The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 07/12/2016 Item #16F 8 Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting July 12,2016 Move Item 16F8 to Item 11F: Recommendation to accept the 2016 Contractor Feedback Survey that was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on February 9, 2016. (Commissioner Nance's request) Move Item 16F9 to Item 11G: Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the submittal of a Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) application to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the Immokalee Culinary Accelerator for the maximum amount of$200,000 and incorporating specified grant provisions. (Commissioner Taylor's request) Deny Item 16J3 until such time as the Clerk certifies that the payables presented in this report have been pre-audited as previously specified by the Board: To provide to the Board a "Payables Report" for the period ending July 6, 2016 pursuant to the Board's request. (Staff's request) Withdraw Item 17B: This item continued from the June 28,2016 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing the "Longwater" Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005(2), Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's request) Time Certain Items: Item 11F to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Item 11G to be heard at 11:30 a.m. 7/12/2016 8:29 AM 7/12/2016 16.F.8. SUMMARY Recommendation to accept the 2016 Contractor Feedback Survey that was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on February 9,2016. OBJECTIVE: To identify strengths and weaknesses in the procurement and payment processes; to seek out opportunities for self correction and improvement; to encourage feedback from the contractor population; and to improve customer service for those conducting business with Collier County. CONSIDERATIONS: On February 9, 2016, Agenda Item 10A, the Board of County Commissioner (Board) voted unanimously to authorize the County Manager to issue a confidential contractor satisfaction survey. (See Exhibit 1) The survey was intended to obtain candid feedback from the County's contractors with the ultimate goal of improving operations and customer service. Identifying and seeking input from both internal and external customers is part of an agency- wide initiative in which every division has crafted, vetted and implemented a formal Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. The QA/QC Plan for the Procurement Services Division and the results from the 2013-2014 survey of internal customers are included in the backup materials for reference purposes. (See Exhibit 2) Additionally, the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP) recommended in its 2012 benchmark survey report that public procurement entities should "[c]onduct satisfaction surveys (internal and external customers) at least once a year or with every major process or legislative change." (See Exhibit 3, pages 6, 7, 25 and 27) In April, 2016, Dr. Gerald Schoenfeld, Associate Professor of Management at Florida Gulf Coast University, was engaged to review the consistency and integrity of the survey questions, to conduct data analysis, and to provide a report for presentation to the Board. The contractor survey was announced through various communication media and remained opened for two (2) weeks through April 22, 2016. Contractors were notified in the following manner: • Approximately, five thousand two hundred (5,200) email notices were sent out through the County's Online Bidding System; • Two thousand one hundred eighty four (2,184) postcards were sent via the United States Postal Services; and, • A survey link was posted to the Procurement Services Division Internet site for approximately three (3) weeks before and during the survey period. In addition to demographic data, questions included fourteen (14) quantitative questions regarding the procurement processes and thirteen (13) quantitative questions regarding the payment and invoice processes. The attached table displays all of the quantitative questions ranked from most favorable to least favorable. (See Exhibit 4) Eight (8) additional qualitative questions were asked for the procurement and payment processes. Dr. Schoenfeld's Final Report addresses all aspects of the survey and is attached to this executive summary. (See Exhibit 5) Packet Page-1882- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. FISCAL IMPACT: None. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, raises no legal issue, and requires majority support for the acceptance of the report. -JAK GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no growth management impacts as a result of this executive summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board accepts the results of the contractor survey. Prepared by: Tim Durham, Executive Manager Corporate Business Operations Attachments: • Exhibit 1: BCC Minutes from 02.09.2016 - Item 10A • Exhibit 2: Procurement Services QA/QC Plan and the 2013-2014 Internal Customers Survey • Exhibit 3: NIGP 2012 Survey Report • Exhibit 4: Table of Quantitative Results • Exhibit 5: Dr. Schoenfeld's Final Report Link to the Contractor feedback Survey: https://www.surveymonkev.com/results/SM- PTNRB23S/ Password: purchasing Packet Page -1883- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.16.F.16.F.8. Item Summary: Recommendation to accept the 2016 Contractor Feedback Survey that was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on February 9, 2016. Meeting Date: 7/12/2016 Prepared By Name: BrockMaryJo Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager, County Managers Office 7/5/2016 4:11:49 PM Submitted by Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager, County Managers Office Name: BrockMaryJo 7/5/2016 4:11:51 PM Approved By Name: CasalanguidaNick Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 7/5/2016 5:15:47 PM Packet Page-1884- Exhibit 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 (Applause.) Item #10A DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO DEVELOP AND COMPILE THE RESULTS OF A VENDOR SATISFACTION SURVEY. THIS PROPOSED SURVEY SEEKS PERSPECTIVES AND INSIGHTS FROM ITS PROCUREMENT VENDORS REGARDING PROCUREMENT AND PAYMENT PROCESSES AND TO EVALUATE RESPONSES FOR POTENTIAL SYSTEMATIC IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCUREMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND PAYMENT PROCESSES. THE INTENT OF THE SURVEY IS TO IDENTIFY PROCESS BETTERMENT OPPORTUNITIES, TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND ENCOURAGE VENDOR PARTICIPATION IN AND SATISFACTION WITH COLLIER COUNTY PROCUREMENT NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 10.A under Board of County Commissioners. This is a recommendation to direct the County Manager to develop and compile the results of a vendor satisfaction survey. This item was brought forward by Commissioner Nance. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. You know, upon my arrival in the service of the county and the citizens, one of my first observations was that one thing that we could do to save money in the county and do a better job was to have better relationship with our vendors. And I think if I was to tell you the one thing that we can do to save money and spend the taxpayers money most wisely, that is to have more bids on the work that we're offering. Through the consent Page 13 Packet Page -1885- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 agenda, the items up for approval, time and time again, I don't think that we have enough bidders. And because of the obligations of government, you know, when we do award a bid the price is well known and that kind of sets the bar. And invariably it sets it high. That's why people complain that, you know, N.A.S.A. buys $500 toilet seats. Well, if we don't have enough bidders and have a good process and have bidders that are working well together with us, I don't think we're ever going to be able to lower our costs, and that's something I think we should aspire to. So, you know, in response to a lot of things that have happened, I thought that perhaps the best way to figure out what we can do to have better relations with our vendors, particularly considering this ongoing controversy that we seem to have with the Clerk, the gift that keeps on taking, I thought the best way to find out what we can do is perhaps ask the people that we need to work with. So I just brought this forward for the consideration of the Board. It's just to develop a customer service survey. I believe it was Ed Koch up there in New York that ran around the whole time he was in office saying, you know, how am I doing. I think it's no more complicated than that, I think it's going to be very revealing, and I just wanted to bring it to the Board for their consideration. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a few lights on. I don't even know who was first. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was third. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Henning was. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNiNG: I thought we were the customer. I thought that we were paying them to do a service. But we're going to conduct a customer survey? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a vendor satisfaction survey. There is a difference. Page 14 Packet Page -1886- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the recommendation is to direct the County Manager to develop and compile results of a vendor customer service survey. The taxpayers are their customer. And we're the stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars. You know, to lower our cost, how about if we get true and accurate information when they submit for repayment? I think that would lower cost tremendously. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's a good idea, but I think it's a much broader net we need to cast. We need to understand why that what we've read in the work that's come before us, at least on two occasions that I'm aware of, the vendor said, you know, it's obviously this bid is written for the vendor who got the bid. This is not something that is written for anyone else. It was designed for them. So I think we -- if we're going to embark on this, I think it's one part of it. But I also think we need to address and maybe have procurement, give us some feedback on what the vendors are saying and why they won't bid. Because I think that's a big part of it. Also, I have talked to the County Manager about this, why are we not getting more local bidders. And maybe we need to market what we need in a much better way so there's -- it's a much bigger area than the vendors coming back and saying -- I mean, that's a very important part, but I think there's more to it than just that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Leo, Nick, when did a vendor say that the bids were tailored to specific vendors? What are we talking about? I've never heard that. MR. OCHS: I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What vendor stood before this Board and said that bids were tailored to a specific vendor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, we read it when we read the Page 15 Packet Page -1887- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 information about the Gillig, the bus. The vendor -- one of the vendors that responded to the bid but decided not to bid said no, I'm not going to bid because it's obviously written for the one that was awarded. It's in the record. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you get me that? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. But that purchase is made off of a state contract that many, many counties, over 20, buy off of that same contract. So it wasn't a specification that was written specific for Collier County. In that instance, ma'am. And you're right, there was one of the vendors that expressed that concern at the state level prior to award, but that was responded to by the state in that instance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: State issue. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then last year regarding a bid for work for our marketing, media marketing for a tourist development aspect of what we do, folks were called why didn't they respond to it and they said why should we respond to it, it's definitely geared for the people who are already working there. Now, that was an ad hoc comment, but it was made. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who was that made to? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I believe it was Nick or Nick's department. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not directly to me, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I -- my understanding is that people didn't bid on that because the threshold was too low for them and they were looking for a higher threshold, because it didn't make economic sense for them to bid on a dollar amount that was under a certain million dollar level. So I'm sorry, but I think your comments are incorrect. Page 16 Packet Page-1888- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 I would like to say that I think this is a very good idea. And if the reason that vendors are not bidding is because they believe they can't get paid when they legitimately are owed because of the problems of the Clerk's manner of doing business with them, then we need to know that. I think that's absolutely critical. And I think this is one of those -- I believe this survey could in part address that issue. Speaking to Gillig, Gillig stood in front of this Board -- and that's the manufacturer of the bus, the buses that we acquire -- and said that because of the Clerk's failure to pay them and the demands for documentation, notwithstanding that they had produced evidence to support their claim for payment and had delivered the goods, that they weren't going to deliver any more buses to us, that they weren't going to continue their contract with us. And we have GC's who stood before this Board and on the record stated that they were no longer going to provide services because the Clerk wasn't paying them and the Clerk on a fixed price contract would not accept that contract as evidence of payment where they had fully conformed with the requirements of the contract and had delivered the goods as agreed upon. Clearly that makes no sense. So I think this is a very good idea. And, you know, the wording, the semantics of, you know, vendor satisfaction or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. The issue is is that you as I understand it, Commissioner Nance, would like to survey the potential county vendors and find out why they're not bidding. Because you're absolutely right, we want to get as many bidders as possible to get the lowest possible price, because we are stewards. And, you know, I would say that vendor satisfaction isn't probably the best way to describe your intent, but I clearly understand what the object of this survey is, and I commend you for coming up with the idea, because that kind of feedback is important to us in understanding what we can do better as stewards of the community to get the lowest possible price Page 17 Packet Page -1889- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 and the highest level of service at that lowest possible price. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And Commissioner Nance -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My intention is very simple. You know, I know hope that Board members don't want to wordsmith this. I didn't spend a lot of time doing this because I brought it forward for your overall consideration. You know, you have to have a good relationship with vendors, suppliers and craftsmen. You just have to. Any business owner knows that. If you're not getting along with your vendors and suppliers, you're not going to be successful, you're not going to be competitive and you're not going to have the quality product that you need. So this is just an effort to -- you know, we want to know what these people think and we always refer back to the few anecdotal examples we have when a few people do come and testify and they express an opinion. And of course certainly you rarely hear from the people that are happy on any issue. This Board doesn't hear from a lot of those, we always hear from people that want to make suggestions for improvement, and that's fine. But I think the best way to find out is to ask them. I think we should ask all 1,800 of our current vendors and I think we should look back at people that we have conducted business with in the past that we are no longer conducting business with and inquire of them why it is that that's not occurring and seek honest answers. And I just think it would be helpful. So -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, that's great. I'd like to look back too. So maybe, Commissioner Nance, do you have -- are we going back 20 years, are we going back 10 years? What? Give -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ma'am, I haven't presupposed Page 18 Packet Page -1890- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 everything. Like I said, I just brought it forward to the Board. I would be more than happy to work with the County Manager. I would encourage each of you to do so, you know, if the Board decides to make -- to approve this recommendation, direct the County Manager to engage in this process, to work with him and develop the best survey possible and go out and see -- let's collect some information. I think information is power, so -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think this -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just like -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I'm sorry. I think this is a very good first step in assessing where we are with our vendors and trying to get multiple bids, and it's something that I'm very concerned about, so I would support your effort here, sir, and your suggestion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And as the little saying goes, if you don't know what's broken, you can't fix it. So I think this is just what your item is going towards. And you did make a motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to make that motion again, please. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make the motion again. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it. I brought it forward. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) Page 19 Packet Page -1891- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. February 9, 2016 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that -- I think the silence was also voting yes. So with that, we have a unanimous yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there's a saying, in silence there is consent. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have just a couple of minutes before your 9:30 advertised public hearing. I'm sure 10.B will take more than that, so perhaps we could try to move one other item quickly before that. Item #11D ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. (NCH) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INSTALLATION OF TWO GROUND SIGNS WITHIN COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY — MOTION TO CONTINUE AND BRING BACK A POLICY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY USAGES AND FEES — FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED MR. OCHS: I would suggest maybe Item 11.D, if that pleases the Board. That was an item that was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner Henning's request. It was a recommendation to approve and enter into a license agreement with Naples Community Hospital for the purpose of the installation of two ground signs within county road right-of-way. Commissioner Henning brought that one forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the -- how did staff arrive at the fee of$1,000 for these signs? MR. OCHS: Mr. Wilkerson is on his way up, sir. MR. WILKERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, David Wilkerson, Growth Management Department Head. Page 20 Packet Page -1892- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Exhibit 2 co ger county ........,...„.„ Procurement Services Administrative Services QA/QC Plan 3327 Tamiami Trail East p.239.252 8407 waAv.colhclgov.nct Naples,FL 34112-4901 f. 239.252 0844 Packet Page -1893- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Table of Contents I. Mission/Vision/Guiding Principles 2 Mission and Vision Statement Guiding Principles II. Customer Identification 2 Internal Customers External Customers Customers Cares III. Customer Service Controls 4 \liat are you doing with the feedback? How are you communicating back? Milestones Packet Page -1894- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Mission/Vision/Guiding Principles Mission and Vision Statement The Mission of the Administrative Services Department is to provide and maintain high quality resources and services that meet our customers'needs in a timely and cost effective manner. Our Vision is to be the trusted and valued providers of the resources and guidance necessary to achieve agency goals and to be reliable caretakers of the human capital,infrastructure, and equipment that support the agency. Guiding Principles WE ARE CUSTOMER DRIVEN AND OUTCOME FOCUSED... We recognize our customers its our number one priority and strive to identify their needs,provide them with the highest level of service,treat them with the utmost respect,and consistently meet their expectations. Iler-10r WE ARE AGILE AND ADAPTABLE... 