special project report 1 - projecttracking.technology.ca.gov

Special Project Report 1

California Air Resources Board

Community Air Quality Monitoring 3900-071

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

California Air Resources Board 3900 071 CAQM

This page left intentionally blank

Special Project Report 1|

-


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Proposed Project Change 5 ................................

1.1 Project Background/Summary 5 ................................

1.1.1 Description of Business Program 5 ................................

1.1.2 Description of Current Business Process 6 ................................

1.1.3 Impact of the Proposal on the Business Program / Process 6 ................................

1.1.4 Customers and Users of the Business Program / Process 7 ................................

1.2 Project Status 8 ................................

1.3 Reason for Proposed Change 8 ................................

1.4 Proposed Project Change 8 ................................

2 Updated Project Management Plan 12 ................................

2.1 Project Manager Qualifications 12 ................................

2.2 Project Management Methodology 12 ................................

2.3 Project Organization 13 ................................

2.4 Project Priorities 14 ................................

2.5 Project Plan 14 ................................

2.5.1 Project Scope 14 ................................

2.5.2 Project Assumptions 14 ................................

2.5.3 Project Phasing 14 ................................

2.5.4 Project Roles and Responsibilities 15 ................................................................

2.5.5 Project Schedule 15 ................................

2.6 Project Monitoring and Oversight 15 ................................

2.7 Project Quality 15 ................................

2.8 Change Management 15 ................................

2.9 Authorization Required 15 ................................

2.10 Issues 15 ................................

2.11 Risks 16 ................................

2.12 Security Issues 16 ................................

3 Updated Economics Analysis Worksheet 16 ................................

Appendix A – Acronym/Abbreviation Table 22 ................................


................................................................

.............................................................

..........................................................

..............................................

.................

....................

......................................................................................

...............................................................

.....................................................................

..............................................

..........................................................

...................................................

..........................................................................

...............................................................................

.......................................................................................

......................................................................................

...........................................................................

....................................................................................

......................

.................................................................................

......................................................

..................................................................................

........................................................................

.....................................................................

................................................................................................

.................................................................................................

...................................................................................

.......................................

.........................................

-



-


1 Proposed Project Change 1.1 Project Background/Summary Air quality monitoring data underpin all programs at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), as they

signal the location, type, and extent of air quality problems present throughout the State. Further,

when air quality data are combined with emissions inventory data and an effective understanding of

emission control technologies, they help to inform the State’s plans to achieve air quality progress and serve as metrics by which the State can measure progress and demonstrate program success. Recent

legislation, Assembly Bill 617 (Chapter 136) (Garcia, 2017; AB 617), calls for more comprehensive and

understandable assessments of air pollution impacts and trends at a finer level of geographic detail. As

a result, there is a more integrated approach to conduct more widespread air quality monitoring and

develop targeted plans to improve air quality within communities. Legislation also requires that CARB

collect the air monitoring data from these efforts and publish the data online. To be able to manage the

volume, velocity, and variety of data, CARB must utilize a modern and effective framework to ingest,

store, and disseminate the data and related information.

1.1.1 Description of Business Program Air quality monitoring data underpin all programs at the California Air Resources Board (CARB). First and

foremost, ambient air monitoring data signal the location, type, and extent of air quality problems

present throughout the State. Second, monitored data inform and improve the performance of tools used

in the planning process. Lastly, air quality data act as metrics by which the State can measure progress

and demonstrate program success.

Historically, CARB, air districts, and other entities have focused on measuring regional ambient criteria

pollutant and toxic air contaminant levels for federal regulatory purposes. In other words, ambient air

quality data have traditionally come from monitors meeting particular siting requirements (e.g., not

within a certain distance of a known pollution source), instrument requirements (e.g., monitors must be

federally approved), and data quality requirements (e.g., follow calibration and audit procedures, dataset

completeness, etc.). While these traditional monitoring efforts have been successful in improving overall

air quality on a regional scale, not all communities within these regions have experienced these benefits

equally, and some communities are still disproportionately burdened by air quality issues.

Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) shifts the focus of air quality monitoring from the regional- to the

community-scale in order to enhance our understanding of localized air pollution impacts and improve

air quality in disproportionately burdened communities. The bill requires an air district containing a

selected location (community) to deploy a community air monitoring system in that location by July 1st,

2019 that may consist of both continuous and non-continuous monitoring (e.g. laboratory-analyzed).

Additionally, several community-based organizations in the surrounding area were awarded grants to

deploy air quality monitors to enhance the spatial and temporal coverage of community monitoring and

improve local awareness of air pollution exposure.

Furthermore, these air quality monitoring groups are taking advantage of the growing market of

innovative and low-cost monitoring technologies to implement community-scale monitoring. Although

their data do not satisfy federal monitoring accuracy requirements, these new monitoring technologies


-


report data at much higher time resolutions (sub-hourly) and can be deployed in large numbers to

improve spatial coverage. Increased data granularity will demonstrate air quality problems more clearly

in affected communities. Deeper insight into each air quality problem will inform the particular strategies

that CARB and air district employ to reduce emissions and their impacts on the communities.

CARB, air districts, and other data providers operate nearly 200 air quality sites throughout the State.

Through standard monitoring protocols and data quality objectives, data providers maintain sites and

instruments so that these data collected are accurate and representative. Data providers review data to

ensure its quality, and then submit the reviewed (official) data to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Air Quality System (AQS) database. Official air quality data from AQS are propagated into CARB’s Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM) system on a daily basis. These data are then summarized, and ADAM calculates regulatory statistics to determine whether or not regions

meet the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Since the data review process

before submission to AQS can take time, there is often a delay of 3 to 4 months before official data are

reported to AQS.

While AQMIS has near realtime capabilities for criteria pollutants, ADAM contains additional data related

to toxic air pollutants, and calculates official regulatory statistics for criteria pollutants. A new database

and web portal are critical to the success of the community air monitoring program. The current

databases’ architecture (data streams, processing, quality assurance and quality management procedures, etc.) do not support the volume, veracity, and type of the high-resolution data from new

sensor technology. Further, AQMIS and ADAM contain regulatory data comparable to the NAAQS, while

the new community monitoring database will contain finer resolution, nonregulatory data that are not

directly comparable to the NAAQS and will require a new data format for submission.

Maintaining accurate up-to-date metadata on monitoring sites in AQMIS such as the location, operation

status, and an inventory of monitoring equipment used is a challenge as there is currently no system for

receiving this information from data providers directly and instead relies upon one-off communications

and manual updates. The number of monitors managed by CARB is expected to grow significantly with

the addition of community-levels monitors, necessitating a new efficient system for tracking changes to

monitoring activities by data providers to maximize the accuracy of our public display.

The current public displays for ADAM and AQMIS are dated and are geared toward technical air quality

professionals. The primary purpose of the new air quality portal will be to convey near real-time air

pollution exposure-levels and assist tracking emission reductions over time for the general public. The

new public display must include a modern, engaging experience for both a technical and non-technical

audience.

1.1.2 Description of Current Business Process CAQM is a new initiative. There is no current business process for it.

1.1.3 Impact of the Proposal on the Business Program / Process The Community Air Quality Monitoring database and web portal (CAQM) plays a pivotal role in fulfilling

requirements of AB 617. As part of the Community Air Protection Program (developed in response to AB

617), Air Districts and Community Organizations have initiated air quality monitoring in selected areas of


-


California and the coverage of monitoring across the state continues to grow. The abundance of these

data are highly valuable for community members that want more information regarding their exposure

to air pollution. However, community members are unable to access these data in the absence of the

CAQM system. CAQM is meant to serve as a repository for all AB 617 air quality monitoring data and a

tool for easily visualizing these data in near real-time. The need for developing CAQM is greater than

ever and will only become more valuable as the Community Air Protection Program evolves. The impact

of delaying development of CAQM on the various user groups will result in:

Public/AB 617 Community Members: Very limited access to community air quality data and no

visualization platform for getting air pollution exposure estimates in near-real time.

