Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

29
Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis

Transcript of Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Page 1: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Piggybacking vs. Bidding:

A Quantitative Analysis

Page 2: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Jeff LaPorta: Supervisor of Purchasing, Harford County Public Schools

Eric Younkin: The Garland Company

Tyler McCall: US Communities Program Manager

Page 3: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Piggybacking

Why Do It?

Soft Cost Savings

But…How Much?

Page 4: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

What Do We Need To Know To Calculate Savings?

What Are The Steps Involved In A Bid?

Who Is Involved In The Process?

What Is The Cost For Them To Do This?

Page 5: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

• Work With The End User For S.O.W.• Review Specifications & Finalize Bid• Pre-Bid Conference• Process Questions From Pre-Bid• Bid Opening• Analyze Bid Responses• Evaluate Bid Tab & Determine Awardee• Complete Paperwork; Contract, Board

Letter, etc.

What Are The Steps Involved In A Bid?

Page 6: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Who Is Involved In The Process?

• Purchasing Agent• Purchasing Assistant• Project Manager/End User• Legal Office?

Page 7: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

What’s Next?

How Long Does It Take To Do A Bid?

How Long Is Each Person Involved?

Page 8: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Item Action Buyer Time End User Time

Clerical Time Total hours

1 Work w/ end user for scope of work/items needed; Finalize Bid; Send to end user for final review; Post & Complete Bid Folder 30 8 3 41

2 Hold Pre-Bid Conference 1.5 1.5 2 5

3 Answer questions, respond to inquries; Issue Addendum 0.75 0.75 0.5 2

4 Bid Opening / Bid Tab 0.5 0.5 15 Evaluation 4 0 4

6 Complete Paperwork (i.e. contract, correspondence, etc.), Present to Board 1 0.75 1.75

Total Hours 37.75 10.25 6.75 54.75

Average Hourly Rate $ 42.40 $ 47.69 $ 22.69

Total Amount Spent Per Person $ 1,600.75 $ 488.85 $ 153.17

 Total Amount Spent to Complete Bid & Total Amount Saved by 

Piggybacking  $2,242.76 

Page 9: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Buyer Salary $76,000Benefits Cost $12,200Total Buyer Labor Cost $88,200

Buyer Hourly Rate $42.40

Project Mgr/End User Salary $87,000Benefits Cost $12,200Total Project Mgr/End User Labor Cost $99,200

End User Hourly Rate $47.69

Assistant Salary $35,000Benefits Cost $12,200Total Assistant Labor Cost $47,200

Assistant Hourly Rate $22.69

Page 10: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Cobb County, GA & The Garland Company, Inc.Benchmarking Cost Savings

Page 11: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

The Garland Company

•U.S. Communities Roofing Products and Services Contract•Cobb County, GA is Lead Public Agency for contract

Page 12: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Things to Consider

• What are specific requirements for certain types of bids? – ITB vs. RFP– Does the Cooperative Contract meet these

requirements• What does the Cooperative Contract provide

to bring value?• Are there additional savings for other

departments upon contract award?

Page 13: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Cobb County, GA Study

• Things to considers– Garland’s contract provides design assistance as

part of the overall package• Typical design fees 7-10% of total project cost

– Project/Construction Management throughout the entire process/project

• Saves facilities staff time during construction process

– Life cycle cost studies for various roof systems to quantify final cost

– Time Savings for Purchasing and Facilities

Page 14: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Lets Look at the Analysis

Page 15: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Agency Time and Money Savings

Page 16: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

Value-Added Services Provided

• Estimated initial project cost - $275,000• New cost - $242,766 = 11% savings

Page 17: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org

Page 18: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 18

National Cooperative Purchasing Program• No cost to use; no commitments or minimum order requirements

• Operates on the same principles as local and regional cooperatives

• National structure for public agencies to aggregate collective purchasing power – over 60,000 agencies registered