14 \F'e understand that our organization must continue to be nimble and able to support our customers' ever-changing needs in light of current economic conditions.\\c are flexible enough to accept change �s' when it is necessary and to initiate change when it is indicated. Priorities can and will change quickly over the next few years. We will be prepared to team with our customers :and shift our resources to support their needs. We must never forget that our success is interdependent on the success of our customers and sorr;c to a1l0eate Our resources to achieve mutual goals. - WE ARE COMMII IED TO QUALITY AND PROFESSIONALISM... v We take pride in our professional excellence.consistently seeking the best methods for success and the . most efficient use of resources achieve the highest ci: .lto strivingts while o provide the greatest value and return on invested funds. We>ce!, to do the entire job right the first time and earn our customers'trust. r A g ` WE ARE HONEST AND ETHICAL... ',A'',,,, jEr.k , ' I We maintain the highest level of respect for ourselves and others. \X e conduct ourselves in an open l and r„rust manner with the highest degree of profession-a1 and ethical st ndards \\'c tlwa_s accept t and appreciate the individual characteristics and uniqueness of others. We are individually and 1 i mistakes,keeping commitments, collectively responsible for our actions,acknowledging 1 orumi,meilt;,and silence when it may be misleading. Cater County QA/QC Plan-Nov 2015 --' Procurement Services Exceeding expectations,every day! 2 Packet Page-1895- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Procurement Services Mission/Guiding Principles Mission and Vision Statement The Mission of the Procurement Services Division is to promote,plan and provide competitive and consistent purchasing support services that assists divisions in obtaining their goals in serving the community. Guiding Values Honesty&Integrity: We speak and act truthfully, acknowledging mistakes,keeping commitments and avoiding silence; we do the right thing even when it is unpopular or nobody would know the difference. Service: We value and embrace the opportunity and responsibility to serve our community; our customers come first and we will strive to serve them in a friendly, fair,respectful and efficient manner. Accountability: We are individually and collectively responsible for our behavior and performance; business is conducted in accordance with the highest professional and ethical standards. Quality: We strive for continuous improvement in the delivery of our service doing the entire job right the first time. Respect: We treat others with dignity and courtesy. Knowledge: We are a learning organization,and encourage and promote continuous personal and professional development. Stewardship: We recognize that we are spending other's money; we carefully manage the resources entrusted to us; and,we seek to control costs of operations,improve efficiency and provide the greatest and best value and return on invested funds. Collaboration: We realize that our success is interdependent on the success of other organizations, businesses and institutions in the County,Region and State; and, seek to work cooperatively with these agencies to allocate our collective resources to achieve mutual goals. Self-Initiating/Self Correcting: We are proactive and flexible, quickly adapting to changes in political, market and financial conditions; and we believe that our self-initiating, self-correcting behavior helps us learn and encourages and enables us to be independent and collaborative problem solvers. Fun: We can be honest and integral,professional and collaborative; we can be good stewards and provide quality work; but we must also remember to live life to its fullest,work hard, enjoy what we are doing and each other,laugh and have fun. QA/QC Plan-Nov 2015 -= Procurement Services Exceeding expectations,every day! 3 Packet Page -1896- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Identification Internal Customers • Collier County BCC Employees • Constitutional Offices External Customers • Vendors/Contractors who seek to do business with the County Customers Cares (in the following priority by customers): 1. Compliance with policies and procedures 2. Responsiveness /timely delivery 3. Accuracy/completeness of information 4. Technical competence of staff 5. Consistency of process 6. Ease / simpleness of process 7. Accessibility of information Business Processes • Compliance and stewardship of the Board's Procurement Ordinance and Procedures • Operational Financial Systems Management: coordination of SAP databases for the issuance of purchasing cards, purchase orders,contracts and vendors • Sourcing Management: oversight of the small and informal competitive process and management of the formal competitive processes • Contract Management:negotiating contracts;reviewing/approving changes to contracts;and,monitoring contractor Performance and dispute resolution • Management of the County's Online Bidding System,Vendor Performance Evaluation and Insurance databases • Management of surplus property and mail distribution Customer Service Controls Feedback and Corrective Actions • The Procurement Services Division recently solicited feedback from internal customers and staff regarding the ranking of"care-abouts." A summary of that reported will be sent under separate cover. • The Procurement Services Division solicits feedback from a large customer base on a biannual basis. The most recent survey was submitted to 416 BCC staff members with a response rate of 30°/0.The customer survey covers all major aspects of the Procurement business function. Results are compiled and reviewed collectively and opportunities for improvement are identified and implemented. • Vendor Performance Evaluations are tracked. Follow-up occurs for Quality,Schedule and Cost ratings that do not achieve a minimum of an average score with the contractor. • Insurance Certificates expiration dates are tracked. Follow-up occurs approximately two (2)weeks prior to ensure the County is protected on projects. • Contract Renewals are tracked and discussed four(4)months prior to expiration dates in order to ensure a smooth transition from one contract to the replacement contract. • Cost savings are calculated as one determination of the value of procurement process. • Protests are tracked as a determination of the implementation of the Board's Procurement Ordinance. Cot%County QA/QC Plan-Nov 2015 Procurement Services Exceeding expectations,every day! 4 Packet Page -1897- 7/12/2016 16.F.B. Communication Back • Procurement staff communicates with internal customers to develop mutually agreed upon solutions when issues are identified. • Annual report to the community is distributed to identify trends,communicate information and show performance metrics. • Targeted training sessions for employees and contractors. • Procurement Director communicates with external customers (contractors)on results from Vendor Evaluation tracking system. • Upgraded Internet Site to update relevant procedural information. Milestones FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 Program Performance Measures Results Results Forecast Increase by 0.025 $4,005,900 $5,078,280 over previous Solicitation and Contract Cost Savings year Protests (Total Protests / Overturned) 4/0 3 /0 Zero Overturned Contract/Non Contract Purchase Dollars 75%/25% 78.7%/21.3% Maintain Cost of the Procurement Process (dollars encumbered / 0.0054 0.0051 Maintain budget) Staff Certifications 10 12 Maintain Surplus Sales Revenue $686,029 $566,635 $550,000 $23,095 $24,500 $29,100 Purchasing Card Rebate (Reported in Calendar Year) Projected Projected QA/QC Plan-Nov 2015 Corzu�ty ----�- County Procurement Services Exceeding expectations,every day! 5 Packet Page -1898- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback Department six �; s'- _ DIVISIo[Ik� ` Ya, { requenC l= 4�,..i._,.s,. ,.__....x ,�..�,:.. r ..,..... ,,.., =_5..,�.. ...v .....h„_ .+...,,..,_,.,.�.,_ ,.tea.,,.. .._,��.., ...,,.....:.�.:....�c�.�rs.Vii` : ",z. :�aaa�'s�s .'r.! u .w :: Administrative Services Procurement >Annual fl : -�', 4,,� SourceJType of surveyfi it �r , Dates 7/1/2013 7/1/2014 .L.�..........F _t. E�, ...::'a,�,.2 �,.�. ,�, r4u.4 .... x. < Procurement Services Level of Service Questionnaire Sirveys 5irveys Response x 416 123 � � , 29.6% 4Sent `/:, Returned tat+## wt ,1_,::::.-4::',..,.,72,7 4 d 'z b ^rd -f 4 7 x Sp ,,, i 4�y va $ 4 'C-Hp': �” 'xfi ,w ''^,t'r.`fril-: Target Audience k, Respondent Pro i e Y` d, gb .>_. . .-x ....+i::',: -T ,r,, .....x, ,si:,at;;:�.«. ..mii7,;:.f1. k___A:..�_' h....._ ._ . ;��,z:z .. ' z..v,.K.. .k.,:.�s.✓ .� �� '�... `' A'.Fz�.',.:x`` Collier County Board staff members Users of Procurement Services g' K FYesJ Above 5 p w Below oJs x Y t s '§'ii, x1 eta b ' u a irk s y 4� d'` " xm +.s 9 • r . 9 <- Question r, Superior Average Average Average oor• ; Score' General Comments and Feedback , 29 52 22 16 4 3.70 Calls/emails returned within 8 business hours Meets the needs and requirements of your department. i 1,, 20 65 24 14 1 3.72 Answers and explains responses to questions 1. 25 55 26 14 2 ii! 3 71_ Takes time to make policies and processes understandabl€ 20 53 34 16 0 3.63 Takes initiative in addressing department needs and 18 46 43 15 3 3.49 requirements Provided sufficient guidance for department's 21 53 34 14 1 rG 3,64 purchasing issues or concerns. Professional 48 61 10 • 4 0 Q 4.24 Courteous 52 60 8 4 0 4.29 Knowledgeable 36 _.a_. �� 8 0 29 ( 3.92 Clear verbal communications. 30 56 28 9 0 ( 3.87 Clear written communications. 31 52 29 11 i 0 • 3.84 Fair and objective. 33 62 23 4 1 3.99 Understands department's desired expectations. 28 51 33 10 i 0 0 3.80 Overall satisfaction with the service quality provided by members of the Purchasing staff. 28 56 29 10 0 3.83 Submitted By Date Total Score}( 3.83 Stephanie Amann 8/7/2015 ; . a 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 a .r , x 4 i % County Manager's Office Feedback/Observations t '`� AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT Customer Service Feedback Packet Page-1899- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback b ¢ tg*,Additianal Comments/Information ,i g p r E,v Procurement has a rather extensive customer service survey method. Their Level of Service Questionnaire consists of 7 sections(5 are process related;last 2 sections are for general comments/feedback about Procurement staff& additional comments).Survey results are tabulated and saved in Abbreviated and Final formats.Abbreviated results contain survey data statistics,positive feedback and suggestions for improvement/areas of concern. Final results contain survey data statistics,actual feedback for each survey question,actual rated general comments/feedback about Procurement staff and additional comments not previously addressed in survey.The current survey method uses a scale of 1-5(5=Outstanding,4=Good,3=Fair,2=Needs Improvement, 1=Unsatisfactory,O=Not Applicable). The newly proposed Customer Service Feedback format would not be sufficient in capturing the intensive amount of data that the current Procurement customer service survey contains. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCU Additional Information Packet Page -1900- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback w 4iwirtment s Qivis o f }o F ' Frequency', �: a Zia<,te ait & Administrative Services Procurement >Annual a,.. a t'",5E'k 1� 9 - 4 .r ,4 s _ F ari'i; a 4-. �5 W ,g,� t Source eofSurve = § Dates 7/1/2013 7/1/2014 /TYR Y Procurement Services Level of Service Questionnaire wawi ys 416 } Surveys ;. 123 Response 29.6% :'Sent,_'=' Returne-444400:4014441d: Rate �M i, t*,� TargetAud ce ,v �f-1,f RespkondenAVattOtitte 0$::,441(400: �Prafile .. ..4e ,m.fiti,, xw. , .ter.7�'.,:;a:», mn.,�'i �., w,:•.�.�".m --" '_.w, _ 11:ilf:i. s.�,., ui;g'F x ,f r6p,..y_a,.tKNkq'-�.f.. Collier County Board staff members Users of Procurement Services ' i @ 4 xt 04 1: ,1�,- �c ' ? c1 k z Yes 0 G y w « A 1''y *fr'� ` 4, t k ..`, i uK d i+k{; '+�t`` ri p�,,t' AbOVe � r. K k nx iel0llll`r �. � s 4 } r .a • [; .tel fit, s`'* P QUeStiO4n s;•.;$1,%w . „✓�'4 r §`' fluty a x as.l�k zs a A i; a �°°5uper�or�, Average Average rAverage oor � .1 Score - :.�a�.�..�;�,. s .. Contract Preparation Process E 1.Turnaround of materials is timely. 18 53 28 10 1 3.70 Contract Preparation Process 2.Accuracy of materials sent to department 21 66 19 4 0 & 3.95 Contract Preparation Process 3.Follow-up and responses to department ! 18 • 56 27 10 0 •C) 3.74 requirements Contract Preparation Process 4.Amount of time from initial department request to 14 56 27 12 1 ) 3.64 Purchasing action Contract Preparation Process 5.Assistance with Executive Summary 23 34 30 8 4 3.65 Contract Preparation Process 6.Timeliness of routing for final signatures and entry 18 47 25 16 3 0 3.56 into SAP • Submitted By Date Total Score' ~) 3.71 Stephanie Amann 8/7/2015 . . , ,,, 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 County Manager's Office Feedback/Observations AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT Customer Service Feedback Packet Page -1901- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback � � F: rAdd tk,nai+COt11t]IE�ItS �q Of317HX�0A r$ ` ' € r r , ;4�.,..-:�.�liek.,...`,r-.st 5.;3f ... .a + Sh ds w. .s..�.x? 3� e..ari z-'uu.` f !& rXna7. .1;M:‘;''4"" a, .„-'',u e..:kaa'uz;��i�. ,..lS Procurement has a rather extensive customer service survey method. Their Level of Service Questionnaire consists of 7 sections(5 are process related;last 2 sections are for general comments/feedback about Procurement staff& additional comments).Survey results are tabulated and saved in Abbreviated and Final formats.Abbreviated results contain survey data statistics,positive feedback and suggestions for improvement/areas of concern.Final results contain survey data statistics,actual feedback for each survey question,actual rated general comments/feedback about Procurement staff and additional comments not previously addressed in survey. The current survey method uses a scale of 1-5(5=Outstanding,4=Good,3=Fair,2=Needs Improvement,1=Unsatisfactory,O=Not Applicable). The newly proposed Customer Service Feedback format would not be sufficient in capturing the intensive amount of data that the current Procurement customer service survey contains. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCU Additional Information Packet Page-1902- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback -5,45:"s Department, ,,Agro ` i -K '' -:rte T ``"g'� `enpsto r�8"� � J'et�UBnC�i; Administrative Services Procurement >Annual Source/Type of Survey �Uates 7/1/2013 - 7/1/2014 Procurement Services Level of Service Questionnaire 5urve Sun+eys Response. 29.6% 416 Reted1 123 a Rated; , �"�*Respondent ti � r' a^ r w^ -ts'*x rc 'tf''7` '&�"e.'P'rt , ,^ t..,a".k .3 +r 'zi+ �r' ' ..»<..�,..� Collier County Board staff members Users of Procurement Services ?�f � x Y`a v Qy uestdion +s. "(r 3 rs Y i t upeeeSr/ .•veoravgee • a-ge ' - •1 .al' _ } 4p , k r $ " i5swft; Aa �4 - rtK - ' ftag-o,e- f PNoo?op i's {S J`co; o re Invitation to Bid Process 1.Turnaround of materials is timely. 15 49 28 11 16 3.30 Invitation to Bid Process 2.Accuracy of materials sent to department. 17 67 18 6 15 3.53 _ Invitation to Bid Process 3.Follow-up and responses to department process 23 56 19 10 13 a0 3.55 questions. Invitation to Bid Process 4.Amount of time from initial department request to 10 50 33 8 16 3.26 Purchasing action. Invitation to Bid Process 5.Quality of ITB document,bid tabulations,etc 16 61 20 7 19 3.39 Invitation to Bid Process 6.Number of quality responses/bids received. 13 • 62 22 7 17 3.39 • • • Submitted By Date Totall•Score e3.40 ...,.,.,..E...... ...., ,:..,..�. ..,_ e,.. _ ........ ..................—.....,. ..,..e_,.v s ,_..... �_. _.,zrx..,s _ ...,,_.a......,...,_ €' -.. Stephanie Amann 8/7/2015 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 County Manager's Office Feedback/Observations AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT Customer Service Feedback Packet Page-1903- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback � __ y j4dditoal Comme�xs/Infor�natio{x Procurement has a rather extensive customer service survey method. Their Level of Service Questionnaire consists of 7 sections(5 are process related;last 2 sections are for general comments/feedback about Procurement staff& additional comments).Survey results are tabulated and saved in Abbreviated and Final formats.Abbreviated results contain survey data statistics,positive feedback and suggestions for improvement/areas of concern.Final results contain survey data statistics,actual feedback for each survey question,actual rated general comments/feedback about Procurement staff and additional comments not previously addressed in survey.The current survey method uses a scale of 1-5(5=Outstanding,4=Good,3=Fair,2=Needs Improvement,1=Unsatisfactory,0=Not Applicable). The newly proposed Customer Service Feedback format would not be sufficient in capturing the intensive amount of data that the current Procurement customer service survey contains. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUI Additional Information Packet Page-1904- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback ~� t5e artmen ,, „bnnsion ,,,Fr,,,.,,,,q,„ ? :iii itE"1 ., 't. ex�:. -.<`sa�.5.,...rye;.¢ ss'S�� ...a..,c..,._&�..x._ :,t a titer �. _Vii" Administrative Services Procurement >Annual i r� r ,'r,tc. OUrCe y e f Survey 1 a bates 7/1/2013 - ' 7/1/2014 Procurement Services Level of Service Questionnaire .SGrveys Surveys Response o Sent 416 geturned ` 123 Rates. 29.6/o t �7a het Audiene. `' , � � a ' Respondent Profi v 1 ,K44�` Z. to Vi i",'z ,t- 'tt` ��3i�� ':I' �' * 3,�-t'�`+ r ..'`SII v' x f x p s ;_ • ou.<v�.�..�,.��,W....��.�.... rr:. ,� _.r" �.��, �,u�f�.W.,w&u.�s� ,:��.' ..�.�s� ...� ,,:a..�.o.�, �ro,�-.�.�.�.�, i,�.�.,,,... .�....._�..-�z..., ..._.. Collier County Board staff members Users of Procurement Services , � ' Yes/� Above x . * Below > No/ k t .,rte , ' q uestion Superior Average Average �nAverage Poor score .n.,....»t-4.t,.wac,„..��. ,: u+ ura4 , '`'�,'*m.�.�s,-'eH,i.,.oY.,.. „�.._ r. .�.,�ro.�,.,..,,.,..c�zi,.w.,,u�,�._-..F-. �..w 4.,..�ws..ww.. ,,,.�.,c:.,�> .,... ..r,.�... ..,�.�.. Processing Purchase Orders under$50,000 1.Is generally timely in addressing my issues. r 23 61 23 9 1 3.82 Processing Purchase Orders under$50,000-- 2 Is generally accurate in addressing my issues. 23 68 21 6 0 3.92 Processing Purchase Orders under$50,000- f 3.96 3.Staff process my requisitions in a timely manner. 30 58 16 9 0' Processing Purchase Orders under$50,000- 4.The information I receive from Purchasing is 3.41 consistent from staff member to staff member. 12 48 27 24 1 Processing Purchase Orders under$50,000- 5.The purchasing card training I received on the use of 0 4.25 my purchasing card was through/complete. 36 45 11 1 0 t__ i i , i umte 3.86Toal ScorDate t _ -K5brtted B � t 8/7/2015 3 2.5.. ._ 2 1.5 1 Stephanie te.,.p..a vhh a.z.t.�natie Amann mann... iric5.as4.5 4 3.5 ' OffeFeedback/Observaton . r.. � b: ... � .a ...u._' County Mangep u, s. arcs..Sk . .w » ," gx,4 „� aitzo. n �,1 . w :.a*.'vl . ... ..o..—. a.d.t.�. .. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT Customer Service Feedback Packet Page -1905- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback °'�ddditonal,Comments�lnfonnat�on^�ai ta t Procurement has a rather extensive customer service survey method. Their Level of Service Questionnaire consists of 7 sections(5 are process related;last 2 sections are for general comments/feedback about Procurement staff& additional comments).Survey results are tabulated and saved in Abbreviated and Final formats.Abbreviated results contain survey data statistics,positive feedback and suggestions for improvement/areas of concern.Final results contain survey data statistics,actual feedback for each survey question,actual rated general comments/feedback about Procurement staff and additional comments not previously addressed in survey. The current survey method uses a scale of 1-5(5=Outstanding,4=Good,3=Fair,2=Needs Improvement,1=Unsatisfactory,O=Not Applicable). The newly proposed Customer Service Feedback format would not be sufficient in capturing the intensive amount of data that the current Procurement customer service survey contains. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCU Additional Information Packet Page -1906- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback �Ke. 4 p Department z� tor,- t „v.:0., •`,PIVISIMI . ._ Frequency;, '-0xrs1i .1_n.,:?3+" �:,_.� > ,.b3. x.. �,. .'t ae strrwr Administrative Services Procurement >Annual a;" t + ,,s•W .p' a$ z;iz -.r".?°,,' 'max rt- , } a a"•.'