Air Districts: Very limited abilities to monitor data they submit and update air quality

monitoring site information to maintain data accuracy.

Community-based Organizations (CBO): Very limited abilities to monitor data they submit and

update air quality monitoring site information to maintain data accuracy and no visualization

platform for getting air pollution exposure estimates in near-real time.

CARB: Prevents CARB from effectively disseminating community air quality data and improving

awareness of community air pollution exposure. Hinders ability to perform critical quality

assurance and quality control checks on the data to maintain data integrity. Hinders ability to

perform air quality analysis for purposes of developing air quality improvement plans.

1.1.4 Customers and Users of the Business Program / Process During the business requirements gathering phase of the contract, CARB met with various user groups

throughout the State to better understand their needs, and how the new system would be used by each

group. The list below identifies each user group, and how they intend to use the system:

AB 617 community members and other public users: Monitor air quality exposure in the state and in their communities.

Air Districts: Air districts submit air quality and meteorological data from their monitoring sites to CARB’s new air quality monitoring portal. Air districts can use the portal as a data repository, visualization tool, and as a tool for evaluating the quality of their data.

Community Organizations: Community groups will submit air quality and meteorological data from their sites to CARB’s new air quality monitoring portal. These organizations can use the portal as a data repository, visualization tool, and as a tool for evaluating the quality of their data.

CARB Staff: Manage data collection and data quality analyses, update system content as the AB 617 program expands, and perform outreach to maximize utility of portal.


-


1.2 Project Status 1.3 Reason for Proposed Change The project implementation phase commenced June 29, 2018 with an implementation vendor. The

Project Approval Lifecycle (PAL) Stage Gate 4 Project Readiness and Approval (S4PRA) project scoping

review was completed January 2, 2019. During implementation, quality and schedule deficiencies of the

implementation vendor software design and construction deliverables were noted.

The projects scope defined in S1BA did not change. CARB is working based on the original project scope approval. The PAL process was completed for the original project – no additional PAL process approval is being sought.

CARB notified the implementation vendor of deficiencies of the deliverables via three Corrective Action

memos. However, the issues were not resolved by the time the vendor contract was ended. The total

appropriation monies spent and paid to vendors was $621,476. During this time, the following items were

developed that will be used for completing the CAQM project:

User Interface for internal and public sites

User Experience and Workflows for internal and public sites

The project solution level reporting and business requirements activity was completed on 12/12/2018.

Schedule. This effort was significantly under-estimated resulting in an overall optimistic and unrealistic

schedule that placed considerable pressure on the project and vendor team. The vendor team worked

to reach the deadlines with inadequate resources and failed to deliver complete set of deliverables.

Scope. The scope of the project remained unchanged from the original proposal outlined during the PAL

process and documented in the RFO, however implementation of the business requirements required

skills and resources beyond the vendor’s original cost estimates. The complexity of this project’s scope

was underestimated by the vendor, therefore resulting in inaccurate estimates of time and costs.

New non-functional requirements for system implementation have been introduced to address the

upcoming enterprise infrastructure changes. System should be designed and developed to run in a cloud

environment.

Cost. Implementation of the business requirements required skills and resources that the vendor did not

anticipate when providing a project bid in response to the RFO. After project solution level reporting

and business requirements activity was completed the vendor identified that the funding allocated for

the project was inadequate based on the project’s scope and complexity.

This SPR updates the project’s baseline for schedule, scope, and cost to ensure sufficient resources and

timeline to implement functionality to fully meet CARB’s emissions inventory business needs. The

purpose of these updates is to attract more highly qualified vendors, increased transparency, and to add

a stabilization period.

