Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT. Are states effectively managing contracting and procurement activities? Are they striking the right balance between central administrative control and empowerment through delegation? How effective is training and monitoring? How do these practices compare to the principles of best practice? What role will information technology play in the future for procurement and contracting? As part of the Government Performance Project, budget, procurement, and contracting managers in 48 states were surveyed, providing descriptions of their procurement and contracting practices. There are numerous developments that speak to the practical details of contemporary public management. Five key findings are (1) information technology needs are challenging states, with some responding well, but others struggling, (2) in most states staff training needs to be improved, (3) restrictions prohibiting "best value" purchasing need to be removed, (4) states can learn from and improve practices by partnering with other governments and private organizations, and (5) most states use a hybrid of both centralized and decentralized management structures when it comes to contracting and procurement.
INTRODUCTION
Public contracting and procurement is sometimes an area that is prone to weak management, poor oversight, or even corruption. Successful contracting and procurement is often an indicator of good management within government. It can be a very salient public issue, because most people buy things and hire service providers in their private lives, so they can understand government successes or failures in purchasing better than many government policies. This paper examines current data on the practice of contracting and procurement among the American states and compares these practices to principles of best practice.
One of the enduring tensions in contracting and procurement is between centralization and decentralization of decision-making authority. Specifically, we are interested in who makes the decisions, and at what level? That tension is also present with the states in this study. Managers need to work with both agencies and private contractors-many of which would rather consummate procurement and contracting agreements without any central supervision. This is especially true in the case of specialty items about which agency personnel are likely to be the most familiar. On the other hand, centralization allows for larger quantity discounts, better internal control, and better integration with accounting systems (Reed & Swain, 1997, p. 185). Regarding this debate,...