�t- . Source Type of Survey a pates 7/1/2013 7/1/2014 Procurement Services Level of Service Questionnaire Surveys 1 t-t rvev r Response ,ifSent` 416 "`R0tu nedL-t 123 • a#e" „, 29.6% a gr a °P� ,3 k�;; r s' �'x, 3 °' 34,3 ' 4 * ` z� t rittl, " e Tare AGdlenCe � l Y Responder Profile s r Collier County Board staff members Users of Procurement Services ;F s + 0:0 �siN t� -50YQ§� �bOvsiy';;*;%7', �E W �.B8Io 7% ';11#0/4004;g014.4: rl � � " a r f, Qeston f r4 � �, :a Su�p�ero'17,."1,04.44-ek "¢ erageAe��rage 1 "or�2 1 coe„sr •,.. .,.t,t __aL,,,,. ,,-,:tu t,'.a .. :....n�,.w ,...e.L.Y.it..es._a.,e.,..itsxav,�&i.... .a, unrht4....algrv# dama 5 A . ,bra&x .. .x. _ .,,,,,,,a., EProcessing Contract or Work Order I -.'.. 1.Turnaround of materials is timely. I 19 46 30 13 1 3.63 it- Processing Contract or Work Order C 17 65 21 6 1 ) 3.83 2.Accuracy of materials sent to department. Processing Contract or Work Order Hi f _ 6 : 3.Number of signatures(steps)for approval within the i 13 51 26 14 4 3.51 division. E Processing Contract or Work Order 1 i 4.Number of signatures(steps)for approval within the , 17 51 19 11 3 G 3.67 Purchasing Department Processing Contract or Work Order i 5.Timeliness of work order processing from initiation to t 18 44 31 17 1 - 3.55 SAP entry :% Submitted By Date Total Score 3.64 ri � yr r Stephanie Amann 8/7/2015 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 County Manageei.Office Feedback/Observations ` .,n.. x ....u.a....0 ,r.......tJ..a w.,.....i, ,tx,,,,. .a.._v+t.,.. ,,,, ,,L7::,, A:p7,..r...5...u.ux«. ni.:.y Yw._...a ...n..+a«.uv.usus�.,.xwLliat,,,,,,a L'uYt. ,,,,,ii:swY.'Z,, u_..✓.:..,':u. .,n..r_...-)k,...-._.r ...,v_L. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT Customer Service Feedback Packet Page -1907- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback Procurement has a rather extensive customer service survey method.Their Level of Service Questionnaire consists of 7 sections(5 are process related;last 2 sections are for general comments/feedback about Procurement staff& additional comments).Survey results are tabulated and saved in Abbreviated and Final formats.Abbreviated results contain survey data statistics,positive feedback and suggestions for improvement/areas of concern.Final results contain survey data statistics,actual feedback for each survey question,actual rated general comments/feedback about Procurement staff and additional comments not previously addressed in survey.The current survey method uses a scale of 1-5(5=Outstanding,4=Good,3=Fair,2=Needs Improvement,1=Unsatisfactory,0=Not Applicable). The newly proposed Customer Service Feedback format would not be sufficient in capturing the intensive amount of data that the current Procurement customer service survey contains. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUI Additional Information Packet Page -1908- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback 't,L TMts..� v a DepBt`tttlent '�} `�� .rim ,''fit ?p'� �`7v r '`D1 f4fi f r ....r''' �+s"ra, �: r . .„a 4:,. '.«•,x Y� :. N a`. ,,"a.`�,"w'". v ;.a =gym '``�.. . ,, r. . Administrative Services Procurement >Annual 7/1/2013 - ( 7/1/2014 Dates, Procurement Services Level of Service Questionnaire A5,uSryesvnetS 416 �RSuyed123 29.6a/ Rate gz. gJ4 w . v: r' #.s .m ij '."tk .t. w t�".�tf`. s 9 a ,ky Target Audlencet a� , �. f`: 4 4``�s �- FF spAnde9,TFP IIer 10111 , € � *;.: .C.` Collier County Board staff members Users of Procurement Services < 4a ,t 2 t ,.:� ,,t of tr r #" €, tr YeSJ AbOYE � Ave age r Average erage oor s Score.�w Request for Proposal(RFP)process I i 1.Turnaround of materials is timely ? I 13 60 19 7 2 3.74 Request for Proposal(RFP)process 2.Accuracy of materials sent to department 18 62 16 5 1 ( 3.89 Request for Proposal(RFP)processit 3.Follow-up and responses to department 15 54 28 6 0 3.76 requirements. Request for Proposal(RFP)process 4.Amount of time from initial department request to 14 47 30 8 3 3.60 Purchasing action Request for Proposal(RFP)process 19 60 24 25 0 0 3.57 5.Quality of RFP documents,evaluation materials,etc. Request for Proposal(RFP)process 15 58 19 10 1 0 3.74 6.Number of quality responses/bids received Request for Proposal(RFP)process 7.Selection Committee make-up 19 52 17 8 2a 3.80 Submitted B Date Total Score 3.72 Stephanie Amann 8/7/2015 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 County Manager's Office Feedback/Observations ' AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT Customer Service Feedback Packet Page-1909- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Customer Service Feedback a g a AdditionatCoomen ts/In#ormatiorf - Procurement has a rather extensive customer service survey method.Their Level of Service Questionnaire consists of 7 sections(5 are process related;last 2 sections are for general comments/feedback about Procurement staff& additional comments).Survey results are tabulated and saved in Abbreviated and Final formats.Abbreviated results contain survey data statistics,positive feedback and suggestions for improvement/areas of concern.Final results contain survey data statistics,actual feedback for each survey question,actual rated general comments/feedback about Procurement staff and additional comments not previously addressed in survey.The current survey method uses a scale of 1-5(5=Outstanding,4=Good,3=Fair,2=Needs Improvement,1=Unsatisfactory,O=Not Applicable). The newly proposed Customer Service Feedback format would not be sufficient in capturing the intensive amount of data that the current Procurement customer service survey contains. AUG 15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCU Additional Information Packet Page -1910- Use this as a guide for filling out and using the feedback form. The goal of the form is to gather Information about Customer Service. This may include responses to one or more survey questions. Customer Service Feedback Annual Department Division_ frequency Bi-Annual ....x5 ...a.,.s� _...wa...a _.. ,a�,a<..... :aa-,...ees..a,...,�.n ..r....e..... __ Identify the Source of the Enter Division Name/Y� Quarter feedback.(Survey Name, Enter Department Name Section Name(if applicable) Monthly Meeting,Forum,etc.) Weekly Also include the methodSource/Type of Survey } t ' Dates;;I Data Beginning Date I - I Data End Date Daily that was used to �S • it wb. s �'-"""`"..ii° -'"""`i •' `a"a°` ' Transactional I-dentify the source of the data.Survey names should solicit/gather the feedback. _ - i Auto (handout,web,phone,etc.) be easily understood and used for CMO to reference ;Surveys]it Surveys ;Surveys,I#Surveys Response)Cnladated It is important to understand who the Target the survey for review. ',Sent,a Issued Returned Returned ,i.Rate:-i �„ Audience was for the feedback.It is also important This information will help in p the analysis of the _ o to know if the people who responded were the iresponses mprovements to future ',, rt.�,"` Target udience ', M{GIve' .x Respondent Profile , X - targeted audience,a subsection of the target or a .,c,t.:..: .,.....i,..".. ._..r........:..... different population entirely.If the responses are survey. Who was the intended target for the Survey/Feedback? Who responded to the Survey? highly favorable,but the only people targeted are (General Public,Stakeholders,Customers,Residents,Users.etc.) leeneni Publi,stakeholders,Customers,Residents,Users,etc) those who will likely return a favorable review the ri Yes/ R, '!Above ,Below No/ analysis must be carefully applied.Likewise if the profile of the respondents is more likely to return a = Question - Superior Average Average Average Poor Scorev` .. ,.. _ ...._. , unfavorable response the feedback should be ,.. carefully considered. '.- no m 4 t Scalesrerslotlable o' n Enter the text for the questions Deed . eaa that relate to Customer Service mnld°°l"t' w oma Elements here.Each Question Enter the counts for each res onse to N :scale , , m p o Y/N ..Y N should be on it's own row.If there the question in this section.If the v i-a a 2 i Lo are riot enough rows consider scale that is used on the survey is not o z-s s 4 3 2 1 l✓ consolidating similar questions a five point scale see the Conversion a 1-7 Bi 5 4 3 2&z no `130 10&9 ^8,7&6 S,a&3 2&t into one group.If consolidation is Chart to the right. 1,..°-, A-F A B,c D,E F Itis assumed that the higher the value the more positive not possible contact the County a , the feedback.If this is not true,future surveys should be Manager's Office for guidance. adjusted to follow this guidance. u u ,_. Submitted ey Date Total Score e,,,,,, 1 Scale The date the form was LI- snap Chart of , 5.00 Enter the name of the individual who filled in the form filled out. p=I"`I Overall Score 45 4 3.5 .. 2.5 2 15 1 3. J -,l CMFeedback/observatiov4nsI. 22,00 '; n) y , O IV N This Section will be used by the CMO staff upon review to provide observations and suggestions.This will provide guidance to 0 enhance the quality of future surveys. CD a) 11 .7.. 1.,..04.i... `.• . At! ...'„„,,-, '''.*ii,•,."7' , , p„.10,„.iii.t.';,..; ,,,,: '.",ti,A. •:.--;" II'''.,,, ,,.'). 1 t'?i'l"''','-''.''''' °. ' 7/12/201616.F.8. ‘, r''''''' I-.., ,,i; ,''•',i,' • A ' Public Procurement , Benchmark , ,, , ., ,. , Survey ,, . , ., . ., .,, .,. „ . ,- ,., ,. .,,,, . , ,.., .., . ,i. . . , , , ,,.„,.,„, /4:',"..?,,ci'. ,,,,/,.?ii,:..::,,,,'1:,. $*'.,;,,i4,‘,.'',. :;..”:'..,•-,,5' 2 4 , '''1*. . .,,,,• 1,r :'4'1 ,.' - ' ':' ,-'i''''' ,,,','"''e,. , .`''.:;''','''.% ::'0:1', ,,.„''..'.'.',..,,,-"' r;','",' '../t'''..*Stk,'' i ,..,,,,,,k;, Of-,-,',-,f;:i', .,.1.,, ,, i ,,, ,,,,.,..,,,...,5,. ,,:,,,..?4,4; m•,•-• °:. ''',..':..,1,:;''''.y.-',',:f,','-'''-'ir,.'";;',...,",,,41iii::',:4:.i':',''..-,':',f,:','"..."' - ,1-1-, i'::::''it' • I' ,'`,"';• :4'''''..'•-•!,• ,',...'.:;• .1,''. .,''''.7,? ,.." ' ' 4te•1,k, '‘ .- -,-.,1,',.-..."'-`•.,,,-If,:",44'e-4-,1",,:t•I',,',.t.,...,;.?-4,:iji,„:4.04,,,,,,k,., , ,,, , ,,,,,.,, i.„.,,,,,,,,..,„? .. ."•,,,, ,,,'' ,1, VC ,l'eto( y' . ,' '' ' ,, t' ' '' „,4 ,47./,.. ..., .0,,,,,, ',.,';'.''1.' it.4,*! .,, 'i ' -,,'. , 1•*'-'5177,16i ';';'-:, $/',' l , ,;) '-'-'',..',", ' ".' ''''';',,,',"'"';!'.',': ,'''",.,„:",,l,',.t".,„''',: , 4,',:,",,;:i,",„,'" , ,.:.s.'4;•:1,;$,t,;•,.— . Aii.. •:-:,,,,.,'„, ,;."'Jte., ",',:.,4,,,,Tf.q,,,3), ..;.,` ,, i i ,;...,,' ,,,,! (,,,,,:.:, „. ,. '-.,. .,-. , .2 ,:l. ;,‘;:r4 ,2,-,.,-i I, ,,,,, , .. : ,,:''',';t''.'i 1 .1,1:1'„''',,;:f 1,'..,,,, '',' -,,-;'" ,''':':1, '; ''';:',.:;'''_`',','",. 1.',..''''. '' p.',,.,,,,,,',.;';' , ,,, ,,,,,,,,i,f,,,,:s.,, .-.. ,',''',',*:i‘:,:*.,' : '‘.‘•!.,',4 ' /1—,,,.., -- .'. , „.,.. i.,..,,, : ,,.,..,,,.. .,,-4.',' , ',•° ''',i- . '.. ''''''. • .::- '''.,-.-, '''' ',.;,,,.;;'.'• 1,,' ' '14' V ',I ,., •.,,,.. t , '.., , . ' \ ' '' v f1,,::1,':-:',,,:',..-4;;:,.,:.:';',1-,;:-;!'s-',i,„.'L.:i.-:::-...,.:.,:-.::::...:-.'. 4_:-..,.-.L::.-......,:.:..,„,...-....,, . - - ., , ,.. -:,!-„,:: •,-...,-,-;„..,--,-.,-..-,-:„..,--.',V;r'''"f."''.,,,''' •'.,'C ry:'''',-:,;Aq't;,,,`'',•,,;, '',''''' '' ,',..-lx,..'....'c';'''-' ..,';',. ' ''', ; ,; ' '- ••''''''',A,,,,.'„,,,,,,,,,,: ' ' ; . ,,, :;‘•;:-.',"'"':-7,7';'-;'•:",•,;',f,''';"`'''',;-,/,',.-', ., '•', '7,— 1,.' _,-•,'":";`';----7"7"''''''''''' ,„-lcdi;,•;',..`-'''''''* ''" "- , ' ',-'", -.,', ,,`r• ",",--' r,,,i ''. ' - .• ' • \; i i,"'-,(2-''''. INSTITUTE PROCURE fol ,puB LIC .15-32 5 'N 978- -9322 ---` ,..- THE PROCUREMENT-1 ,,„,?2-2 ,/' ' ic,i''-,', l '-'232,",,., Packet Page-1912- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 77-IE INSTITU7E for PUBLIC PROCUREMENT Public Procurement Benchmark 2012 Survey Report Benchmark Reports Series Packet Page -1913- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Public Procurement Benchmark: 2012 Survey Report Published by NIGP:The Institute for Public Procurement 151 Spring Street,Herndon,VA 20170 703-736-8900 www.nigp.org Copyright©2012 by NIGP,Inc.The contents of this benchmark survey report may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NIGP. ISBN 1-932315-32-2 ISBN 978-1-932315-32-5 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 2 Packet Page-1914- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Recommendations 6 Section I: Overview& Background 7 Section II: Discussion of Benchmarks and Benchmarking 8 Section III: Findings,Recommendations and Conclusions 9 Responses and Findings 9 General Demographics 9 Revenue, Expenditures,&Savings 15 Purchasing Organizational Structure 16 Procurement Spend 19 Cooperative Purchasing 21 Thresholds 22 Workload Indicators 23 Average Cycle-Times 24 Satisfaction Surveys 25 Detailed Recommendations 26 Conclusions 27 References 28 Acknowledgments 29 Researchers: 30 Appendix: Method 31 3 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. Packet Page -1915- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 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,the Public Procurement Research Center at FAU (PPRC),and Deltek 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 16,000 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. PPRC-Assisting the public procurement profession by providing applied research, training,education and scholarly publications since 1999. The center's purpose is to build a professional community of scholars and practitioners devoted to improved efficiency,equality and transparency in public procurement. The Deltek GovWin IQ Government Community is an online government intelligence portal that provides contacts,information and resources needed to create and award successful solicitations. On the supplier side,Deltek is the leading global provider of enterprise software and information solutions for professional services firms and government contractors. Survey Funded by: NIGP with in-kind donations by Deltek and PPRC Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 4 Packet Page-1916- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Executive Summary Since 1944 NIGP has been a leader in advocating and supporting specialists in public procurement.Due to the complexity of the tasks our members face on daily basis,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 for their daily work. This report is part of our successful Benchmark Reports Series and it identifies the condition and patterns of key organizational variables within public procurement practices in public sector agencies.This report emphasizes operating practices and processes that can be used by our members to evaluate potential opportunities for improvement.It is critical that the findings and the recommendations presented in this report be interpreted only within the context of the surveyed sample and with a clear understanding of the methodological constraints. The results of our survey indicate that entities that are members of NIGP on average,in 2012,served 1,088,389 citizens.This number represents a 285,000 increase over the values that we noted in 2010.Since 2010 there has been an important increase in the number of public procurement full time equivalent(FTE) positions dedicated to contracting.Administrative and clerical support numbers,however,have experienced drastic decreases.Currently,public agencies are dedicating much more attention and resources to e- procurement software and IT operations.Yet,our members report only minimal spikes in the average numbers of training hours per FTE. In comparison with 2010,the survey respondents have reported sensibly higher numbers along most revenue,expenditures and savings categories.In terms of procurement spend per citizen,for instance,in 2012 entities have spent on average$696.15,which represents a$90 increase.Similar to previous years, however,remains the fact that the public procurement process continues to be a mix in terms of its centralization tendencies.Half of the respondents indicated a procurement process that was centralized with delegated authority. While due to the complexity of the area and the methodological limitations of any study of this type it is difficult to reach any exacting solutions,there are still multiple lessons and conclusions that can be drawn from these results. The summary of the main recommendations derived from the analysis of the data are presented on the next page. 5 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. Packet Page-1917- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. ; 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Recommendations Recommendations regarding training and professionalization 1. Increase the annual number of training hours per FTE from an average of 7.3 to at least 20 hours. 2. Increase the percentage of FTEs holding appropriate certification beyond 25%. 3. Target annual professional development spend per procurement FTE of at least$700. Recommendations regarding cooperative procurement 1. Whenever found appropriate,increase the efforts to emphasize cooperative purchasing and networks, while still performing due diligence in contracting. Recommendations regarding satisfaction surveys and reports 1. Conduct satisfaction surveys(internal and external customers)at least once a year or with every major process or legislative change. 2. Attempt to measure and report savings and efficiency gains in order to delineate for internal and external stakeholders the value of the procurement process to the financial condition of government. Recommendations regarding spend management 1. Establish practical structures and processes for spend management in order to examine performance and generate useful understandings. 2. Increase the levels of spend under management beyond 30%. Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 6 Packet Page -1918- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Section I: Overview & Background The realities of the recent economic crisis have increased the levels of attention that public procurement receives and have pushed public procurement at the forefront of many governments'agendas. Presently,it is common for public procurement to be considered a central tool in the strategic management of public funds. The data suggests a 10%increase in the number of procurement entities that report directly to finance. Good practice places procurement directly under senior management and independent of major user departments or divisions that are reliant on and/or can unduly influence procurement activities. As it has been the case throughout history,public procurement has been and continues to be indispensable instrument for achieving economic and social goals(McCrudden,2004). Within the context of diminishing financial possibilities of the public sector,decisions regarding appropriate course of action become increasingly difficult.It is in this sense that benchmarks and benchmarking can set up the grounds for effective efforts to improve performance. Quality data regarding the outputs and"best practices"of other agencies is critical in terms of the success of any reform or change initiative. Benchmarking can also provide the support for establishing performance success within an increasing volatile political environment associated with procurement spend.The data suggests an average of 0.3 protests per procurement FTE,with the overall favorable outcome rate dropping from 97%in 2010 to 93%in 2012. Despite the increased complexity and demands on agencies,public procurement practices and processes appear to command high levels of satisfaction.For those who have surveyed their internal and external customers the satisfaction rates were approaching 90%. 