1.4 Proposed Project Change This SPR updates the project to:


-


1. Extend the project end date and increase the one-time cost for the CAQM project including the

recurring annual maintenance and operations costs

and,

2. In collaboration with California Department of Technology, Statewide Technology Procurement

Division (STPD), issue new Request for Offer for a systems integration vendor to design and construct a

custom system to meet the requirements identified in Stage 3 for this project.

Impact of Proposed Change on the Project

This SPR does not change the original scope for the CAQM project.

This SPR adds 36 months to project schedule, moving the project completion date from 07/01/2019 to

06/30/2022 to provide the timeframe in which all CAQM functionality can be implemented, including a

stabilization and closeout period.

These changes will allow CARB to implement the remaining CAQM functionalities required for the

program to fully manage its processes.

This SPR updates the cost for the project. The following table compares the Baseline FAWs with the SPR

1.0 total One-Time Costs and Future Fiscal Year (FY) Annual Operations. Includes FY 19/20 and forward

salary and benefits increase adjustments. The change column represents the difference between the

original cost baseline and the proposed SPR 1.0 cost baseline.

CARB completed a Request for Information (RFI) process, which resulted in seven (7) responses. Two of

the responses were not considered, as they did not provide sufficient information. This information was

analyzed with the outcomes of type of implementation (COTS, MOTS, Custom), and estimated time and

cost to complete the project. The Special Project Report was completed using these vendor provided

estimates.

Three responses were received for the Community Air Quality Monitoring Portal (CAQM) Request for

Information (RFI).

This included three custom solutions:

“Custom A”

Labor: $ 1,553,955

Licensing: $ 147,648

Total: $ 1,701,603

“Custom B”

Labor: $ 780,000

Licensing: $ 0

Total: $ 780,000

“Custom C”

Labor: $ 3,359,600


Total: $ 3,476,340

And two modified-of-the-shelf (MOTS) solutions:


-


“MOTS D”

Labor: $ 399,000


Total: $ 619,000

“MOTS E”

Labor: $ 608,166


Total: $ 940,806

The MOTS solutions are based on existing commercially available software tools, which address several major

components of the CAQM scope, but will still require modifications and further enhancements to provide a complete

solution for CARB; additionally, both MOTS require an ongoing annual license subscription.

In order to better qualify the final estimates and approach, CARB did a review of the vendor responses

to determine the vendor level understands of the project scope and therefore CARB’s level of

confidence in their estimate. This review was not intended to assess a vendor’s fit for implementing the

system, but rather whether their response covered all given scope components and with sufficient

understanding of the requirements to make a reasonable estimate of cost and effort. By completing RFI

response analysis CARB determined that estimated time 18 months and estimated cost $1,900,000 for

completing CAQM implementation by vendor.

In review of the estimated costs and timeframes, the department determined that all existing resources

are being fully utilized and funds were not available to accommodate the request. Therefore, CARB

seeks a FY20-21 Budget Change Proposal to augment existing budgets.

Change Cost Table Stage Gate 4 PAL SPR 1.0 Change

Total, One-Time Costs $ 2,280,488 $6,587,474 $ $4,307,026

Implementation/Integration vendor cost

$763,481 $2,521,476 $1,900,000 (BCP – Spring Finance Letter request for FY 20/21)

included reverted amount of $142,005

Final FY Annual Maintenance & Operations Costs

$ 244,676 $359,743 $115,067

Accessibility

CARB will address accessibility requirements during system development.

Feasibility Alternatives Considered

CARB completed a Request for Information (RFI) process, which resulted in seven (7) responses. Two of

the responses were not considered, as they did not provide sufficient information. This information

from the rest of five (5) RFI responses was analyzed with the outcomes of type of implementation

(COTS, MODS, and Custom-built solution), estimated time and cost to complete the project.


-


The original feasibility alternatives considered included: a) developing a vendor based custom-built

solution, b) an in-house based solution, and c) a commercial and/or modifiable off-the-shelf solution.

