Intensifying service delivery: are procurement framework agreements relevant?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Source: Researcher Own Construction (2024).

Table 1. Demographic profile of the local government sector procurers.

Characteristic	Variables	Frequencies	Percentages %
Age group:	Below 30 years	13	23.64
	31–40 years	33	60.00
	41–50 years	6	10.91
	Above 50 years	3	5.45
Procurement hands on experience:	0 ≤ Experience ≤ 5	11	20.00
	6 ≤ Experience ≤ 10	39	70.91
	11 ≤ Experience ≤ 15	4	7.27
	Experience ≥ 15	1	1.82
Level of procurement education:	Masters in Procurement	5	9.09
	Degree in Procurement	8	14.55
	Higher National Diploma in Procurement	14	25.45
	Diploma in Procurement	16	29.09
	Certificate in Procurement	10	18.18
	CIPS	2	3.64

Source: Primary Data (2024).

Table 2. Reliability results.

Instrument section	Reliability coefficient
A	0.770321
B	0.900247
C	0.892631

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table 3. Breuch-Pagan Godfery heteroscedasticity test.

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroscedasticity
H0: Constant variance
Variables: Procurement Framework Index, Education, Procurement Experience, Age
chi2(4) = 37.91
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table 4. Ramsey RESET test for omitted variables.

Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of Engineering Service Delivery H0: model has no omitted variables	Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of Health Service Delivery H0: model has no omitted variables	Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of Recreational Facilities Delivery H0: model has no omitted variables	Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of Protection Service Delivery H0: model has no omitted variables
F(3, 47) = 3.22	F(3, 47) = 31.56	F(3, 47) = 13.80	F(3, 47) = 13.88
Prob > F = 0.1308	Prob > F = 0.3713	Prob > F = 0.2503	Prob > F = 0.2317

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table 5. Multicollinearity test.

Variable	VIF	1/VIF
Level of Education	6.31	0.158451
Procurement Framework Agreements Index	4.42	0.226452
Age Group	4.12	0.242523
Procurement Experience	3.53	0.283616
Mean VIF	4.59

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table 6. The circumstances for procurement framework agreements use.

	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Skewness		Kurtosis
Circumstances for Procurement Framework Agreements Use	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
On procurement of repetitive technical services	55	4.1235	1.23440	1.001	.194	1.263	.131
On procurement of critical supplies	55	4.1993	1.16320	1.165	.194	1.420	.131
On procurement of off-the-shelf products	55	4.2005	1.93120	1.251	.194	1.565	.131
On procurement of supplies frequently reordered	55	4.1970	1.64598	1.545	.194	1.290	.131

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table 7. Factors that block integration of procurement framework agreements.

	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness		Kurtosis
Factors blocking procurement framework use	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Unavailability of standard framework agreements bidding document	55	4.2000	1.85910	1.517	.120	1.920	.174
Lack of Practical Knowhow	55	4.8391	1.98320	1.328	.120	1.903	.174
Difficult in pricing in an inflationary environment	55	4.9652	1.16491	1.968	.120	1.875	.174
Works well for standard products only	55	4.8275	1.72983	1.222	.120	1.680	.174

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table 8. OLS Estimates of Effect of Age Groups, Procurement Experience, Level of Education and Procurement Framework Agreements.

Variables	(1) Engineering Services Delivery	(2) Health Services Delivery	(3) Protection Services Delivery	(4) Recreational Services Delivery
Age group	0.111	0.496	0.207	−0.0357
	(0.0697)	(0.170)	(0.122)	(0.191)
Procurement experience	0.0373	0.0958	0.0729	0.0817
	(0.122)	(0.259)	(0.236)	(0.185)
Level of education	0.104*	0.257**	0.338***	−0.104
	(0.0597)	(0.124)	(0.110)	(0.120)
Procurement Framework Agreements Index	0.768***	0.377**	0.548***	0.524***
	(0.110)	(0.147)	(0.153)	(0.167)
Constant	0.226	0.0889	−0.139	1.455***
	(0.177)	(0.190)	(0.158)	(0.494)
Observations	55	55	55	55
R - Squared	0.965	0.888	0.920	0.700

Robust standard errors in parentheses.

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Source: (STATA, 13) Software for Statistics and Data Science.

Table

No	Question	Very Small Extend	Small Extend	Moderate Extend	Great Extend	Very Great Extend
1. Under what circumstances are procurement framework agreements appropriate for use?
1.1	On procurement of repetitive technical services	1	2	3	4	5
1.2	On procurement of critical supplies	1	2	3	4	5
1.3	On procurement of off-the-shelf products	1	2	3	4	5
1.4	On procurement of supplies frequently reordered	1	2	3	4	5
2. What are the forces against procurement framework agreements integration efforts within your entity?
2.1	Unavailability of a standard framework agreement bidding document	1	2	3	4	5
2.2	Lack of practical knowhow	1	2	3	4	5
2.3	Pricing	1	2	3	4	5
2.4	Works well for standard products only	1	2	3	4	5
3. Rate the level at which your entity is delivering service to residents
3.1	Engineering services (regular water supply, roads maintenance)	1	2	3	4	5
3.2	Health services (regular refuse collection, nursing)	1	2	3	4	5
3.3	Protection services (fire preventions, responding to disasters)	1	2	3	4	5
3.4	Recreational facilities (swimming pools, parks)	1	2	3	4	5

Table

Place of interview:	Zoom Meeting / Online
Date of interview:	22 October 2021

Data availability statement

Data is available upon reasonable request