7 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. Packet Page-1919- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Section II: Discussion of Benchmarks and Benchmarking There are no doubts left that benchmarks and benchmarking have become critical for achieving excellence in public procurement and for successful public procurement reforms (Sanchez-Rodrigues,Martinez-Lorente& Clavel,2003;Tudor,2005).Due to changes in the nature of local governance their importance will only grow. Benchmarking in public procurement is important for several reasons;not the least being that it is seldom undertaken. NIGP is perhaps the only organization/research institution regularly addressing benchmarks and benchmarking in public procurement. Compared with other areas of public administration that commonly attract research efforts that would settle benchmarking questions,benchmarking studies are few and far in between. The complexity that is often associated with the area manages to discourage a much needed systematic research.Yet,in the context of current budgetary constraints,benchmarking remains a critical question that needs to be continuously addressed within public procurement.The Benchmarking Series represents one of the most in demand NIGP report series and NIGP will continue its dedication to the area in the future. There are several principles that drive every evaluation of public procurement such as value for the money, efficiency,effectiveness,competition,ethics,transparency,accountability and administrative responsibility. Each concept,however,is contextually driven and quite often might conflict with the attainment of other principles.In attempting to maximize the value for the money for their citizens,governments have to address the multiple,at times contradictory,vectors of public interest,equity,justice,fairness and responsiveness (Korosec&Bartle,2003). The first question that arises then is-if the process of benchmarking is this complex,why benchmark?The first,and perhaps the most important explanation,is associated with the fact that benchmarking remains one of the better and most effective approaches in terms of evaluating and improving performance (Koh, Gunasekaran&Saad,2005).A systematic overview and examination of what seems to work and what doesn't within the public sector procurement provides a practical way of developing ideas and pathways toward improved processes. A second major motivator behind the increasing need for and use of benchmarking approaches is their ability to uncover dynamics that might be missed by other evaluation techniques.The idea of"best practices"is at the core of benchmarking;hence,by employing benchmarking public agencies are able identify how their performance aligns with those similar agencies in comparable contexts(Triantafillou,2007).By focusing on "best practices"an agency can isolate problematic areas and target their transformation through approaches that have been proven to work in other instances. The establishment of realistic and useful benchmarks is a third major reason in support of continuous benchmarking efforts.Instilling and demanding performance in public procurement can become frustrating if the goals are not guided by representative benchmarks. Due to changes in the structures and mechanisms of governance what constitutes appropriate performance will change over time.As such,up to date and representative benchmarks become essential for any reform or organizational change effort. Finally,benchmarks and benchmarking are able to delineate the status and development trends within the field.Either for purposes of policy or financial management,the knowledge of public procurement benchmarks have important impacts. These effects are expected to grow in size as more governments intensify their reliance on long term contracts and collaborations with private sector entities. Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 8 Packet Page-1920- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. -`2° 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Section III: Findings, Recommendations and Conclusions Responses and Findings General Demographics 1. Please select your Entity type. i I Other MI 4% Township 11% State/Province Central Procurement Agency 4% a State Agency(other than the CPA) 10% 1 I J I I Special District/Authority 10% School District(K-12) 10% Federal/Central Government a 1% County/Region 22% I ' College/University 9% 1 City/Municipality . 30% I 1, 0.0% 5.0% 10.0°% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Total responding:357 Other responses: • Community Services Board • Quasi Agency • Cooperative Procurement • Sheriff's Office • Education Service District • Superior Court • Government Agency • Tribal Government • International Governmental Organization • Unified City-County Government(2) • Not-for-Profit Home Owner Association • Utilities Board • Political Sub-Division of the State • Water and Sewer Utility • Pre-K-Post Grad School for the Deaf • Water Authority • Public Retirement System 9 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. Packet Page -1921- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 2.Please indicate where your Entity is located. eir Canada VT NH MT ND �� iit/ l6 rAl , ,,MA OR ID SD RI WY iir /\ ,t,It v 1-3 l',' CT ,.'"'. f , �"� ti� DE Nj CA \ MD \DC .r> NC TN OK Ilpr Q �SC .4.0NM (v� t„,aQ {� 5 z AL G., Lil HI V V TX 0 0 0 • 00 11111PL Note:The map shows the regional response tallies as have been used in previous NIGP benchmark surveys. Total responding:356 Respondents by U.S.state: • Alabama(1) • Kentucky(4) • Ohio(7) • Alaska(1) • Louisiana(6) • Oklahoma(5) • Arizona(13) • Maine(1) • Oregon(9) • Arkansas(1) • Maryland(20) • Pennsylvania(8) • California(19) • Massachusetts(1) • Rhode Island(0) • Colorado(18) • Michigan (11) • South Carolina(12) • Connecticut(3) • Minnesota(4) • South Dakota (0) • Delaware(2) • Mississippi(5) • Tennessee(5) • District of Columbia • Missouri (9) • Texas (24) (3) • Montana(2) • Utah (1) • Florida (44) • Nebraska(2) • Vermont(0) • Georgia(10) • Nevada(3) • Virginia(23) • Hawaii (0) • New Hampshire(1) • Washington(7) • Idaho (3) • New Jersey(5) • West Virginia(1) • Illinois(7) • New Mexico (3) • Wisconsin (4) • Indiana (0) • New York(4) • Wyoming(1) • Iowa(1) • North Carolina(7) • U.S.Territories(0) • Kansas (6) • North Dakota(0) Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 10 Packet Page-1922- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Respondents by Canadian province: • Alberta(4) • British Columbia(3) • Manitoba(0) • New Brunswick(2) • Newfoundland and Labrador(0) • Northwest Territory(0) • Nova Scotia(1) • Nunavut(0) • Ontario(18) • Prince Edward Island(0) • Quebec(0) • Saskatchewan(1) Other respondents: • United Nations Mission in Darfur(UNAMID) 3.When did your most recent completed fiscal year end? 04/30/2011 05/31/2011 2 06/03/2011 1 06/12/2011 I 1 07/01/2011 E 2 07/31/2011 1 08/31/2011 054V 8 09/30/2011 . : �4 ,a. -> 64 10/30/2011 E 2 11/30/2011 p 2 12/15/2011 a 1 12/31/2011 0,-4' -':J4 73 01/01/2012 F 1 02/28/2012 1 03/31/2012 8 4 - — — , 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Total responding:357 11 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page -1923- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 4.What is the residential population served by your Entity? • Total Population of Respondents: 279,716,019 Note:This figure increased approximately 100 million from 2010. • Average Population of Respondent: 1,088,389 Note:This figure increased approximately 285,000 from 2010. Total responding:257 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 12 Packet Page-1924- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 5.How many full time equivalent(FTE)positions(shown as a percentage within bands) does your Entity have? 25% 23% 21% { e 20% 15% 15% - 13% 14% I { 10% 8% 6% { 5% 0% Less than 200 200 to 500 5011,000 1001 to 1500 1501 to 2000 2001 to 5000 More than 5000 The 2012 data showed a significant drop in the respondents representing entities with fewer than 200 FTEs, which fell from 28%to 8%. A commensurate increase was seen in responses from entities with 200 to 1,500 FTEs. Since 2007 respondents have clustered from the extremes into the 200 to 1,500 range. • Total number of Entity FTEs: 326,538 • Average number of Entity FTEs per 100,000 of Population: 116.7 Total responding:257 13 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1925- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 6.Regardless of actual titles,how many Full Time Equivalent(FTE)positions does Procurement have assigned to the following functions? 40% — — — 36% 35% -- 30% i _17_, • 27% 27% 112012 a 2010 25% "` - r'ist 20%u — — 15% y*� 0 13% — — o, 11 12/0 10% �, 12;0 10�o 5% 3% 4% ,;k " _ 4%-ii 3/a1% �% 10/0 — 13f., 1% 1/o 1% 2% 2% t 2% : �Qa�a \yJQQ / c��a6 \q' ``a./ SQ' 5e54• • ``a`�° a�e� a�e� Q`0Qe \`,`° do ,, 0 ac \`° `o' ec~ J<\e `t`:5 .e? tea' \Jy tip ``° v-s `�e `co` \\`ate ecc �° as a5 .!- SJcQ cJeo P tee\ JA JQ c1% °c\ �a �o� Q Q, C‘ 0 p /��a SS�sOs e' Pe �teroJh ea ,a - ,-6,' k,+ Cha *Note:The"P-Card Administration"category was not included in the 2010 survey. Since 2010 employment has declined in Admin./Clerical Support and shifted to Buying/Contracting.IT support also surged. This could be a result of hiring freezes/layoffs forcing a shift of head count to mission- critical positions and increased use of procurement software. Some procurement officials indicate an increased demand for reports and using IT as a business system. • Total number of Procurement FTEs Reported: 2,545 • Average number of Procurement FTEs per Entity FTE: 0.01 Note:This figure is consistent with that found in 2010. Total responding: 184 7.How many total hours did Procurement spend on internal training for its professional staff? • Total annual number of Procurement Training Hours Reported: 18,744 • Average annual number of Procurement Training Hours per Procurement FTE:7.3 Note:This figure represents a 0.9 hour increase over 2010. In 2007,over 60%of respondents provided 11-20 hours of training per procurement FTE. As staff has gotten smaller,roles and responsibilities have increased,reducing time and resources for training. Total responding: 142 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 14 Packet Page-1926- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 8.Using this definition of a Procurement Officer,"Procurement staff who spend more than 50%of their time on procurement related work,"how many Procurement Officers(FTEs)hold an appropriate(in your judgment)procurement certification for their current duties? • Percent of procurement FTEs holding an appropriate certification: 25% Total responding: 159 9.Using the same definition of a Procurement Officer,how many Procurement Officers(FTEs)are actively pursuing an appropriate(again,in your judgment)procurement certification? • Percent of procurement FTEs pursuing an appropriate certification:9% Total responding: 123 Revenue, Expenditures, & Savings 10.How much actual revenue did your Entity earn in the following areas? Surplus Property Disposal: (Total respondents: 118) • Total Revenue Reported:$40,615,771 • Average Revenue per Procurement FTE:$30,584 2010/2012 Average:$20,591 Rebates:p-Card Program: (Total responding:89) • Total Revenue Reported:$ 7,064,229.00 2010/2012 Average:$5,861,366 • Average Revenue per Procurement FTE: $7,483 2010/2012 Average:$5,437 Administrative fees for use of procurement contracts: (Total responding: 18) • Total Revenue Reported:$1,321,438 2010/2012 Average:$9,232,247 • Average Revenue per Procurement FTE:$2,322 2010/2012 Average:$15,030 11.What was the total of your Entity's actual expenditures(no exclusions)in the most recently completed fiscal year? • Total Spend Reported: $130.8 billion • Average Spend per Citizen:$696.15 This figure represents an approximate$90 increase over 2010. • Average Entity Spend per Entity FTE:$570,081 2010/2012 Average:$368,970 Total responding: 199 15 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1927- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 12.Please enter your total Cash Savings generated through Procurement activity during the most recently completed fiscal year. • Total Cash Savings Reported:$433.2 million • Average Cash Savings per Procurement FTE:$198,000 Total responding:71 13.Please enter your total Non-Cash Savings generated through Procurement activity during the most recently completed fiscal year. • Total Non-Cash Savings Reported:$214.5 million • Average Cash Savings per Procurement FTE:$345,000 Total responding:38 Purchasing Organizational Structure 14.Procurement reports to: Mayor,Clerk,or other elected official 1% CEO/City ' Manager/County •rs,,. Administrator or other COO,Management, top levelstaff posit lon eneralor. 13% • �Administrativesaervices w P,orother4!gb level ; »°te fft per,Bting position Elected Council or Board . S+i 1L'GO/Directorot finance/Controller or other"high'levelflnancial staff position � Y 1 The data show a 10%increase in those reporting to finance since 2010. Fiscal crisis has driven a delayed move toward giving finance more insight/control over all aspects of budget and spend. Total responding: 188 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 16 Packet Page-1928- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Other responses: • Agency Chief Contracting Officer • Assistant Commissioner of Administration • Director of Collections and Procurement • Associate VP,Fiscal Planning&Services • Director,General Services (3) • Chief Administrative Officer(CAO) • Division Director of Operations • Chief Superintendant&Director • Vice Chancellor for Finance and • City Solicitor Technology • Director Of Administration 15.Which organizational structure listed below BEST describes your purchasing function? Decentralized,in which almost all buying/contracting is performed by departments autonomously. Decentralized with Central Review,in which almost all buying/contracting is performed by other departments,but is subject to review by central procurement. Centralized,in which almost all buying/contracting is done through one centralized 28% department for the entire organization. I � Centralized with Delegated Authority,in which buying/contracting is done through a {t fsi centralized department,with some purchasing authority(including source selection and order q r rF 38` placement)delegated to other departments. ' 1 I I 1 Centralized Contracting/Decentralized Buying,in which there is a centralized contracting , - . process with authority delegated to other departments to buy only from these established ".•••• • N �'• >. . 184: contracts. 0% 5% 10% 154 20% 25% 30% 3596 404. %of Respondents Total Entity Expenditure of Respondents: • Centralized Contracting/Decentralized Buying: $2 billion (14%) • Centralized with Delegated Authority:$7 billion(50%) • Centralized:$2.8 billion(20%) • Decentralized with Central Review:$2.2 billion(15%) • Decentralized:$87 million(1%) Total responding: 188 17 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1929- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 16.Please indicate which of the following functions your Entity provides and if Procurement purchases for this function. 4056 _.._. __ -.._... _.. ..... ......... .__.... 35, I ®Procurement Does Not Purchase for Function ! • r Procurement Purchases for Function 30% ._.. .__-. ........ ............ -_. ......... i ___. .. -.......__ t A, 25% ..... ._.._. ....._.... ................. __. ................. ____.. ....-_.....-.. .......__ Z ,' v Fi 20% z o � I e 35`S„ _.. ....._ .. 10 5% — — Airport Convention Electric Power Gas Hospital Roads Schools Water Note:The combined total of the stacked bars represents the total percentage of respondents indicating that their entity provides the given function. For example,approximately 15 percent of all entities responding reported providing an airport. Thirteen percent of entities conduct purchasing for the airport function through the procurement division as indicated by the blue portion of the bar. Total responding:357 17.Please select all those for which Procurement contracts: 80"n .._..... ....... .... ......._.... ......_.. _...... .._._.. .......... -.- ........ _..._. -._-. 70`.,, ._... _.... -. ..... ___. .._. ___. ____. ........ ____. .......67% ____. 6740 60 ._._. -_- 58 _ ..._........ 57% . 'I ',A, aa;ct. ar. AO '$ �t� 5/ rr t+ Ts e 30: uC s 75..Y Lala k ,A{r., 4� t{a»` !r< :r 7¢� .�. t sg- n Yrt.R,gS °k T t 20:i. Ar$ g$ '� tn, ;R �x . '', µms. .F -.. > a`a 1 ,1! '! 3 f� i``ni-y ;r��¢,e5' ¢'c eo o tJ6 J¢�O OCA CSS` L LO Total responding:357 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 18 Packet Page-1930- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. '` 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Procurement Spend Procurement spend is that portion of the public body's expenses that may be within the scope of Procurement's activity and can be affected through procurement involvement in the areas of cost,quality, service level/delivery,or terms.The following types of transactions are typically not part of procurement spend,and should be excluded: • Employee-related expenditure,such as salaries and expense reimbursements • Payments to individuals,such as foster care providers • Payments to other public sector bodies(unless for commercially available services) • Revenue refunds 18.What was the total value of Procurement Spend for your Entity? • Total Procurement Spend Reported:$12.8 billion • Average Procurement Spend per Procurement FTE: $10.1 million • Percent of Entity Spend under Management by Procurement:27% Total responding:95 19.What was the total of Procurement's(department/division)actual operating expenditures? • Total Procurement Operational Spend Reported: $1.3 billion • Average Procurement Operational Spend per Procurement FTE: $795,000 • Procurement Operational Spend as a percentage of Procurement Spend: 10% Total responding: 188 20.How much (in dollars)was spent on the professional development of Procurement's staff? • Total Professional Development Spend Reported: $1.1 million • Average Professional Development Spend per Procurement FTE: $700 • Professional Development Spend as a percentage of Procurement Operational Spend:0.07% Total responding: 154 21.What is the total number and value of purchase orders issued by Procurement? • Average number of Procurement POs issued per Procurement FTE: 385 • Average value of Procurement P0:$15,500 Total responding: 160 22.What is the total number and value of purchase orders issued by other departments under delegated authority? • Average number of Department POs issues per Procurement FTE: 347 • Average value of Department P0:$5,500 Total responding:46 19 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1931- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 23.What was your Entity's(average)Procurement Spend (shown as a percentage)for each of the following categories? 1 I 11144k ,Cgi E/r M1IPI%;K n t � Note:The chart above shows the average for all respondents who provided a figure in one or more categories. Since 2007 the data shows a significant increase(approx.33%)in the number of respondents reporting some spend in the construction category,although differences in the way the data was collected in that survey prevent an exact calculation of the change. Total responding:85 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 20 Packet Page-1932- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Cooperative Purchasing The NIGP Dictionary defines Cooperative Procurement as"A variety of arrangements whereby two or more public procurement units purchase from the same supplier or multiple suppliers using a single IFB or RFP." 24.Which statement BEST describes your authority to use cooperative contracts? Only when my Entity's requirements are included in the • advertised solicitation. 8% Cooperative purchasing is not authorized in my Entity. ( 1% j I ' Only when the advertised solicitation includes a provision that other public entities may use the resulting _ 38% contract,in which case my Entity's requirements do not have to be included in the advertised solicitation. 1 can use any contract resulting front another governmental entity's formally advertised solicitation. - 53/o I l 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% %of Respondents In a 2003 NIGP Pulse Poll,8%indicated that cooperative purchasing is not authorized by the entity. Now it is down to 1%. Total responding: 182 25.Which of the following cooperative contract types does your Entity use?(Select all that apply.) 50% ___..46% .,_..__.. __.... ..... ........... ......... __.. ...-.. { 45% e - - - - — - 41% - 40% r _ 38 _.. 36 _... _.. ..... __ _ 30/ a .,_ =t .— _ 28! 25% 10% Statewide or Provincial National Cooperatives Regional or Local U.S.GSA Schedules Piggy-Back Contracts Term Contracts (like U.S.Communities, Cooperatives (using a competitively 1 Canadian Communities, procured contract issued etc.) by another public entity I that allows for use by others.) Total responding: 182 Approximate percentage of Procurement Spend made via Cooperative Purchasing. • Average for all respondents providing a figure: 10% Total responding: 78 21 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1933- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Thresholds 560,000 -—- $55,009 $50,000 — r $40,000 — $30,000 $25,023 $21,628 $20,000 - S10,000 ..,..--.... ..... .......... $0 Amount up to which an Informal Amount at which Written Amount at which a Formal Quote can be Solicited Quotes must be Solicited Competition Must be Conducted 26.Amount up to which an Informal Quote can be Solicited Total responding: 150 27.Amount at which Written Quotes must be Solicited Total responding: 172 28.Amount at which a Formal Competition Must be Conducted Total responding: 186 Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 22 Packet Page -1934- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 29.What is the highest contract award authority for the following: (shown as an average for all respondents) • Client departments with delegated authority:$57,000 Percent of Respondents indicating limited authority:49% Percent of Respondents indicating unlimited authority: 3% Percent of Respondents indicating no delegation of authority:48% Total responding:218 • Procurement Director/Manager/Chief Procurement Officer: $360,000 Percent of Respondents indicating limited authority:64% Percent of Respondents indicating unlimited authority: 20% Percent of Respondents indicating no delegation of authority: 16% Total responding:218 • Chief Executive Officer(City Manager,County Administrator,etc.):$8.9 million Percent of Respondents indicating limited authority:53% Percent of Respondents indicating unlimited authority:25% Percent of Respondents indicating no delegation of authority:22% Total responding:218 Workload Indicators All figures are shown as an average per Procurement FTE so that readers can extrapolate comparative workloads for their own organizations. 