The selected alternative to address the business problem was a custom solution developed by a vendor

allowing CARB to combine the functionality of two currently disparate systems while retaining their

current functionality. In-house developed solution requires additional staffing and training; witch would

put the development timeframe outside acceptable limits. The MOTS solution would have been less

cost effective since no current commercial solution exists to handle the unique needs of a statewide

emission inventory system, and developing the needed functionality while omitting extraneous

functionality would take more time and effort than the custom solution.

CARB’s additional alternative analysis consideration was based on the lesson-learned experiences. The

original project efforts were unsuccessful as the allocated time and budgetary monies were insufficient

for the project given its complexity. The project vendor also underestimated by the required

development effort. Due to the shorter project timeframe, scope and quality were impacted as the

actual duration and effort was greater than estimated by the vendor. The originally selected alternative

was sound and the primary change to the project was the provision of additional project staffing

resources, and time for development and implementation.

Based on lesson learned, CARB plans to utilize a modified waterfall approach that incorporates an

incremental, iterative approach. This will mitigate project risks related to vendor under-estimate and

vendor incapability and provide the CARB the benefits of having some components delivered into

production earlier.

CARB determined that the time and cost required to implement the selected alternative was the only

change required.

The project will contract on a deliverables basis. The completion of deliverables will provide for a more

structured process to facilitate their review and acceptance. The Contract Manager and Program staff

will work together to collect and analyze metrics which are used to monitor the deliverable process

effectiveness and prime contractor performance. In addition, the CARB has provided separate

independent project managers and business analysts focusing on projects deliverables.

Implementation Plan

The proposed aspects of implementation described in various PAL Stages (Stage 2, 3 and 4) are being

updated to address lessons learned and incorporate findings from RFI response assessment.

The following are Implementation lessons learned for the CAQM project:

a. It is important to ensure that Requests for Offer (RFO) documentation includes all relevant

information to ensure vendors provide appropriate responses for evaluation.

b. The following should be a priority for vendors evaluation and selection:

Contracts should be deliverable-based.

Contracts should include: o Comprehensive questions that probe the vendor’s experience with similar project

implementations, and their understanding of the project scope o Deliverable expectation documents to obtain agreement on the content of deliverables.


-


o Identification of minimum experience qualifications o Vendor requirements management o The requirement to develop and implement a Quality Management and Software Testing

Plan c. The following should be applied to the overall application planning and implementation:

Application should be planned using modified waterfall approach that incorporates an incremental, iterative approach

Development and communication of comprehensive User Interface, system architecture, software, and database design standards documentation

Documentation of non-function requirements for software design best practices

Inclusion of compliance requirements with CARB technical standards

2 Updated Project Management Plan Project Management Plans that have been prepared during various stages of PAL for the CAQM project

are being updated to address lessons learned and incorporate findings from RFI response assessment.

2.1 Project Manager Qualifications The CAQM project is managed by a contract Project Manager (PM). The role of the PM is to establish

and implement the necessary project management processes, maintain the overall project

documentation and project reporting. The PM for the CAQM project is Andrey Zagaynov. Andrey

Zagaynov is within the Project Management Office of CARB’s OIS. He is certified as a Project Management Professional (PMP) by the Project Management Institute (PMI).

2.2 Project Management Methodology CARB follows the California Project Management Framework (CA-PMF). CARB also uses the Project

Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) from PMI, and the recommended project management and

risk management practices of the CDT Information Technology Project Oversight Framework, SIMM

section 45, as guiding documents for project management best practices. CARB is using Waterfall

Methodology to develop the application.


