contract administrators’ meeting january 13, 2005 3:00 p.m

Contract Administrators’ Meeting

January 13, 20053:00 P.M.

State Purchasing

2

Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 Agenda

• Welcome / Meeting Overview

• Survey

• Roadmap to Excellence in Contracting Audit Report

• DCF Update – Contract Evaluations Reporting System

• Next Meeting Location / Time

3

DMS’s Role § 287.042(3), F.S.

(d) Development of procedures to be used by an agency in deciding to contract, including, but not limited to, identifying and assessing in writing project needs and requirements, availability of agency employees, budgetary constraints or availability, facility equipment availability, current and projected agency workload capabilities, and the ability of any other state agency to perform the services.

(e) Development of procedures to be used by an agency in maintaining a contract file for each contract which shall include, but not be limited to, all pertinent information relating to the contract during the preparatory stages; a copy of the solicitation; documentation relating to the solicitation process; opening of bids, proposals, or replies; evaluation and tabulation of bids, proposals, or replies; and determination and notice of award of contract.

4

Agencies’ Role§ 287.057, F.S.

(15) For each contractual services contract, the agency shall designate an employee to function as contract manager who shall be responsible for enforcing performance of the contract terms and conditions and serve as a liaison with the contractor. The agency shall establish procedures to ensure that contractual services have been rendered in accordance with the contract terms prior to processing the invoice for payment.

(16) Each agency shall designate at least one employee who shall serve as a contract administrator responsible for maintaining a contract file and financial information on all contractual services contracts and who shall serve as a liaison with the contract managers and the department.

5



• Survey




6



• Survey




7

Roadmap to Excellence in Contracting EOG Inspector General Report No. 2003-03

• Reviewed approximately 100 audits conducted by seven agencies, AG, and OPPAGA, between July 1999 and June 2002

• Extracted 494 audit findings related to procurement, contracting, and outsourcing

• Identified six core activities instrumental to outsourcing

8

Roadmap to ExcellenceDistribution of the 494 Findings

• Performance monitoring (45%)

• Procurement methodology (20%)

• Contract writing (17%)

• Payment (10%)

• Needs assessment (7%)

• Contract closure (1%)

9

Roadmap to ExcellenceIssues under Performance Monitoring (200+)

• Documentation

• Internal controls

• Contractor accountability

• Contract files

• Verification of receipt of goods and services before payment to the vendor

• Adherence to purchasing statutes, rules and policies

• Training for contract managers

10

Roadmap to Excellence Factors Contributing to Recurring Problems

• Lack of statewide guidance

• Lack of expertise in negotiating contracts

• There is no statewide system to train or certify agency contracting personnel, nor are there incentives to encourage professional development

• The state’s corporate culture does not foster the sharing of best contracting practices among agencies

11

Roadmap to Excellence Factors Contributing to Recurring Problems

• Agencies’ use of different processes and procedures in awarding and managing contracts causes the contract documents to vary considerably in format and content

• Inadequate systems exist for monitoring and rating vendor performance

• A formal procedure for agencies to perform and document needs assessments has not been developed by DMS

• Piecemeal statutes and rules

12

Roadmap to Excellence Recommended Solution to Recurring Problem

No statewide training or certification

We recommend a statewide training initiative led by DMS be undertaken using the foundation developed in some agencies. In addition, we recommend incentives to encourage professionalism and certification for contract administrators, negotiators, monitors and managers.

13

Training ProgramAction to Date

14

Training ProgramAvailable Certifications

• Negotiator

• Contract Manager

• Purchasing Agent

• Purchasing Manager

15


The state’s corporate culture does not foster the sharing of best contracting practices

We recommend that DMS create and foster user groups of professional procurement staff that meet on a regular basis to share best practices and common problems.

16

Sharing Best PracticesAction to Date

17

“Professional Procurement Staff”Who Are They? (from NASPO Strategic Plan)

Procurement encompasses the entire process of obtaining commodities and services

– assessing need and planning the acquisition

– preparing and processing a requisition

– determining the contractor source selection method and drafting and issuing a solicitation

– evaluating bids or proposals and awarding a contract

– administering the contract

– receiving and accepting goods or services

– managing delivery, payment, inventory and property disposition

18


Agencies’ use of different processes and procedures in awarding and managing contracts causes the contract documents to vary considerably in format and content

We recommend DMS, with the assistance of other agencies, develop standard contract formats for use by all state agencies.

19

Standardize Contract ProcessesAction to Date

• New forms PUR 1000 and 1001

• MyFloridaMarketPlace and Aspire will help drive processes and procedures

20

Business Case

Gate 1

Procurement

Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4

Change Management

Contract Management

Post Implementation

Standardize Contract ProcessesCFEG Project Gate Management Process

Stage 1 Stage 4 Stage 5Stage 3Stage 2

Monitor

Current Projects

New Projects

21


Inadequate systems exist for monitoring and rating vendor performance

We recommend a uniform vendor monitoring and rating system be created which incorporates links to contract monitoring reports, vendor websites, closeout evaluations, and a method for other agencies to access performance evaluations.

22

Vendor Rating SystemAction in 2004

• Surveyed existing agency systems

• Explored MyFloridaMarketPlace possibilities

• Explored third-party solutions

• In the meantime, trained on best practices and forms

23

State Term Contract User

Survey(Active)

Contractor Performance

Rating(?)