30.Please indicate the number of transactions in each category. • Letters of Interest to determine the field of suppliers available and interested: 6.3 per Procurement FTE Total responding:47 • Letters or proposals of Qualifications used to prequalify suppliers for an opportunity: 3.7 per Procurement FTE Total responding:68 • Request for Quotes(small purchases): 28.2 per Procurement FTE Total responding: 109 • Competitive Sealed Bidding-IFBs Issued:7.3 per Procurement FTE Total responding: 130 • Competitive Negotiation-RFPs Issued: 3.0 per Procurement FTE Total responding: 129 • Original Orders Issued(Whether by purchase order, releases,etc.):309.3 per Procurement FTE Total responding: 106 • Change Orders Issued: 39.8 Total responding: 77 31.Emergency Contracts awarded over your formal threshold: • Emergency Contracts issued: 1.1 per Procurement FTE • Value of Emergency Contracts as a percentage of Total Procurement Spend:20% Total responding:78 23 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1935- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report 32.Sole Source Contracts awarded over your formal threshold: (shown as an average for all respondents) • Sole Source Awards issued: 123.3 per Procurement FTE • Value of Sole Source Awards as a percentage of Total Procurement Spend: 14% Total responding: 109 33.How many protests did your Entity receive in your most recently completed fiscal year? How many were determined in favor of your Entity? • Protests:0.3 per Procurement FTE • Percent of Protests in Your Favor:93% (-4.0%vs.2010) Total responding:74 Average Cycle-Times Cycle time is defined as the number of calendar days from receipt of a requisition to issuance of a purchase order or contract. 34.Please provide your Average Cycle Time(in calendar days)for the following: y� R li `'� f x.N'N.t ✓ Y +Y J''`am { E , dn, k r ? Fo�, z` i � -��.�� .2 F o rtmidef RFPs; 72.3 4 � 7 I + I i Change vs.2010 Figures: • Formal Bids:-1.3 days • Formal RFPs:+4.5 days • Small Purchases:+2.0 days Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 24 Packet Page-1936- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Some procurement officials claim that the increase in cycle times since 2010 is likely a reflection of increased involvement of customer agencies in helping to craft solicitations to make sure they are"right"before they hit the street. Total responding: 130 Satisfaction Surveys If you conducted an internal procurement customer satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year,please indicate your average overall customer satisfaction score/rating. • We conducted a supplier satisfaction survey,but it cannot be converted to a 100 point basis. 9% • We conducted a supplier satisfaction survey,but prefer not to share the results.2% • We did not conduct a supplier satisfaction survey. 74% • Total#Entities that Conducted a Convertible Survey 17% • Average Satisfaction on a 100%Scale:89% Total responding: 186 36.If you conducted a supplier satisfaction survey during the most recently completed fiscal year, please indicate your average overall supplier satisfaction score/rating. • We conducted a supplier satisfaction survey,but it cannot be converted to a 100 point basis.6% • We conducted a supplier satisfaction survey,but prefer not to share the results.0% • We did not conduct a supplier satisfaction survey.86% • Total#Entities that Conducted a Convertible Survey 8% • Average Satisfaction on a 100%Scale:87% Total responding: 186 25 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1937- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Detailed Recommendations It appears that most agencies have not increased the number of training for FTEs to reflect the increased levels of complexity and responsibility.On average agencies report 7 hours of annual training per FTE; agencies should strive to provide training beyond this level.It is also suggested that to increase the rate of procurement specialist that hold appropriate certifications beyond 25%threshold. Based on the overall responses to the survey it can be suggested that public agencies are not maximizing their opportunities in terms of cooperative purchasing.While 10%of spend through cooperative contracts represents a respectable level,there are many opportunities in collaboration and networks that remain underutilized,particularly when 99%report having authority to use cooperative procurement. Performance in the public sector continues to be among current administrative priorities.It is recommended here that agencies develop structures and effective processes of managing spend in order to insure increased levels of performance.It is suggested that levels of spend under management below 30%might be unacceptable and agencies should undertake significant efforts to improve the condition. Finally there is an obvious need for an improved attention to satisfaction surveys and performance measurements.Although administering evaluations of satisfaction and performance take time,no organizational change can be supported without a proper understanding of the status of a specific process. The result of such evaluations,among others,will identify areas that need improvement but might also develop communication lines between the agency and its customers. Furthermore,reporting savings and efficiency gain will justify and cement the important role played by public procurement to the financial condition of government. Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 26 Packet Page-1938- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Conclusions From the analysis of the survey results it becomes readily apparent that public procurement remains a complex and intricate area of activity that cannot be constrained to rigid frames.While some trends such as higher savings,levels of activity and shortened processing times are welcomed,at the same time however there are several recent tendencies that might become problematic in the long run.First,individual public procurement specialists and agencies in general are undertaking an increased number of responsibilities compared to 2010.Yet,it appears that such actions are supported neither by adequate administrative framework nor by increased number of training hours per FTEs or professional certification. Cooperative public purchasing remains somewhat underutilized as on average respondents indicated that only approximately 10%of procurement spend is undertaken through a cooperative platform.Furthermore our respondents report that formal RFPs and small purchases are taking on average an additional 4.5 days and 2 days,respectively,to complete.Finally,the data show that only 26%of the respondents have conducted internal customer surveys while only 14%surveyed suppliers. 27 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page-1939- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report References Bartle,R.J.,&Korosec,L.R. (2003).A review of state procurement and contracting.Journal of Public Procurement,3(2), 192-214. Koh,L.C.S.,Gunasekaran,A.,&Saad,M.S.(2005).A business model for uncertainty management. Benchmarking International Journal,12(4),383-400. McCrudden,C.(2004).Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes.Natural Resources Forum,28(4), 257-267. Sanchez-Rodrigues,C.,Martinez-Lorente,A.R.,&Clavel,J.G.(2003).Benchmarking in the purchasing function and its impact on purchasing and business performance. Benchmarking:An International Journal, 10(5),457-471. Tudor,S. (2005).Benchmarking procurement. Summit,8(2),17-19. Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 28 Packet Page-1940- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Acknowledgments Special thanks to the following individuals for their contribution to this research: The NIGP Board of Directors and the NIGP Research Committee,with particular appreciation to: Mr.Rogelio E.Anasagasti,Jr.,CPPO Executive Director,Procurement Operations Houston Community College Mr.Donald G.Buffum,CPPO Director,Procurements&Contracts Mississippi State University Dr.Guy Callender Curtin Business School Ms.Mary Beth Overturf,CPPO,C.P.M Director of Procurement Services University of Alaska Anchorage Mr.David A.Davis,CPPO Procurement and Materials Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Ms.Barbara A.Grilli,CPPO,CPPB,C.P.M.FCCM Purchasing Manager City of St.Petersburg Mr.Scott N.Guzzy,CPPO Chief of Purchasing Oakland County,WI Cord J.Sears,CPPB Purchasing Manager Town of Newmarket,Canada Mr.James Tonn,CPPB Procurement Manager Waterfront Toronto Ms.Theresa Webb,CPPO,CPPB,C.P.M.,FCCM Project Manager II Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Mr.Jonathan White Director of Sales and Support Spikes Cavell And of course,the all those who responded to the survey! 29 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page -1941- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Researchers: • Dr.Cliff McCue,FAU/PPRC • Tina M.Borger,CPPO,NIGP Research Director • Tim Brett,Director,State&Local Information Services,Deltek • Chris Dixon,Sr.Manager,State and Local Industry Analysis,Deltek Copyright©2012 NIGP,Inc. 30 Packet Page-1942- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. 2012 Public Procurement Benchmark Survey Report Appendix: Method Survey Method: SurveyMonkey.com on-line survey Invitation method: E-mails through SurveyMonkey.com Target Group: Public sector agencies in the NIGP database Email Invitations sent: 2,358 on April 13,2012 Reminder Sent: April 28,2012 Final Reminder Sent: May 11,2012 Survey Closed: May 23,2012 Number of Responses: 357(182 complete) 31 Copyright©2012 NIGP, Inc. Packet Page -1943- Exhibit 4 CONTRACTOR FEEDBACK SURVEY 2016 Survey Responses'Ordered by Favorability Percentage(high to low) Favorable Neutral Unfavorable" , Participants , Favorable: Unfavorable'. strongly agree strongly disagree Survey Questions(Quantitative) - Business Unit disa9rea (percentage) (percentage) (percentage),..03 Procurement staff provides accurate responses (Procurement Div.(County) 128 17 9 154 83.1% 5.8% 05 Procurement staff provides timely responses to phone and e-mail requests Procurement Div.(County) 128 15 12 155 82.6% 7.7% 02 Procurement staff is professional and ethical Procurement Div.(County) 131 19 9 159 82.4% 5.7% 04 i, Procurement staff is courteous and helpful Procurement Div.(County) 121 20 6 147 82.3% I 4.1% 011 There is ample time to submit bids or proposals Procurement Div.(County) 120 22 9 151 79.5% ! 6.0% 013 PO and contract questions are answered in a thorough and timely.... Procurement Div.(County) 108 23 14 145 74.5% 9.7% 014 Staff responds timely to purchasing problems Procurement Div.(County) 96 27 9 132 72.7% 6.6% 010 J Online bidding questions are answered in a thorough and timely manner Procurement Div.(County) 88 26 7 123 71.5% 5.7% T I Payment staff is professional and ethical Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 90 25 12 127 70.9% 9.4% nThe ITB and RFP solicitation processes are open,fair and accessible Procurement Div.(County) 108 28 23 159 67.9% 14.5% The invoice and submission process is efficient and easy to use Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 81 23 19 123 65.9% 15.4% 'Y Payment staff is courteous and helpfulFinance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 78 30 11 119 65.5% 9.2% r f verall satisfaction with the purchasing process Procurement Div.(County) 105 31 26 _ 162 64.8% 16.0% C e online bidding system is efficient and easy to use Procurement Div.(County) 89 28 22 139 64.0% 15.8% i mid and proposal documents are clear and understandable Procurement Div.(County) 100 33 25 158 63.3% 15.6% ~ Payment staff provides timely responses to phone and e-mail requests Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 74 32 12 118 62.7% 10.2% � '� Payment staff provides accurate responses Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 74 30 15 119 62.2% �I 12.6% Invoice and payment questions are answered in a thorough and timely.... Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 74 30 15 119 62.2% 12.6% 029 Invoice payments are processed per the terms of the contract I Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 75 I 23 23 121 1 62.0% 19.0% 08 The bid and proposal processes are predictable and consistent I Procurement Div.(County) 91 i 35 28 154 59.1% 18.2% 031 Staff responds timely to invoice or payment problems Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 63 30 18 111 56.8% 18.2% 026 1 The payment process is predictable and consistent Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 68 23 32 123 55.3% i 26.0% 032 I Overall satisfaction with the payment process Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 66 28 28 122 54.1% 23.0% 028 Invoices are paid in an accurate and timely manner Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 66 25 31 122 54.1% 25.4% 024 Invoice audit and payment process is clear and understandable Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 61 32 26 119 51.3% 21.8% --.1 1 _ 0 030 Credit memos are processed in a timely manner Finance/Accounts Payable(Clerk) 35 28 7 70 50.0% 10.0% N 012 Intends to submit bids or proposals for future work Both business units 137 15 12 164 83.5% 7,3% N 0 C) t) 93 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 CotieCounty Administrative Services Department Procurement Services Division Contractor Feedback Survey FINAL REPORT June 6, 2016 : N th, lom r;�,�:xTfi 1,,,'rilrt /�V KNOW! acr , _LT FLOR A " .� . INSTITUTE OF ° 1 I GOVERNMENT I � at 199% II Crui't.l',I,i l wvir-et Dr. Gerald A. Schoenfeld Florida Gulf Coast University Fort Myers, FL 33963 1 Packet Page-1945- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................. 3 Contractor Demographics 8 County Procurement Services Division (Purchasing Process) 13 Clerk of Courts (Invoice Audit and Payment Process) 16 Written Comments: Purchasing Process 19 Written Comments: Invoice Audit and Payment Process ... 38 2 Packet Page -1946- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Executive Summary Co iev Coisnty X145I IS ':1A:/1/2`L` L I 3+'d?<T al 1/2 .JL4 DI1/2'1 iltiY 2016 Contractor Feedback Survey Executive Summary During April 2016, the Collier County Procurement Services Division conducted a contractor feedback survey. The survey provided Collier County contractors a thorough and inclusive process where they had the opportunity to rate and discuss their experiences with both the purchasing process and the invoice audit and payment process. This executive summary provides the principle survey findings. The survey results provide vital information to county management and Board of County Commissioners in both quantitative and qualitative formats that represents an encompassing snapshot of contractor perspectives. Dr. Jerry Schoenfeld, from Florida Gulf Coast University, who has extensive experience conducting surveys, was selected to compile the results of the comprehensive satisfaction survey. A request and link to complete the 2016 Contractor Feedback Survey was sent in early April to all vendors/contractors within the Procurement Services Division database. Contractors had approximately ten days to complete the survey. The principle findings are summarized below. There were 176 completed surveys. There is no calculated response rate percentage due the nature of the database utilized. The database was a cumulative listing of current and past vendors and contractors e-mails. Some of these were defunct e-mail addresses and others in the database were contractors who could not complete the survey because they have not had any or any recent contacts with Collier County. While the overall response rate is low, a lower response rate does not necessarily mean that there is a non-response bias. In most surveys, the people who do not participate are typically no different from the people willing to give us their time. In the current survey, the respondents who did participate and who make up the sample represent a diverse array of vendors/ contractors and the quantitative and qualitative analysis of their cumulative responses can and should inform future decision-making and planning. There were seven demographic questions in the survey. The results found that for those contractors who participated in the survey: ➢ Represented a wide array of business sectors, from Actuarial to Wellness. Construction and Consulting were the two most often represented sectors with 20 respondents each. ➢ 28% have worked with the county from 1 — 5 years with 17% having worked with the county 6 — 10 years. 5% have worked for the county for over 30 years. ➢ The majority(53%) have made between 1 —5 solicitations over the last calendar year (2015). 3 Packet Page-1947- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 ➢ 27% had multiple contracts awarded in 2015. ➢ The dollar value of these contracts ranged from less than $1,000 to over$1,000,000. ➢ The business locations of the respondent contractors were 48% from Collier County, 24% from Lee County and 28% other. There were 27 survey questions that requested respondents rate their experience on a five-point scale (1 —strongly disagree/ 5—strongly agree). Respondents also had the option of marking Not Applicable which were not used in the calculation of overall means. Questions were categorized into two sections: County Procurement Process and Clerk of Courts Process. In addition, at the end of each section the survey included an opportunity for write-in comments to allow contractors to share their perspectives in more detail. Generally speaking, in surveys using five-point rating scales with large response rates, individual questionnaire items with means (which is the numerical average of all responses) of 3.00 - 3.49 is considered positive; 3.50—3.99 is above average; and 4.00 or higher can be considered outstanding or excellent. County Procurement Services Division (Purchasing Process) The average for all questions was 3.93 on the 5-point scale which indicates that overall contractors are generally very pleased with the Procurement Services Division. Below is a table of the top five highest rated questions on the survey. As the results show, respondents overall are very complimentary of the staff and that contractors intend to submit future bids for contract work with the county. FIVE HIGHEST RATED QUESTIONS (Rated on a 5 point scale) Question Mean The County's Procurement staff conducts themselves in 4.20 a professional and ethical manner. The Procurement staff who dealt with my purchasing 4.19 questions were courteous and helpful. I intend to submit bids or proposals for future work with 4.18 the County. The Procurement staff provides accurate responses to 4.16 my questions. The Procurement staff provides timely responses to my 4.08 telephone and email requests. Turning to low rated survey questions, no items were rated below the 3.5 on the five point scale. This is significant as it indicates that there are no areas of the contractor's experience 4 Packet Page-1948- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 where a majority do not feel is above average. Below is a table of the five lowest rated questions on the survey. FIVE LOWEST RATED QUESTIONS (Rated on a 5 point scale) Question Mean The County's bidding and proposing processes are predictable and consistent. 3.60 Overall, I am satisfied with the purchasing process. 3.68 The County's Online Bidding System is efficient and easy 3.69 to use. The County's bidding and proposal documents are clear 3.69 and understandable. The County's Invitation to Bid and Request for Proposal 3.85 solicitation process is open, fair and accessible. Clerk of Courts (Invoice Audit and Payment Process) The average for all questions was 3.59 on the 5-point scale. While lower than the overall average for the Procurement Services Division, the average indicates that overall contractors are generally also very pleased with the Clerk of Courts. Below is a table of the top five highest rated questions on the survey. As the results show, respondents overall are very complimentary of the staff and the invoice submission process. FIVE HIGHEST RATED QUESTIONS (Rated on a 5 point scale) Question Mean The payment staff conducts themselves in a professional 3.83 and ethical manner. The Payment staff who dealt with my invoice questions 3.80 were courteous and helpful. The Payment staff provides timely responses to my 3.73 telephone and email requests. The invoice submission process is efficient and easy to 3.69 use. My invoice and payment questions are answered in a 3.69 thorough and timely manner. 5 Packet Page-1949- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Turning to low rated survey questions, no items were rated below the 3.0 on the five point scale. This is significant as it indicates that there are no areas of the contractor's experience where a majority are dissatisfied. Below is a table of the five lowest rated questions on the survey. FIVE LOWEST RATED QUESTIONS (Rated on a 5 point scale) Question Mean The invoice payment process is predictable and 3.36 consistent. I receive payment for my invoices in an accurate and 3.39 timely manner. The invoice audit and payment process are clear and 3.41 understandable. Overall, I am satisfied with the invoice and payment 3.42 process. My credit memos are processed in a timely manner. 