-

California Air Resources Board 3900-071 CAQM

2.3 Project Organization CAQM Project Organization Chart is shown below.

Steve Grogan

Co - Chair & IT Project Executive Sponsor , CIO

IT Project Steering Committee

Michael Benjamin

IT Project Steering Committee Chair & Project Sponsor , Division Chief

Edna B . Murphy

Administrative Services Sponsor , Division Chief

Sergio Gutierrez Agency IT Representative

Edie Chang

Deputy Executive Officer

Kurt Karperos

Deputy Executive Officer

Veronica Eady

Environmental Justice Liaison , Assistant Executive Officer

Executive Sponsors

IT Project Change Control Board

David Edwards

Business Owner , CAQM

Jason Painter

State Enterprise Architect and Project Principal

Member John Wong

Contract Manager ,

, CAQM

IT Project Manager

Andrey Zagaynov

Contract Manager ,

, CAQM

Delphin Kyubwa CDT Oversight

Eric Olsen IV & V Oversight

Steve Grogan IT Project Executive Sponsor , OIS CIO

Steve Zelinka Collaboration SME

Dave Edwards Business Owner

Jason Painter

IT Project Director



2.4 Project Priorities Project priorities specified in Table 1 remain the same for this SPR. Project stakeholders for the CAQM

Project agreed on the relative importance of each of these three factors before the beginning of the

project, as future project management decisions will be guided by these priorities.

Project trade-off matrix is given below that shows the relative importance of each factor using a priority

of 1 (highest) to 4 (lowest) for each of these factors.

Table 1: Project trade-off matrix

Schedule Scope Resources Quality

3 1 4 2

Scope: The scope is the highest as it is driven by AB 617 assembly bill for providing access to community-

level air quality data.

Quality: The quality is deemed the second as the public will depend on the integrity of the information

provided to understand their air quality health exposure.

Schedule: The schedule is next importance since CARB is already receiving community data.

2.5 Project Plan 2.5.1 Project Scope Project scope as documented in PAL Stage 3 and remains the same.

2.5.2 Project Assumptions Project assumptions listed in section 2.7 of PAL Stage 2 except remain the same except the one listed

below:

Constraint: Hard deadline to procure Vendor services before April 30, 2021 due to funding

restrictions.

At this point CARB developed an interim solution to collect and manually process air quality data

submitted by data providers. That process temporary satisfies AB 617 legislative mandate; however, it is

mostly manual and is not sustainable as number of data providers and amount of data is growing.

2.5.3 Project Phasing Project phases documented in section 2.11.5 of PAL Stage 2 remain the same, except the estimated time

for completion phases:

Phase 1 is estimated to take approximately 6 months. Phase 1 will review and reuse the project

artifacts that are already completed.

Phase 2 is estimated to take approximately 12 months.


-


2.5.4 Project Roles and Responsibilities Project roles and responsibilities documented in section 2.12.8.2 of PAL Stage 2 remain the same.

2.5.5 Project Schedule The project schedule is re-baselined with an implementation completion date of 06/30/2022.

Major Milestones, Deliverables,

Operations

Originally Est Complete Date Est Complete Date

Implementation RFO Ready to

Release

01/31/18 09/01/20

Implementation Contract

Procurement

06/30/18 04/30/21

(Re-) Start Implementation 07/01/18 07/01/21

Implementation Phase 1 10/30/18 12/31/21

Implementation Phase 2 06/30/19 06/30/22

Stabilization 12/31/19 12/31/22

Post Implementation Evaluation 12/31/20 12/31/23

Project Closure 1/30/21 1/30/24

2.6 Project Monitoring and Oversight Project monitoring and oversight will continue for the project duration.

2.7 Project Quality The quality management plan as specified in section 3.18 of PAL Stage 3 is being updated based on

collected lesson learned.