Contract Management

Software(?)

MFMP Vendor Performance

Tracking(In Development)

4

3

21

Proposed Solution New Constellation of Integrated Systems

24



• Survey




25

The Environment

• Decentralized Management

• Hundreds of Contracts

• Multiple Report Formats

• Limited Resources

• Limited Action Against Findings

26

What Was Needed?How Did We Achieve It?

How?• A Single Location for information• Standard Reporting Format• Common Terminology• Provide immediate benefit to user

What?• Ability to Analyze Data• Reduce Admin Overhead • Improved Turn Around• A Focus for Management Attention

27

SMORES

• Provided insight into statewide monitoring – Compare monitoring results across districts

– Analyze provider data at multiple locations

– Analyze Trends

– Facilitate needs analysis (training/resources)

• Standardized practices (e.g. rating scales)• Provided ability to rapidly respond to inquiries

28

SMORES Monitoring

29

SMORES Hierarchy

Components

- Invoicing

- Service Tasks

- Personnel & Staffing - Performance Specifications (Department issues) - Performance Specifications (Provider compliance issues) - Incident Reporting

- Administrative Monitoring

Category

- Lack of supporting documentation for billing resulting in overpayment - Lack of supporting documentation for billing (no overpayment as a result) - Error or lack of documentation resulting in no payment until remedied - Department paid for the service paid by other sources (double billing)

- Unit rate not as agreed upon in the contract

- Mathematical errors in invoice

- Invoice not timely submitted

- Other

Individual FindingFactual data observed

30

Enter the Monitoring Findings

31

Include Supporting Documents

32

Report Can Now Be Searched

33

Drill-down to Finding Level

34

View Supporting Documents

35

Major Findings by Component

344

119

58

90

67 22

36

Major Findings by District

26

6

26

136

53 4

37

SMORES Enhancement

• Corrective action tracking added July 04– provides visibility into follow-up activities

– institutionalizes tracking mechanism

– links contract monitoring & contract management

– Shines light on repeat problems

• 128 CAPs entered to date – 57 CAPs have been completed

38

EXIT CONF

Contract Manager has 7 days to notify the provider of CAP requirements, with the clock starting to tick from the actual report completion date.

CPU has 30 days to generate the Monitoring Report, but MAY decide to complete report earlier

NOW 3 days from the actual report completiondate will be allowed for data entry in SMORES

SMORES

Contract Manager has more timely access to SMORES

30 DAYS

3 DAYS 4 DAYS

3 DAYS

Contract Manager has 3 days to review the hard copy report...

…And 4 days to generate the CAP form in SMORES and notify the provider.

Timeline for CAP

39

Corrective Action Plans

40

Include Findings in the CAP

41

Auto-generate CAP Form

42

View CAP Status

43

The Major Shift

44

Architecture

DrillDow n

Capability

Performance Measurement

Monitoring

CorrectiveAction

DASHBOARD

Other Reporting(Licensure, QA, etc.)

[Future]

ContractManagement

(Daily Oversight)

[Future]

45

Contract Evaluations Reporting System

Expansion for Performance Measurement

• System redesigned to include deficiencies/findings from variety of sources

• Provides central location for performance data

• Works with DCF Dashboard

• Institutionalizes review

• Tracks actions

46

Performance Measurement Timeline

C M incorpora tesapprop m easurein contract

15 D aysIn itia l S M O R E S input - M easure - Target - D irection ind icator - F requency - N ext m easurem entdate

Ist M easurem ent date - C M inputs or reviews data - Inputs ana lysis com m ent - S ets next review date

- E stab lish C A P (if necessary)

S ubsequent M easurem ent da tes - C M inputs or reviews data - Inputs ana lysis com m ent - S ets next review date

- E stab lish C A P (if necessary)

C A P D ata- D ate A pproved- E st C om ple tion D ate- A ct C om ple tion D ate- R eturn to G reen D ate- S ta tus/P rogress

47

Performance Data Flow

Dashboard

SMORES

Data reported viaDept Systems

(HSn, One Family,etc.)

Data Reported via Provider Reports

Automated Recovery

Manual Input

Manual data & corrective action status

System generated data,Measurement definition Algorithm, etc.

Provider Performance

Management

Contract Manager/

Monitor/etc.

Reports

Reports

48

Demonstration Caveats

• Shortlist Measures used in demo (flagged contract measures will be used in operational system)

• Targets (red and yellow) are obtained from the Dashboard

• Demo data is simulated (limited entries for D07/D13/D14) • Data obtained in two ways (provider input or provider

report)

• Focus of Demo is management oversight of performance

49

Performance Monitoring

50

View Current Performance

51

Drill-down to Performance History

52

View Performance Detail

53

CAP Status

54

Contract Information

55

For More Information: For More Information:

Richard Chatel, Assistant Staff Director

Office of Contracted Client Services

Florida Department of Children & Families

(850) 413-7462 SunCom 293-7462

56

Contract Administrators’ Meeting Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 Agenda January 13, 2005 Agenda


• Survey




57

Contract Administrators’ MeetingNext Meeting

Time: 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm

Date: Thursday, February 10, 2005

Location: Betty Easley Center, Room 152