3.53 It is important to note that the interpretation of each of the rated items was conducted beyond just the numerical average. Interpretation of question results was furthered by examining the frequency of ratings for each point on the five point scale and by combining all agree and disagree responses into two broader categories. While contractors rated the survey question, "The County's bidding and proposing processes are predictable and consistent." as the lowest rated question for the Procurement Services Division with a mean of 3.60, it is interesting to note that 16% disagreed or strongly disagreed while a greater amount of 53% agreed or strongly agreed, with 20% neutral on the subject. So while this question has the lowest rated overall mean, the further examination of the rating frequencies helps in the interpretation of the mean and indicates that a strong percentage of survey respondents (53%) find the bidding and proposing process predictable and consistent. This further analysis provides greater interpretative information and a more complete understanding of contractors' perspectives then by limiting our examination of the results to just the reported mean. Contractors also had the opportunity to expand on their ratings by providing written comments at the end of each section in the survey. In this report there are 30 pages of contractor comments. These comments are best used for providing contextual feedback that can facilitate the interpretation of the survey question results. Contractors were asked to write their top three strengths and weakness. 6 Packet Page-1950- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 For the Procurement Services Division the top three strengths are: • Accessibility/ Responsiveness • Clear Guidelines/ Detailed Information • Staff Professionalism/ Customer Service The top three weaknesses are: • Vendor Selection Process • RFP/RFQ Requirements • Documentation/Amount of Information Requested For the Clerk of Courts the top three reported strengths are: • Payment Process/ACH Payment/ Direct Deposit • Invoicing/ Ease/ E-Mail • Timely Payment The top three weaknesses are: • Payment Delays • Bureaucracy/ Rules-Policies-Procedures • Payment Approval Process Overall, the 2016 Contractor Feedback Survey was a thorough process that provided an in- depth examination of all aspects of contractors' experience with Collier County Government. It is clear from the findings that there are many aspects of the Purchasing Process and the Invoice Audit and Payment Process that the majority contractors who participated in the survey are highly satisfied with. Of course, that does not mean that there is not room for further improvement as the unfulfilled needs and interests of any percentage of contractors who rated a survey question as Disagree or Strongly Disagree will be important for future action planning. Contractor written comments will be used to provide context and greater specificity to aid in interpreting the survey numbers. Good decision-making is directly related to having good information from which to base decisions. The information provided by the contractors through this survey process will allow for more informed decisions to continue to ensure a successful partnership between contract providers and the Collier County. 7 Packet Page-1951- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report I 2016 Contractor Demographics Total returned surveys = 176 1. Business Sector: Actuarial Consulting Advertising 2 Air Conditioning Air Filter Services and Materials Appraisal 2 Architecture Firm 3 Auto repair 3 Bus parts sales and service Chemicals 2 Commercial painting and waterproofing Commodities Construction 20 Consulting 20 Copier/Printer/Fax Sales & Service Courier Dance Class Distributor 2 Electrical 3 Engineering and Construction 2 Engineering and Contracting/Construction Environmental contractor Equipment sales, replacement parts, repair Executive Recruiting Exotic Plant Removal Fencing 2 Filter supplier Fire gear cleaning Fitness Instructor Food 2 Fuel island canopies Fulfillment Services General Contractor 4 8 Packet Page-1952- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Health Care HVAC Company If I reply You will ID my firm Industrial Repair Information Technology Firm Irrigation Janitorial and construction cleaning Land Surveying Low voltage Manufacturer 5 Manufacturing Disinfectant Cleaner Marketing, Advertising, Public Relations, Printing, Digital Marketing, Websites 2 Media equipment Medical claim auditing Message Board Cleaning/Window Cleaning Non-Profit Community Development Corporation Nonprofit organization, grant recipient Odor and corrosion control Services Office Furniture Dealer Painting/Pressure Washing 2 Personal Emergency Response Services Pest Control Plumbing Printing 2 Professional Service 24 Medical supplies Habitat Mitigation for Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Wildlife product vendor Public Outreach Community Involvement (PR) Publishing Pump Manufacturer Representative Real Estate Owner Water analyzers Sanitary Maintenance Security 3 Service 3 Sign Manufacture Social Services agency 9 Packet Page-1953- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Software & services for Backflow Prevention program Solid Waste Supplier 4 Technology services Towing service for Fleet Transportation Underground Utility Uniforms, Embroidery, Screen Printing 2 Utility repairs Water Well, Pumps, Piping, Meters, Electrical Traffic signals, hardware and warning flashers Wellness Instructor 2. Approximate number of years that contractor has worked with Collier County: 0 years 14% (23) 16—20 years...... 11% (19) 1 —5 years.... 28%` (47) 21 -25 years...... 4% (6) 6 — 10 years... 17% (28) 26—30 years...... 8% (13) 11 — 15 years. 13% (22) 31 and above years 5% (9) All Responses 0 years (23) I 11 years (1) 25 years (6) 1 years (14) 12 years (4) 27 years (1) 2 years (12) 13 years (2) 30 years (12) 3 years (6) 14 years (3) 32 years (2) 4 years (5) 15 years (12) 33 years (2) 5 years (10) 16 years (1) 34 years (1) 6 years (6) 17 years (2) 37 years (1) 7 years (6) 18 years (2) 38 years (1) 8 years (2) 19 years (1) 40 years (1) 9 years (3) 20 years (13) 45 years (1) 10 years (11) 23 years (1) 10 Packet Page -1954- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 3. Number of solicitations that your firm submitted in Calendar Year 2015 (1/1/2015 — 12/31/2015): not sure (3) 6 (4) 40 (1) 0 ' (56) 8 (3) 43 (1) 1 (41) 10 (1) 50 (1) 2 (11) 12 (1) 50+ (3) 3 (11) 15 (3) 60 (1) 4 (3) " 24 (1) 62 (1) 5 (6) 25 (3) 285 (1) 4. Number of contract awards that your firm submitted in Calendar Year 2015 (1/1/2015— 12/31/2015): 0 (72) 10 (4) 22 (1) 1 (44) 11 (1) 25 (1) 2 (9) 12 (1) 29 (1) 3 (7) 15 (1) 110 (1) 4 (4) 19 (1) multiple(2) 6 (2) 20 (1) unknown 8 (3) 20 plus 5. Dollar value of Purchase Orders Received from Collier County in Calendar Year 2015 (1/1/2015— 12/31/2015): Unknown . 0% (1) N/A or 0 46% (68) $1 —$1,000 . 3% (5) $1,001 - $10,000 12% (18) $10,001 - $25,000 8% (11) $25,001 - $50,000.......... ... 5% (7) $50,001 - $100,000 8% (11) $100,001 - $250,000............ 3% (5) $250,001 - $500,000 6% (9) $500,001 - $1,000,000.:........ 3% (5) $1,000,001 and above . 5% (7) 11 Packet Page-1955- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 6. Total Dollar Value of Invoices to Collier County for work in Calendar Year 2015 (1/1/2015— 12/31/2015): Unknown 0% (1) N/A or 0.. .......'..:.... ......... 43% (63) $1 -$1,000 2% (3) $1,001 $10,000 16% (23) $10,001 - $25,000 10% (15) $25,001 - $50,000................ 5% (7) $50,001 - $100,000 8% (12) $100,001 - $250,000.....:....:. 2% (3) $250,001 - $500,000 5% (8) $500,001 $1,000,000.......... 4% (6) $1,000,001 and above 5% (7) 7. Business location: Collier County 48% (76) Lee County... 24% (39) Other 28% (45) 12 Packet Page-1956- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 County Procurement Services Division (Purchasing Process) 1. The County's Procurement staff conducts themselves in a professional and ethical manner. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Not Overall Agree Disagree Applicable Mean* 45% 30% 11% 2% 3% 9% 4.20 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 2. The Procurement staff provides accurate responses to my questions. StronglyAgreAgree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Mean*ly Not ! 40% 35% 10% 4% 1% 10% 4.16 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 3. The Procurement staff who dealt with my purchasing questions were courteous and helpful. StronglyreAgree Neutral Disagree Disagree Applicable Applicable Mean*ly Not I 39% 31% 11% 3% 1% 16% 4.19 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 4. The Procurement staff provides timely responses to my telephone and email requests. StronglyAgreAgree Neutral Disagree DisagreeOverall Strongly Applicable Mean* 37% 37% 9% 3% 4% 11% 4.08 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 5. The County's bidding and proposal documents are clear and understandable. Stronglyel Agree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Mealy Not n 27% 32% 19% 9% 5% 8% 3.69 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 13 Packet Page-1957- 7/12/2016 16.F.B. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 6. The County's Invitation to Bid and Request for Proposal solicitation process is open, fair and accessible. StronglyAg�eAgree Neutral Disagree DisagreeOverall Strongly Applicable Mean* 36% 27% 16% 9% 5% 8% 3.85 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 7. The County's bidding and proposing processes are predictable and consistent. StronglyAgreeAgree Neutral Disagree DisaggOverallly Not ee Applicable Mean* 24% 29% 20% 11% 5% 11% 3.60 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 8. The County's Online Bidding System is efficient and easy to use. StronglyAg�eAgree Neutral Disagree DisagreeOverall Strongly Applicable Mean* 23% 29% 16% 9% 4% 20% 3.69 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 9. My Online Bidding questions are responded to in a thorough and timely manner. Strongly ly Agree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Meanly Not * 21% 30% 16% 4% 1% 28% 3.91 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 10. I am provided ample time to submit bids or proposals. StronglyeAgree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Mean* ly Not I 27% 44% 13% 4% 2% 11% 3.99 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 14 Packet Page-1958- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 11. I intend to submit bids or proposals for future work with the County. StronglyStrongly ; Not Overall Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree ' Applicable Mean* 48% 31% 9% 2% 5% 5% 4.18 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 12. I receive responses to my questions regarding purchase orders and contracts in a thorough and timely manner. Strongly Strongly Not Overall Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Applicable Mean* 27% 36% 13% 6% 2% 15% 3.91 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 13. When there are purchasing problems the staff responds in a timely manner. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Not Overall Agree Disagree` Applicable Mean* 24% 31% 16% 4% 1% 23% 3.93 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 14. Overall, I am satisfied with the purchasing process. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Not Overall Agree Disagree Applicable Mean* 26% 35% 18% 9% 6% 6% 3.68 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 15 Packet Page-1959- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Clerk of Courts (Invoice Audit and Payment Process) 15. The payment staff conducts themselves in a professional and ethical manner. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree DisagreeOverallly Not e Applicable Mean* 24% 34% 16% 4% 3% 19% 3.83 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 16. The Payment staff provides accurate responses to my questions. StronglyeAgree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Meanly Not " 21% 27% 19% 5% 5% 23% 3.67 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 17. The Payment staff who dealt with my invoice questions were courteous and helpful. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree' DisagStrongee Applicable Mean* ly Not � 24% 27% 19% 4% 3% 23% 3.80 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 18. The Payment staff provides timely responses to my telephone and email requests. StronglyAgreAgree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Mly Not ean* l 23% 25% 21% 3% 5% 23% 3.73 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 19. The invoice audit and payment process are clear and understandable. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Mean* ly Not I 19% 21% 21% 9% 9% 22% 3.41 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 16 Packet Page-1960- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 20. The invoice submission process is efficient and easy to use. Strongly Strongly Not Agree Neutral DiOverall Disagree Disagree Applicable- Mean* 24% 29% 15% 6% 7% 20% 3.69 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 21. The invoice payment process is predictable and consistent. StronglyAgreStrongly Not Overall Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Applicable Mean* 22% 23% 15% 6% 15% 18% 3.36 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 22. My invoice and payment questions are answered in a thorough and timely manner. StronglyeAgree Neutral Disagree Disaggee Applicable Mean* ly Not I 23% 26% 20% 5% 5% 22% 3.69 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 23. I receive payment for my invoices in an accurate and timely manner. Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Not Overall Agree Disagree Applicable Mean* 20% 24% 16% 10% 10% 20% 3.39 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 24. My invoice payments are processed per terms of the purchase contract. StronglyreAgree Neutral Disagree Disagree ApplStrongly icable Mean*ot 20% 29% 15% 6% 9% 20% 3.55 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 17 Packet Page-1961- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 25. My credit memos are processed in a timely manner. StronglyeAgree Neutral Disagree Disaggee ` Applicable Meanly Not * 10% 12% 18% 2% 3% 55% 3.53 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 26. When there are invoice and payment problems the staff responds in a timely manner. StronglyAgreAgree Neutral Disagree' DisagreeOverall Strongly Applicable Mean* 19% 22% 19% 8% 4% 28% 3.59 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 27. Overall, I am satisfied with the invoice and payment process. StronglyAgreAgree Neutral Disagree DisagreeOverall Strongly Applicable Mean* 21% 22% 18% 7% 11% 21% 3.42 * The mean is the statistical average score where 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree 18 Packet Page -1962- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Written Comments: Purchasing Process Identify the,top threepurchasing strengths that make it easy for contractors to work in Collier County. 1. Accessibility/Responsiveness Accessibility of these individuals Accessible Accessible bid postings Can always call and talk to someone Contacts avail Easily accessible Easy access Fast acting If cannot reach live person, receive response in timely manner Proper addressment of Problems by Staff Punctuality Purchasing Dept. is accessible to answer questions and to work with Questions are answered immediately by County Purchasing Dept. Staff. Quick Response Quick response Quick to respond Rapid info dissemination Response to questions Responses Responsive Responsiveness to requests and follow up. Schedules kept Scheduling Staff is easy to reach and accessible. Staff responds in a timely manner Staff responds with thorough answers They try to find solutions. Thorough explanations/discussion Timely response time to questions Timely Responses Timely responses ` Clear uidelines/Detailed Information Accurate Description of needs 19 Packet Page -1963- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Accurate Information Accurate information, all details included Allowable time to complete Bid documents in order Clarity of RFP Clarity of RFP documents Clear Concise Scope Documents Clear contract start dates Clear expectations Clear guidelines Clear requirements and specifications stated on bid Excellent notification Explain of facts Instructions are clear Instructions are clear Keeping all vendors informed about addendums Opportunities are properly noticed Part numbers where applicable PO's are clear and easy to follow PO's are specific to parts needed. Prices are set Procedures are well known Procurement processes user-friendly& clear RFPs are clear Same procedures System is easy to use Terms and Conditions self-explanatory The bidding documents are clear& understandable The County's bidding and proposing processes are predictable and consistent Thorough information distribution +'"?+^`t rsionai t 'st yj e1 ervi a" x m Ability to work directly with user departments Above board Courteous Everyone's friendly Excellent staff Friendly and efficient staff Friendly and Knowledgeable Good customer service Good customer services Great Staff 20 Packet Page -1964- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Personalities of purchasing agents Pleasant Product knowledges (to ensure apples to apples vs. apples to oranges) Professional people Professionalism Professionalism of purchasing staff. Professionality and Help of Staff Purchasing department understands the needs of the county and the contractor Purchasing Dept. staff is very knowledgeable and helpful. Purchasing Staff, most especially Ms. Brenda Brilhart Qualified project managers Staff The people are nice and friendly in Purchasing The staff is very nice and easy to work with. The willingness to learn They are proactive,try not to spring any surprises. Trustworthy Understanding Willingness to understand vendors concern 4. Ease of Bidding/ On-line Bidding Ease Ease of Bidding Ease of bidding Ease of doing business Ease of Use compared to other municipalities Easy to bid Easy to bid and work with Efficient On line bid process On line bidding On line system On line system On solicitation On-line bid Online bid management system is convenient Online bid system Online Bidding Online Bidding Online Bidding On-line bidding Online bidding is great 21 Packet Page-1965- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 12016 Online submission Online system is fairly easy Online system notifies us of new opportunities in a timely fashion Simplify the RFP format Single portal access 5. Communication Ability to discuss issues via phone with follow up email verifications Answering questions on line Communication Communication is great Constant communication notifying vendors of available bids or RFP's Direct contact with purchaser Ease of communication Ease of correspondence with staff Email Notifications Email notifications Feedback communication Good communication Good communication Great emailing Notification of requests Notifications Notifications and communication PO#are issued via email Published Bid results Speed of communication Use of electronic delivery as much as possible. Written responses �rn� ^r_ c rP x [ -. • airrness/ nspac k 4-4,... .?;SNP s ce, ...,:.;$$.x§'-_?w.. ,cw.",...>a:'...�f..'.k;r�.'<3F a,Z-11 Consistent Fair Fair fair Fair and honest treatment Generally open and transparent process Open Open process Reasonable amount of time from RFP release to deadline Seamless process between guides and decision makers The County's Invitation to Bid and Request for Proposal solicitation process is open, fair and accessible 22 Packet Page-1966- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report '12016 7. Knovuledgeable Staff Job Supervisors Knowledge Knowledge of personnel Knowledge of the team Knowledgeable people Knowledgeable people Knowledgeable staff 8. Award Process Contract award County Preference.Allowing us a price buffer to remain competitive. Local Bidder's Preference Receiving bids Timely award notification Timely notification Timely process 9 Website Ease of of use website Easy Website Good website Procurement Website Vendor Website is easy to use. 'O T9,ther/Cehch 'All si n � Ahead of time Continuing services agreements for smaller projects Easy PO and invoice submittal process Good amount of funds Have all licenses and insurance up to date Invoice/ PO simple Lots of opportunity Lots of work to give out Organization Plan holders list Repetitive work Submitted bid Substantial amount of work Timeliness work with the same people 23 Packet Page -1967- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Identify the top three purchasing weaknesses that make it difficult for contractors to work in Collier County. 