2.8 Change Management The CAQM Change Management plan specified in section 3.18 of PAL Stage 3 remains the same.

2.9 Authorization Required Not applicable.

2.10 Issues Major project’s issues are the following:

Project milestones late delivery

Quality Reduction

Resource Availability


-


2.11 Risks The CAQM maintain Risk Register that is available upon request. The major project risks are the

following:

Delivery Commitment

Scope or Quality Reduction

Requirements Stability

Requirements Completeness and Clarity

Design Difficulty

2.12 Security Issues There are no security issues for CAQM project.

3 Updated Economics Analysis Worksheet Updated FAWs are included as separate attachments with this document.


-


Project Cost Change – SUMMARY One-Time and Final FY Annual Maintenance & Operations

One-Time and Final FY Annual Maintenance & Operations

Stage Gate 4 PAL SPR 1.0 Change, Reason for Change

Total, One-Time Costs

$ 2,280,488 $6,587,474 $4,307,026 See one-time Cost Table Below

Final FY Annual Maintenance & Operations

$ 244,676 $359,743 $115,067 See one-time Cost Table Below


-


S4PRA PAL FAWs to SPR FAWs – COMPARISON ONE-TIME COSTS

One-Time and Final FY Annual Maintenance & Operations

Stage Gate 4 PAL SPR 1.0 Change Reason for Change

Personal Services $719,072 $1,961,333 $ 1,242,261 SPR adds

approximately 36

months to project

schedule resulting

in increased one-

time Personal

Services costs.

Project End date

was June 28,

2019, re-

baselined to June

30, 2022.

FY 18/19 – PAL

approved twelve

months one-time.

No change.

FY 19/20 – Adds 1

year for re-

planning.

FY 20/21,

FY21/22- Added

24 months for

implementation.

SPR re-baselines

to twelve months


-


of future

operations.

Adjustments for

actual and

projected time on

project.

Operating Expenses & Equipment (OE&E)

$101,840 $271,680 $169,840 OE&E change associated with Personal Services; same as above

Consulting & Prof. Services: Interdepartmental

$139,560 $391,680 $252,120 SPR adds

approximately 36

months to project

schedule

increasing cost of

oversight through

project lifecycle.

Project End date

was June 28, 2019

re-baselined to

June 30, 2022.

Consulting & Professional Services External

$1,027,161 $3,605,701 $2,578,540 FY 18/19 no

change.

FY 19/20, FY 20/21, FY 21/22 Additional cost for BA, Project Manager and implementation vendor.

Consolidated Data Centers

$919 $2,758 $1,839 Project End date was June 28, 2019, re-baselined to June 30, 2022.

Information Technology

$47,220 $136,584 $89,364 Project End date was June 28, 2019, re-baselined to June 30, 2022.


-


Other Items of Expense

-

Total, One-Time Costs

$2,035,772 $6,369,736 $ 4,333,964 Project End date was June 28, 2019, re-baselined to June 30, 2022.


-




Stage Gate 4 PAL SPR 1.0 Change Reason for Change

Personal Services $ 157,372 $ 210,630 $53,258 Additional Staff Programmer Analyst (IT - New Staff) required for maintenance and support

Operating Expenses & Equipment (OE&E)

$47,340 $59,340 $12,000 Operating Expenses & Equipment (OE&E)

Consolidated Data Centers

$ 919 $ 919 - No change

Information Technology

$39,045 $88,854 49,809 H/W and S/W, and hosting cost increase

Total, Future Ops $244,676 $359,743 $115,067 Additional Staff Programmer Analyst (IT - New Staff) required for maintenance and support


-


Appendix A – Acronym/Abbreviation Table

BCP Budget Change Proposal CDT California Department of Technology CIO Chief Information Officer FAW Financial Analysis Worksheet ISO Information Security Office IT Information Technology ITPOC IT Project Oversight Division IV&V Independent Verification and Validation OE&E Operating Expenses and Equipment PAL Project Approval Lifecycle PM Project Manager PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge PMF Project Management Framework PMI Project Management Institute PMO Project Management Office S2AA Stage 2 Alternative Analysis S3SD Stage 3 Solution Development S4PRA Stage 4 Project Readiness and Approval SFL Spring Finance Letter SME Subject Matter Expert SPR Special Project Report


-

special project report 1 - projecttracking.technology.ca.gov

Documents