• Improves the overall effectiveness of the purchasing processes

• Nonprofit organization: partnership dedicated to establishing solutions to save time and money

• Dedicated team of field and administrative professionals to ensure supplier performance and public agency benefit

Page 19: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 19

Association of School Business

Officials International (ASBO)

State Sponsors: Over 90 State Sponsors Nationally

Presence and Credibility

National Association of Counties (NACo)

NIGP: The Institute for Public

Procurement

National League of Cities (NLC)

United States Conference of Mayors

(USCM)

Page 20: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 20

Advisory Board

Auburn University, ALCity of Chicago, ILCity and County of Denver, COCity of Houston, TXCity of Kansas City, MOCity of Los Angeles, CACity of San Antonio, TXCity of Seattle, WACobb County, GADenver Public Schools, COEmory University, GAFairfax County, VAFresno Unified School District, CA

Great Valley School District, PAHarford County Public Schools, MDHennepin County, MNLos Angeles County, CAMaricopa County, AZMiami-Dade County, FLNassau BOCES, NYNorth Carolina State University, NCOrange County, NYPort of Portland, ORPrince William County Schools, VA

Salem-Keizer School District, ORSan Diego Unified School District, CAThe School District of Collier County, FL

Advisory Board Program Purchased Over $146 Million in 2013

Professional Oversight: Advisory Board of well-respected public procurement professionals to ensure responsible and ethical best practices

Page 21: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 21

Eligible Agencies

• Cities

• Counties

• Special Districts

• K-12 (Public or Private)

• Universities and Colleges (Public or Private)

• Nonprofit Organizations

• State Agencies

Page 22: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 22

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

4,800 5,449

6,500

4,925

4,802

4,735

5,251

6,195

6,945

Registration Growth

Page 23: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 23

Solicitation Process: Lead Public Agency Model

• Solicitations are run by a Lead Public Agency (LPA) The RFP or ITB is issued by the LPA and posted online National evaluation team - public procurement officials from 3

to 5 public agencies across the country

• Evaluation is performed and award is made

• Contracts are held and managed day to day by LPA

• All RFP/ITB and Contract documents are available on www.uscommunities.org

• LPA’s are available for questions about solicitation

Page 24: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 24

Solutions

Page 25: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 25

Supplier Savings Example

• Each supplier has committed their U.S. Communities price is their best overall government pricing

• Hertz – discounts from 15-55%, average savings of 20-30%

• Applied Industrial Technologies – 10-70% discount

• Ricoh family of copiers – up to 67% discount

• The Home Depot – up to 3% rebate on annual purchase amounts

• Independent Stationers – ability to use local office supply dealers and save up to 86% off list pricing

Page 26: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 26

• Free to U.S. Communities participants

• Single source login for access to multiple suppliers

• Immediate visibility into products and pricing

• Ability to make purchases with p-card or credit card

• Provides comprehensive reporting

• Eliminates paper entirely – your green procurement solution

www.uscommunities.org/shop

Page 27: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 27

How to Participate

www.uscommunities.org/register

1.

2. Complete registration information

3. Can register more than one dept. and buyer

4. Registration enables agency to use program and to be

automatically notified of new contracts and solutions

Already a customer of a supplier partner? Work directly with your current

representative and request “best

U.S. Communities member pricing”. Pay exactly as you always have.

Never worked with a company? Work with Program Manager to connect with

sales representative. Set up an account and pay the company

directly.

Page 28: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 28

Program Information

www.uscommunities.org

• Register online

• Authorizing legal statutes

• Frequently asked questions (FAQ) sheet

• Documentation: original solicitation and contract

• References: Advisory Board members, state sponsors

• Supplier links, product information & contact information

• Participant login page

Page 29: Piggybacking vs. Bidding: A Quantitative Analysis.

www.uscommunities.org 29

www.uscommunities.org

Tyler McCall• U.S. Communities• Cell: 704-776-3193• [email protected]

Contact Information