1. Vendor Selection Process Award information not distributed resulting in no bid protest starting point. Apparent low bidder at bid opening is by no means awardee. Website not updated to show this, letters not sent out to other bidders. Awarding process very different than other governmental institutions we've worked with Bid process for Special Magistrate seemed designed to greatly favor only local and returning local contractors. Bid process seemed biased toward local contractors (only) to be awarded Special Magistrate positions. Location bias is not supposed to exist. Collier County need more transportation funded project in order to spread the work within consultants. Collier purchasing agents will not set up meetings with contractors to make sure they are competent Collusion between city council and equipment vendors County working with other contractors in the past and have no advantage Departments set evaluators vs procurement so they stack the deck with who they want and even tell them how to vote Evaluation process seems arbitrary Influence from outside sources Need more opportunity for business-too long of contracts Need to request for bids for security more often One-sided non judicial protest system whereby evidence can be disregarded at the whim of city council in favor of a favorite vendor or consultant despite blatant evidence that the city is in the wrong Policy of always picking the lowest bid? Preference for Lee and Collier County contractors, especially for a small firm such as ours Require too much experience, leaves out smaller firms who can't qualify Seems exclusive to some vendors Selection committee should be primarily from the department seeking the services Selection weight to Lee (vs. Collier-based businesses) Single source suppliers Sole Source Provider Specifications written to exclude competition 24 Packet Page -1968- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1 2016 Strong preference for local firms System has been manipulated by sub/facilities to not put items out to bid, wether its an $8,000 contract or a $100,000 contract per year The county engineer are corrupt and working for one company Transparency with selection committee(s) Unfair bidding and evaluation process Using out of area contractors from Sarasota and Miami Weight of immediate location to site(s)within the County of a business You treat all vendors the same and we are not the same 2. RFP/RFQ Requirements All the notarized forms! Bid renewal process Bid renewal process Complicated RFPS Failure to use industry standard forms - Contracts Hard to understand some of the templates. Some jobs are not as cut and dry as the templates would like them to be so pricing is inaccurate. Inability to forecast exact or near exact requirements ITB Templates are, on occasion, inconsistent and provide contradictory information Lack of provider input in bid structure No Insurance Plans are not concise Proposed opportunities should be identified earlier through a CIP like most other counties and municipalities Rebidding the same job the next year RFP and RFQ requirements that are arbitrary to the scope of the services or projects Soliciting bids for budget Some of RFP text does not apply(seems construction related) Sometimes too worried about the bidding process Tie breaker clause in RFP process Traffic Signal Equipment must be on Florida APL Unclear bid/messy bid 25 Packet Page-1969- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Understanding bid requests Unknown what will be reviewed at each request RFP document development RFP shortlisting 3. Documentation/Amount of IrformationRequested A lot of changes to the RFP after advertisement Amount of information requested is sometimes overdone compared to other entities; i.e. Lee County only requires a 5-8 page letter of interest Amount of paperwork Bid process for Special Magistrates was very time consuming in comparison to any of the other 6 counties I work in. Bidding formula Clarity and completeness of solicitations Confusing Documentation Lack of capabilities for required projects License requirements Over-permitted procedures Specs not current The amount of required paperwork for submission Time consuming Too many items covered in one bid proposal Unclear instructions Unspecified need of proper purchase order Vendor sign up a bit time consuming '�u 7'r i 5 Y fit �� > -MaucraCyJ Riles-Policle '�rocedui; r t r r r a c .�' s :t X.rr° '� .«.r F ��...w.`F.�: .sb,`K.wt 1£_5xc,.t?mtt.0 _,ka,bf�i,t s.x.,.,.aU S n.. 9 'ti�M.x. ..,. �� Background checks on all employees makes it difficult to work for the county Bureaucracy Decision delay Go through the expense to bid a project,just to have it pulled before bid is due. This is a VERY costly expense Lack of coordination with some project managers in scope vs services Policies constantly change 26 Packet Page -1970- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 1. 2016 Politics Politics Politics Politics Pressure from internal/county interests Submittal of Certificates of Insurance to multiple departments Too many layers (people) to initiate,complete an order Too Much Red Tape Too muchred tape When you have an issue with one vendor, all are punished Willing to bend to politics and not be impartial 5. ' Communication Avoiding to respond to issues Bids not published well enough Canceled informational meetings I don't always receive notification of new bids Lack of communication between sub-facilities - purchasing Lack of timely response Little/no communication ongoing Need to clearly post job description No correspondence about advertising percentage and awarding of the contract No notification of bids Phone messages ignored. Serious lack of communication ;rr�mDelays Length of time between quote and PO. Cost of goods fluctuates so we have to account for possible higher margins. Long time lag in receiving responses Purchase decision time can be slow Purchase orders not sent timely Reasonable amount of time to respond Short time frame for preparing proposals Timeframe for response Whole process takes too long 27 Packet Page-1971- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 7. Inconsistencies Don't understand their own contracts Inconsistency in dealing with lump sum contracts, where time and material requirements are applied (i.e. instead of% completion, require hours of individuals). Inconsistencies in procurement approaches Inconsistency with required documents to be submitted Inconsistent rules/processes 8. Department/ Staff Lack of ethical integrity Lack of knowledge of staff Purchasing agents dealing with their bosses Understaffed or staff seems to not be knowledgeable about issues/questions. Staff who don't do adequate research before responding Other/ Gatch-All Awareness of establishments in-house abilities Concentration of different services in one single company Conflicts of interest Contact could not directly order sole source product Distance Exact quantities. We have price breaks setup for most efficient running/least waste. A price per pc anal sis would be helpful. Flexibility in macro needs Grant process Identification of macro measurement Mobilization costs More opportunities would be great Multiple locations None encountered: Fair practices and operates with open &fair competition. None encountered: Knowledgeable and professional staff. None encountered: The county takes into account the value of goods & services offered. Not being in business as long 28 Packet Page -1972- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Understanding my business Unfulfilled project purchase amounts We have not experienced weakness that is in their control Website 29 Packet Page-1973- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Identify the greatest challenge that your company has with the purchasing process. 1_ Vendor SelectionProcess As a small firm with 36 years of experience, we can't qualify because of competing with large firms who have more current experience or larger number of current projects Being able to compete with existing contractors that have been in business for longer. Changing purchasing to one supplier Collier has a soiled reputation for fair and equitable procurement. In our case, we were the low bidder and scored as well, or better, than the incumbent, but somehow staff found out about in and called the incumbent into the office and they colluded to avoid the oral presentation portion of the RFP and awarded the contract to the incumbent. Collier not considering why bids are higher than others Competition is good, however sometimes we feel that we cannot compete because bids favor local firms, understand but sometimes need to check outside your boundaries. Currently, RFP with Ferguson Waterworks excludes other suppliers from selling capital improvement projects. Not being objective, fair and following process, if not law. Overcoming the strong preference for local firms. Some counties in Florida do not have a local preference. Reciprocity for small business Seems to be a closed door. As such, we've had to perform work through others via subcontractor(to short-listed/approved design firms) Specifications are written specifically to exclude all but a small handful of equipment vendors and manufacturers. As a vertically integrated process equipment OEM, Engineering firm, and Utility/General Contractor, this eliminates the main advantage that our company has, and this is not fair. Specifications are necessary to establish a level of quality, but when they are written in such a way that they eliminate the competition of the same quality, this is the county or city picking favorites and playing political games. In addition,this reduces competition and costs the tax payers more money by eliminating bidders that may be able to do the job cheaper and more efficiently 30 Packet Page-1974- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 The bid contract for Special Magistrates was detailed to the point that it would take an entire day of work to fill out (compared to about an hour for any other county I work in; 6 of them), and seemed designed such that after all that work, the contractor is "self removing"themselves from consideration by not being local. there is not supposed to be hiring bias toward local Magistrates. The greatest challenge we had was that the scoring was inconsistent with the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. We have reviewed bids that we are highly interested in. Our prices would be significantly lower than the winning bid, as the contractor for the winning bid is a 3rd party purchaser for the products the county buys. We are a direct dealer. We have not been able to bid even though we have massive support from throughout the county because of the auto-renewal process. We've been informed that procurement would contact the purchasers for each department and say "Do you have any problems with your current vendors?" if no, the contract is renewed. I do not believe that is thorough enough for review. Especially for a contract that has been held and renewed for years. Another troubling aspect is that particular vendor does not do the work in-house. It is subcontracted, therefore, they are not even in control of the turnaround times promised in the contract. You choose single source suppliers .2 Bureaucracy/Rules-Policies-Procedures Awarded a contract. Was subsequently pulled out from under us because of intra- Collier County political end fighting. I will never bid on a Collier County contract again! County personnel (not finance) trying to use expired contract Difference between RFP and actual service, no good opportunity to discuss and change the RFP vs. what's proposed/what hired for. Getting copies of the purchase orders after the bid has been awarded to my company I am register to receive invitations to bid and had never receive any. Identifying opportunities in advance of the RFQ or RFP advertisement to have time to do a better job researching the issues so we can submit a better response In general, participating in many Bids requires proactivity, coordination and productive time efficiency and working knowledge of the Agency's typical requirements. Contract Management has been streamlined and uneventful. The Purchasing website is well laid out, functionally easy and nicely designed. There are no notable challenges that lay outside of our Company's Bidding/Contracts process(es) that rests with Collier County. 31 Packet Page-1975- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Knowing the expected timeframe for a given project in Collier County's expectations Low volume of work assignments on which to bid. Narrow definitions of charges for work. Only at the end, trying to find out if a decision was made and where to go to see results posted. It sometimes goes way past the date indicated in the RFP. Process is very easy. See comments below regarding consistency of requested files. The County on whole breaks so many State and County statutes and violates its contracts that it is a very frustrating and risky endeavor working with Collier County. Complaints fall on deaf ears. One wonders how large ($) a mistake the County will defend and how much it will cost contractor. The County is in grave need of some construction lawyers to make sure they are following law and contracts. It would be to the contractors benefit because there is no convincing people with their minds made - despite it being written in law or the contracts. The only thing that has changed from previous years, is that we have to submit and bid for every purchase made. Before we had a blanket PO and parts could be ordered immediately. This is not a problem for us, but at times it can be difficult for the County staff to get a PO before the parts can be ordered.Underground utilities is a little different than normal material purchased,due to the unknowns of what may be below the ground. The process and rules constantly change and the staff all have different rules. .� 'FP«IR; 'Q,.g { e...wq,uYe,<sif.tr"emen,tktzs!Tem7,plat.?aesz...aJtanya..,..,, .t �. The online bidding process was a little difficult to figure out. Because there was no method to insure that the bid was properly received, we also filed a manual version. Perhaps an online tutorial? Accessing the RFP is too difficult and is designed for vendors providing tangible services. Being a bank we find many of the questions and requirements just don't apply to us. Fitting our most efficient production methods with how the county wants to purchase. RFP/ RFQ preparation cost and time requirements in reply to solicitations. The way the electrical bid was structured was a challenge and evidently I didn't understand the format. Many items were not well defined or were repeated and asking for a discount rather than a net price makes it a challenge to evaluate "winner". Understanding it 32 Packet Page-1976- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 When there is an issue with the equipment a lot of times it's not an easy quote. In many instances it's a domino effect and the technician(s) cannot see the extent of the problem/issue until we start the repair process. Therefore, making it difficult to quote. You don't bid work in my sector, even though there is work being done throughout the year. 4. Level of Information Requested Get all necessary licenses and permits Identification of macro measurement Interpretation of procurement laws/rules. Providing the large amount of information requested. The large amount of paper work required for Grant process is the only difficult part Time Consumption. Providing so many quotes for repetitive items to multiple departments has proven extremely time consuming. RFQ's tend to come in in large quantities very close together and it is difficult to furnish them all timely and accurately while maintaining a profit margin. Working through differences between what is needed for purchasing and what the clerk believes is needed. communication` Dealing with concerned departments Getting a response to emails takes too long or not at all. Not aware of upcoming projects and the nature of the proposals with sufficient time to respond in a considered and thoughtful manner, but County takes a long time reaching decisions. Staff who don't do adequate research before responding bels,/Time Isuas .... A.. '. ... .. i.,._ '. ..re. ..... ♦ w..0 .r..5-.. Being given a reasonable amount of time to reply. Delays because other vendors do not always supply competitive quotes, which delays the project/ process. We are an advertising agency,specializing in media planning and buying. It would be mutually beneficial if the approval process would happen faster. 33 Packet Page-1977- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 8. Other/Catch-All Bids on everything Bonds Finding a need for security or private investigations Gaining the confidence of the staff to allow us to do more work Getting those that need to know just what it is that Modern Auto Air does. I do not use the online Bidding Very Much Most bids are supply and install, we are a sign manufacture for 54 years and only manufacture the signs not install. Need more funded transportation design projects. None to identify-very satisfied None. I have always had a very pleasant experience working with Collier County. Unfair 34 Packet Page-1978- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report " 2016 Provide additionalcomments or suggestions to help improve the purchasing process for contractors: Allow for vendors whom have provided items to Collier to still be included in purchase bidding and not sole source to one major vendor Allow low bid contractors to choose the low bid supplier for capital improvement projects. Collier County is currently paying more for materials! Allow us to issue Not To Exceed quotes. Appraisal review dept. is very professional Better communication of grant RFPs that are coming down the pike and the nature of the projects even though they are not official. Bidding formula is not accurate Blanket PO for small items required. CBM provides services that do not fit neatly into current categories and therefore opportunities are not present. Purchasing cannot procure that which the county has not been exposed to or offered. The mechanism to display, demonstrate, and or describe our services does not seem to exist. Collier Co. has been very easy to work with and we appreciate the thoughtfulness of structures, tools, and processes. Thank you! Collier County has in place a very user friendly procurement system.The staff is very knowledgeable of the system and provides immediate response when questions are asked or when requesting information. Consider 5-8 page letters of interest, like Lee County, etc. This saves everyone time and money. Continue to be fair Do diligence and bid out work under"US communities" to see if you are in fact getting beast pricing Do not have enough experience with Collier County to offer any opinions. Everyone on the review panel should be familiar with the RFP and what is requested of the proposers and base scores accordingly. Also, private ballots would make the process more comfortable for the evaluators and the proposers. Get an opportunity to explain our services, one on one, with those that are in charge of the County's fleet of vehicles. Give the small firms with just as much overall experience, employee tenure of 20-36 years with the company and experience on the type projects being advertised. Government requirements bog the system down. Not specific to Collier County. How can I register again or be able to see the jobs or bids in collier county. Thanks I believe before a renewal, each department should be required to at least contact local competitors to see if they would be interested in bidding. We have a lot to offer, and we've been locked out of bidding for years because of the renewal process. We can save the county thousands and thousands in uniforms. We have the experience because we actually supplied the services for the winning contract for years, it was our only way to get a piece of the action. Please consider the renewal process, it's unfair to other local business and taxpayers if money can be saved. I have just recently been receiving opportunities to provide bids, so I cannot offer much in the way of feedback at this time. 35 Packet Page-1979- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 I think it would be very beneficial for the purchasing administrators to take into consideration that all businesses/contractors are not the same. I would suggest having a blanket PO in place for emergency parts. Implore the staff to respond in a reasonable time and understand their processes. It has always been a pleasure working with Collier County fast turnaround on questions, submittals and payments Less bureaucratic tape Love your online bidding system!! Make payments lump sum with an option for time and materials. Seems Collier should care about the bottom line costs and not so much in the business operations of your vendors. Make it simple. Need more clarity of what types of projects are preapproved by the clerk and which are not.We need the knowledge of what jobs will have their validity be questioned after work is done. Not only did they make the award, they didn't contact any of the bidders until after the process was closed, even with multiple attempts to get information, so closed, it was outside the protest period. They claimed notification "must have been lost in email" but the bid is closed and not eligible for protest. Once a firm has been identified as a preferred vendor, they should not have to keep notarizing forms to verify who we are. Once bid awarded using email address provided at bid submission send out purchase order documents Perhaps have a streamlined purchasing procedure for one time or event driven needs. Please use an application form similar to Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Lee Counties...or any other west coast of Florida County. The process should not be biased or unusually burdensome. Provide us with more opportunities to bid Purchasing can't cave to politics and has to stand alone, enacting fair and equitable procurement. Services must be split according the nature of the company bidder Should not be available to vendors outside Collier County if the service is available within Collier County. Some of the requested paperwork that is required to be awarded for the contract was excessive and not appropriate. It took me several hours just to complete the required paperwork to submit the bid for a contract not exceeding 5,000 dollars. I can truly understand why people do not want to conduct business with Collier County Government. Staff are always professional and willing to help; a pleasure to work with! Thanks for checking via this survey The County needs to understand the difference between lump sum and time and materials. Lump sum payments are often more efficient because there is less administrative time counting how many photos copies were made or other minutia. When you have engineers billing $150+/hour and accountants at the same rate spending two hours to figure out the details of a $15 invoice it's a complete waste of time and money. The lump sum method also reduces risk to the County and essentially puts it on the contractor. 