months or more for even the smallest contract amendments to be executed. There is too much overlap in the pre-approval and approval stages, which results in delays when it sits on someone’s desk twice for sometimes weeks at a time. This process needs to be shortened. Also, distributing original contracts for multiple reviewers’ results in delays and/or lost documents. Streamline this process by using electronic/computer technology. Scan in documents if needed and route them for simultaneous approvals by applicable departments and only send to signatory sections (Legal, Finance, Pres/CEO). Retain all original contracts in Procurement for safekeeping.

Maybe going to an email/electronic format for contract and invoice approvals.

Clarity around process. Consistent resource availability. Alignment with cross-functional priorities. Improve communication - client team needs to continually ask for



status and updates, or escalate when deadlines are simply passed with no communication.

2010 COMMENTS (continued)

Q.21 What aspect of purchasing policy or the purchasing process is

a mystery to you?

(Sample Answering: 13/32 responses)

None (3)

the many steps that are necessary to get approvals whether for a contract/change order or something as simple as a purchase order

The message is muddled - sometimes the 3 quotes are required, sometimes not. Even after training there is a question as to the requirement. The RFI and RFP process seems fuzzy - am I the lead, or is the Procurement Department? Is the procurement department not responsible for sourcing and negotiating the best price - is that my responsibility?

Audit services

The approval process is timely and cumbersome.

Most of it; I'm always foggy on the different ways we procure stuff - goods/services/etc. when we need a resolution/when we don't./ When we need to bid & when we can just get quotes. etc. My confusion stems from the face that I don't interface with the various processes on a daily/very regular basis. Is there a simple, color-coded double-sided cheat sheet to reference as starting point?

Can’t speak to the process. Maybe a high level overview of what OCP does and how the responsibilities are organized and delivered.

Why we need so many pre-approvals and subsequent re-approvals of the same document.

Auditing portions for consultant contacts appear to be somewhat subjective and very time consuming.

The perspective regarding what are legal requirements, what are our internal 'rules', what are simple preferences, what are orthodoxies?

Q.22 What was the best piece of new information you learned

about Purchasing this past year?


None

N/A (2)

That $100,000 is the new threshold for requiring a board resolution on some purchases.

Certain people had certain responsibilities.

Backups in OCP are key to customer service.

I learned the Dept. can be very creative when needed to facilitate our procurement needs.

A willingness to learn our industry/business and apply the knowledge to improving the procurement process.

Q.23 Are you interested in learning more about Purchasing?


Sure

No

Somewhat

Yes, the more training I receive, the better I am able to do my job.

Yes, I'd like to better develop my understanding about our procurement requirements, procedures, processes, etc. as well as my ability to function within those parameters.

Generally, yes.

I think that a bi-annual presentation of current purchasing practices should be conducted with Authority departments.

Yes, as projects present themselves.

Always!

Sure I'm interested in any changes or improvements for construction and consultant contracts.

Only if it helps us perform more efficiently and effectively. NOTE: there is nowhere to put general comments so I would offer this - many of your questions do not allow an appropriate response. We work with several procurement team members, and response would be different on several of the questions for each team member. To me, this identifies a possible training / knowledge gap of which the management should be made aware.



REFERENCE MATERIALS - E-MAILED LETTER TO STAFF: To: Stakeholders/Users Your CRAA Office of Contract and Procurement (OCP) is constantly striving to improve the level of service that we provide to you. We appreciate your feedback regarding our service over the past year (Nov. 2009 to Nov. 2010.) To help us improve our services, we invite you to take part in a 3-minute on-line survey. The objective of the survey is to enable us to obtain quality statistical information to measure and improve our service to you, our client. So, if you did not interact with us for purchases or sales over the last year, and this was sent to you in error, please return this e-mail to me (hit “reply”) and indicate “not a client.” The survey response that you complete will be automatically e-mailed directly to the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc. (NIGP), a professional association to which the Airport Authority belongs. NIGP will tabulate each survey, and will provide the Airport Authority with the results, once all of the responses are received. Your specific response will not be seen by any member of the OCP Team, or by any other Airport Authority employee. Since your response will remain anonymous, we encourage your honest response. Of course if you wish to be identified with your response, you can provide your name at your option. You are a key participant! Please complete the on-line survey and submit it before November 19, 2010. You can access the survey at the following location (paste into your web browser or press the “Ctrl” key and click on the url below: https://www.surveymk.com/s/PASS2010ColumbusRegionalAirportAuthority Information to help you interpret the questions: When you read the word “Purchasing” (with a capital “P”) in these questions, please think of our own central purchasing office, the OCP. Note the difference in questions 10 and 11: For question 10; during the past year, our personnel responsible for procurement of goods and general services have been P. Channa, and Yvette Lewis. For question 11; during the past year, the personnel responsible for the procurement of professional services have been K. Burtis, Nicole Holder and T. Osborne. For question 14; please consider the advice, direction, or training that you’ve received during a meeting with any OCP personnel as the “training session” upon which you rate our performance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly, at 4088. Thank you in advance for your input. Sincerely, Barb Johnson 239-4088 2010 STAKEHOLDERS/USERS SOLICITED FOR RESPONSES: 123 SOLICITED, 32 RESPONSES = 26% RESPONSE

https://www.surveymk.com/s/PASS2010ColumbusRegionalAirportAuthority




OTHER PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

COST SAVINGS COST AVOIDANCE COST COMPARISON REAL SAVINGS ANECDOTAL SHARE THE JOY!

To: Ron Williamson@Office From: Barbara R. Johnson@Office Cc: Debra K. McKinney@Office,Wyatt Kingseed (Finance Director) Subject: KUDOS Date: 3/18/05 10:19 AM I just got off the phone w/Tom Hoyle. He wanted me to know that you deserve big thanks for the truck bids that are opening asap. He said you did a great job getting that bid completed so quickly. Thanks for your expertise and efficiency. Your customer is very happy!

-----Original Message----- From: Johnson, Barbara Sent: September 10, 2005 2:09 PM To: Taylor, Joel S. Cc: Myers, Fred Subject: A Success $tory Hi Joel, I just wanted to share with you a significant general fund savings involving Mr. Myers. Fred has worked with suppliers and the Income Tax Division over several years to stretch the dollars we pay for our income tax forms. Fred's chief contact at Income Tax is Mike Jones. Mike is to be congratulated for instituting suggested design changes that enabled an economical, competitive bid for these forms (prior to this year only one company had been able to meet the specs.) Last year the City spent almost $90,000 for these forms (same quantity.) The current proposed contract (on the agenda tonight) is for just over $65,000. It just goes to show you that competition and enabling specifications can yield great results! In this case: $25,000! Fred has provided consistent support as a catalyst for positive change. We have good people - Fred is an excellent role model for our purchasers! Thanks for reading! From: Taylor, Joel S. (Finance Director) Sent: Monday, September 10, 2005 4:44 PM To: Johnson, Barbara Cc: Myers, Fred Subject: RE: A Success $tory That's great!

KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson...KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson Barb Johnson, CPPO, CPPB,...

Documents

Transcript of KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson...KPPA CONFERENCE 2011: Barb Johnson Barb Johnson, CPPO, CPPB,...