Upload
jonas-burke
View
34
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
State Purchasing. Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 3:00 P.M. Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 Agenda. Welcome / Meeting Overview Survey Roadmap to Excellence in Contracting Audit Report DCF Update – Contract Evaluations Reporting System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
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
6
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
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.
14
Training ProgramAvailable Certifications
• Negotiator
• Contract Manager
• Purchasing Agent
• Purchasing Manager
15
Roadmap to Excellence Recommended Solution to Recurring Problem
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.
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
Roadmap to Excellence Recommended Solution to Recurring Problem
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
Roadmap to Excellence Recommended Solution to Recurring Problem
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
• Welcome / Meeting Overview
• Survey
• Roadmap to Excellence in Contracting Audit Report
• DCF Update – Contract Evaluations Reporting System
• Next Meeting Location / Time