36 Packet Page-1980- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 The RFPs we have received from solid waste are clear and simple. Other departments seem to be much more complicated The specific files that are required to be uploaded are inconsistent from bid to bid. For example, one bid may request one file for the bid files and a second file for the Excel bid schedule. The next bid may want the e-verify form submitted as a separate file or the addendums all uploaded as separate files. The inconsistency causes extra work preparing the bid docs. If you always wanted the bid forms all scanned in as one file and the bid schedule as a second file, or whatever you need separated the same for each bid it would help a lot. Sometime the bid bond needs to be separate as another example. This one is a little difficult to explain, but I will try. On this bid,we were asked to file our bid electronically,which we did. Other bidders did not. For anyone with an account and password, our bid was visible from the day after the bid closed until at least yesterday, While none could change their bid after it was filed, if gave our competitors access to our bid prices, while we had no access to theirs. This fact becomes important if another entity posts an ITB. Our competition knows what we bid for your project and can use that information in crafting their bids for other projects. Because we filed as you asked, we don't have the same information available. As I explained to Ms. Colon and Mr. Johnson, it would be fair to all if all the bids were posted while the evaluation process was completed. Barring that,don't post any bids until all of the bids were vetted. Use local contractors and try paying them. We love the opportunity to earn the county's business. Vendor local preference is very much appreciated. The online system codes need a little adjustment for quite a few products in order to get the correct supplier. (Ex, uniforms is broad and could be embroidery/screen printing both but not necessarily commercial laundering. Signs can be better broken down between large road and street signs and poster board/ coroplast signs). We work primarily with Human Resources, and as a byproduct, with Purchasing. All of our contacts and interactions have been professional, proactive and positive 37 Packet Page-1981- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Reports 2016 Written Comments: Invoice Audit and Payment Process Identify the top three invoice and payment strengths that make it easy for contractors to work in Collier County. 1. Payment"Process/ACH Payment/ Direct Deposit ACH Payment ACH payment ACH payment direct to our checking acct. ACH Payment funding Applicable invoice #5 are included with payment Assured payment Direct deposit Email to notify of payment Invoices are paid in a timely manner invoices are paid in a timely manner Invoices are paid in a timely manner Invoices are paid on time On time payment Payment process is straightforward and simple Payment processing Payment process user-friendly&well-organized Payments by direct deposit Payout process simple/easy Pays within terms , � icingg/ Ea er ail -s,�x 9 d 7 ) .*.�, �TM a„s,. ent .-�w Able to submit invoices directly to finance Billing Easy invoice submission Easy to submit for payment Email invoices Email invoicing Emailing of invoices to clerk and user I can submit by email, which is quick Invoice submittal by email Invoice/PO simple Invoices are easy to submit Invoicing Online submission 38 Packet Page -1982- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report :r 2016 Submission by email to clerk Submission is easy 3. Timely Payment Being paid faster Prompt Payment Prompt Payment Prompt payment Quick Pay Quick payment Quick payouts Quick. Relatively quick payments Timely pay Timely payment Timely payments Timely payments Timely responses and payment when in their control We are paid in 30 days. 4. Staff Always h y have an available contact County employees are very helpful Courteous personnel Courteous staff Courteous staff Efficient Staff Friendly people Friendly staff Knowledgeable Staff People People are usually friendly enough Same procedure every time Staff Staff is customer/contractor friendly Customerservice , ; Always receive responses in timely&professional manner Anytime I have questions or issues, the staff is very helpful in resolving. Easy communication Easy to call for questions Follow-up emails for ACH submissions are very helpful. Helpful 39 Packet Page -1983- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 I was able to explain how a delay was not my fault and we got money wired immediate) People to direct questions to are set Professionalism and Help of Staff Proper addressment of Problems by Staff 6. Forms/Paper Work Defined process Easy process to use& interface with Forms Paperwork is Clear Simple processes Simple. 7. ".Other/Catch-All ' Accurate Efficient Fill out Invoices according to your Contract Know what to expect and when Purchasing Card Respect the terms There are not any I can cite. This questions do not apply to RK&K. No Work Awarded to our firm yet. We don't have enough experience to comment 40 Packet Page-1984- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Identify the top three invoice and payment weaknesses that make it difficult for contractors to work in Collier County. 1. Payment Delays Delays in paying invoices Do not respond in a timely manner to purchasing problems thus creating financial hardship Extremely long time frame for reimbursement is a financial burden on small nonprofits without any measure of certainty that reimbursement will take place Getting paid in a timely fashion Long delays of payment Long time until check received Need to process payments per state prompt pay law Not being paid on time Not Timely in payment Payment delays Payment in a timely manner Payment is slow Payments are rarely on time Payments should NOT be held until the last day the law requires the County to pay. Whoever made this policy should be fired immediately. Prompt payments — long time ago (20 years) it was 14 days Quicker payment Slow Sometimes have to wait for restrictions to clear Takes long time to pay contractor (more than any other county I've worked for) Takes too long. Time needed to clarify matters for staff Time to process payments Unknown time frame of payment Burraucracy1 Rules`Polic»s Procedures Before the solicitation the validity of the work needs to be determined by the clerk not after work is completed Does not honor lump sum contracts Having to deal with the clerk on every line item of each order Invoice back up submittal requirements have been a moving target Many times it takes longer to do the paper work Multiple revisions / invoice rejections Not knowing where invoice is in the payment process Over the top requirements Payment terms not clear 41 Packet Page-1985- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Red tape with payment Reformatting requests not clear during contract process (i.e., example provided) Requirement that invoice has to be exact as PO Rules are a moving target and seem arbitrary Should be bi-weekly rather than monthly terms The accounting department is unrealistic and archaic on the,invoice process. They quote federal guidelines, but then don't change when the fed guidelines attempt to make thin's easier. The backup requirements The CoC office seems always to need more data and back up for no real benefit and confirmation Told to follow federal regulations, but the County imposes additional and unknown burdens that are not re.uired b federal re•ulations 3. Payment Approval Process =. Adding unknown costs to final invoice ( i.e. freight ) Assumed "upcharge" being incorporated into bids that our Firm has reviewed; corn•lete frustration over wasted time/mone from tax.a er point of view Fear of not getting paid Fear of not getting paid because of the clerk's office Forensic audits Horrible payment cycle I had to learn that I was not going to be paid in a timely fashion by watching the nightly news If any person in the Clerk's office is anything but happy or indifferent about a vendor settin. paid as soon as possible the should be terminated immediatel ! Not honoring purchase by client Not paying the bill Payment from the clerk refusal by COC to pay (i.e., obscure reasons provided) They don't pay They don't pay Approval process Approval process for payment ' `r ti6r en�.S X1 F • . rm!�?, 1{XN of ..._...,.�! } eX tk� _ f�.v.. . .„ .l. r:•• � s s..., .. u+h r v. n:... r.U� � s s s f .. ,. .�a.. Aa x L Being used as a tool for the Clerk of Court or Finance Clerk of Court Clerk of Court Dwight Brock Dwight Brock Dwight Brock Everyone is so afraid of the clerk of courts that the process can get bogged down Staff need to do more homework in accts receivable 42 Packet Page-1986- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 The Clerk employees don't know what they want it's always something different therefore sendin• the invoice back three and four times They don't care that we are not paid Too many people involved Unhelpful staff 5. Inconsistencies Consistency on billing terms Constantly changing requirements Finance inconsistency Lack of consistency Inconsistency inconsistency in request forms/process between departments Inconsistency with processing payments/reviewing invoices Inconsistent policies Inconsistent procedures 6. Communication Changes get communicated late and impact payment processing Communication between sub -facilities - purchasing Communication on revisions needed usually comes well after payment due dates Employees were told not to respond to our emails or phone calls by the Clerk of Courts hi•her u•s. First invoice questions not addressed promptly Non-responsive to phone & email requests 7. Billing Process 'z Billing process _ ,,.. Billing Process � . "Other/"Catch-All,, During hiring process, no contract/pay'ment -despite vendor process Finding vendors who will work under the county payment terms and background checks Internal County disputes are NOT a vendor's (with a valid contract) problem. Issues beyond their control that impact contractors No complaint No contract/payment means there can be a difference in services hired vs. provided/invoiced. None None encountered. Payment Delays caused by dispute between Dwight Brock and C.C. Commissioners They blame Purchasing, but don't pay us We don't have enough experience to comment 43 Packet Page -1987- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report § 2016 Identify the greatest challenge that your company has with the invoice audit and payment process. 1. 'Payment Approval Process Fear of not getting paid Finishing work, invoicing and then the clerk changes the rules of engagement and refusing payment Getting paid Getting paid for issued work orders and NTP's Getting Paid is difficult, as well as competing with out of town contractors who undercut the price. Getting paid within a reasonable amount of time In general, the Payment process is streamlined and understandable. There are no notable challenges from interfacing with the system in place or staff involved. Last January when we did not get Paid for 2 Months On time payments. Over the last few years payments have not been made in a timely manner Payment delays Purchases being denied payment Refusal of payment Submitting requested information. The department tends to not have invoices when they get submitted multiple times and methods leading to months of delays in payment processing. The prospect of not getting paid.We haven't had a problem on a direct invoice to the county but we have had problem getting paid as a subcontractor because of the problems. The time it takes for reimbursements to be issued is so long that the parties we do business with to complete contracts are unwilling to work with us. We are unable to float the amount of money necessary to pay in advance to our subcontractors. The possibility of not being reimbursed when we have followed all federal regulations and 44 Packet Page-1988- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 being stuck with the expenses could potentially put our small nonprofit out of business. This discourages us from applying for any funding. This section is not applicable to my area. However, the finance department informs me that Collier County is up to date relative to any payments owed. Timely payments so we can keep our sub paid and the projects moving forward. We cannot get paid. Clerk blames them, they blame the Clerk, and we are left holding the bag. We have entered into lump sum payments and then been asked to provide detail and backup as if it were a time and materials task which defeats the purpose of having a lump sum payment. 2. Bureaucracy/Rules-Policies-Procedures Initially, the payment process was easy to follow. We provided proof that we were licensed and insured and we turned in our time sheets for payment as fitness instructors. Then, three years ago the process changed and I have had four different times where payment was withheld because of processes that were truly not applicable to fitness instructors. In these times, only once did anybody reach out to me to help me resolve the issue.`All the other times, I was left to flounder. Our fitness manager had to go back and forth with accounting until we were finally paid. Billing process is complicated and very time consuming Billing processes are complicated Changes to PO's for existing vendors and the re-work of invoices that has to happen due to it (payment slows down) Collecting some of the information (meter reads) needed to prepare invoices in a timely manner In irrigation, many pvc fittings are used. Accounting for each and every pipe fitting adds another employee to the task, thus losing the job Invoicing, the process is not practical and is too time consuming. Each invoice is like an audit. Providing the "over the top" requirements for reimbursement Time it takes to submit an invoice 'Inconsistencies At Times each department may have a different process which is confusing 45 Packet Page -1989- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report l 2016 Constant changing of requirements Getting it right the first time even after submitting exactly as previous submission Lack of consistency makes it difficult to submit the invoice correctly so that it is approved. On some occasions the finance dept. will wait 30 days to reject an invoice so then you have resubmit and wait an additional 30 days for payment. It is not uncommon to be paid in excess of 90 days from date of original invoice submittal. Working through differences between what is needed for purchasing and what the clerk believes is needed Inconsistency. County never follows laws or contracts. Punishment for breaking laws or violating contracts is not near steep enough. Contractor has to act as a bank for at least 6 weeks in the best case, with Collier County it is even longer. This is unacceptable. The fact that someone in the County thinks this is fine is mind- boggling. . Department/Staff Acknowledgement of receiving eceiving invoices would be helpful. Sometimes I am unsure if someone has received my invoice and I don't want to bombard them with phone calls. Clerk of Courts will not pay invoices that should be paid. Purchasing is fine, the Clerk (Dwight Brock) is the problem. Different people are working under different payment guidelines. Should be consistent within your entire Accounts Payable Department Dwight Brock Y Y County deciding to arbitrarily rescind past payments and ask for return of money, simply because it could, while fully admitting to being arbitrary and using the process to benefit the County, regardless of being right or legitimate. Dept.runs off too often on its own instead of staying in sync with county leadership No contract/agreement in place. No issues None None to identify- if we have a concern,such as a missing payment,we call or email and it is handled efficiently and promptly 46 Packet Page-1990- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Overall we are extremely satisfy with the interaction with Collier County procurement staff. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the Contract Administration and Purchasing Department staff. The county has been good, it's difficult dealing with a Grant. Unreasonable. We have no complaints We have no issues with any of these. 47 Packet Page -1991- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Provide any additional comments or suggestions to help improve the payment process for contractors: A couple of my clients do direct deposits to my bank accounts. It really does not matter to me but it is something you could look into. Acquire some ethics. Allow us to invoice under the new federal guidelines, and not have to submit every invoice and every time sheet. always a pleasure working with Collier County and its employees Apply logic and reasonableness to process Consistent finance policies Cooperation of BCC/COC to streamline payment vs. political wrangling; provided examples of invoice breakdown requests at time of contract negotiation/execution Cut the politics and process the payments as approved by County staff. distance the clerk from the process Give us a chance to submit so we may evaluate your system Hire a lawyer to read and interpret the Counties own laws and State laws and individual contracts for the County. It would actually help the contractor. We follow laws and contracts and when violations of them fall on deaf ears our whole method of operation (following laws and contracts) is thrown into a whirlwind. Also quit making the men and women out in the hot Florida sun the victims of your petty, greedy, control-freakish nonsense. Fire those responsible for this. It would be helpful when a wire transfer is completed if we got an email to alert us to the transfer It's not broken, don't fix it! :-) No complaints. Make a "clear separation" apparent between purchasing/COC (i.e., our Firm waited 3 months for payment summer 2015) Open-Ended Response Pay your bills Pay your bills 48 Packet Page -1992- 7/12/2016 16.F.8. Contractor Feedback Survey Final Report 2016 Payments from Collier County are handled by another individual in my firm therefore I am unable to answer these questions Payments made faster. Service is performed, we should be paid. Payments should be made per the contract and state law Quit spending taxpayer money on disputes between Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock and Commissioners do something that will be beneficial to the taxpayers Tell the Clerk to pay the bills The experiences of other nonprofits in Collier County discourages us from applying for funding through Collier County. The burden on staff time can cost nearly as much as the contract and no overhead costs are included in the contract in many cases.This means we are not assisting the community and risks us losing federal funds to the County. The problem is the payment process is a moving target. Right when you think you have it down the requirements change. The system currently in place works well for us There was no communication on the awarding and what was agreed to. This has made it very difficult to work for the county. This section is not applicable to my area. Training! We have no complaints Why do you only ask about the County staffs behavior? My problems came from the political end fighting of elected officials Would love to work directly for county 49 Packet Page -1993-