DHHS COE Meeting Agenda Welcome Introductions Contract Compliance Reporting Questions and Answers Contract Updates

DHHS COE Meeting Agenda

WelcomeIntroductionsContract Compliance ReportingQuestions and AnswersContract Updates

Office of Procurement &

Contract Services

SFY 2013Contract Report for Center of Excellence

Contracts & AmendmentsReviewed by OPCS 2009 - 2013

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average Number of Days Comparison

Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals Q4

24

7

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4th Quarter

Internal Department Total Avg Day

Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals by Division Q4 (RFPs not included)

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

DivisionsInternal Division

DepartmentReview Total

DAAS 1 20 21DCDEE 32 7 39DHSR 4 3 8DIRM 0 0 0DMA 0 0 0DMH 21 11 33DSOHF 20 9 29DPH 26 9 35DSB 0 0 0DSDHH 0 0 0DSS 35 5 40DVR 1 6 7OES 0 0 0Rural Hlth 1 10 11HR 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0ExecMgt 0 0 0Controller 0 0 0DD Council 4 7 11MMIS 0 0 0

24 7 31

4th Quarter 2012 - 2013

Average Number of Days SFY 2013 Q 1 – Q4

0 20 40

Number of Days

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Qu

art

erl

yAverage Number of Days to Review

Contracts SFY 2013

Internal Division

DepartmentReview

Average Number of Days to review Contract or AmendmentsSFY 2013

17

8

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

SFY 2013

Internal Department Total Avg Day

Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvalsby Division SFY 2013 (RFPs not included)

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days



DAAS 2 7 9DCDEE 18 11 29DHSR 4 5 9DIRM 0 0 0DMA 4 18 22DMH 20 10 30DSOHF 20 7 27DPH 18 8 26DSB 0 0 0DSDHH 0 0 0DSS 35 5 40DVR 1 4 5OES 0 0 0Rural Hlth 4 8 12HR 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0ExecMgt 0 0 0Controller 0 0 0DD Council 10 2 12MMIS 0 0 0

17 8 25

SFY 2012 - 2013

Total Average Number of Days to Review Contracts SFY 2009 - 2013

1817

2019

25

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Timely Approvals Comparison

Department Timely ApprovalsDHHS Q4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4th Quarter

> 30 days prior < 30 days prior on or after effective date Legislative Increase

Department Timely ApprovalsDHHS Q1 – Q4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

> 30 days prior < 30 days prior on or after effective date Legislative Increase

Timely Approvalsby Division Q3 & Q4

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days


DepartmentReview Total Divisions

Internal Division


DAAS 0 0 0 DAAS 1 20 21DCDEE 13 13 26 DCDEE 32 7 39DHSR 2 13 15 DHSR 4 3 8DIRM 0 0 0 DIRM 0 0 0DMA 0 0 0 DMA 0 0 0DMH 40 7 47 DMH 21 11 33DSOHF 39 3 42 DSOHF 20 9 29DPH 14 7 21 DPH 26 9 35DSB 0 0 0 DSB 0 0 0DSDHH 0 0 0 DSDHH 0 0 0DSS 44 6 49 DSS 35 5 40DVR 1 5 6 DVR 1 6 7OES 0 0 0 OES 0 0 0Rural Hlth 8 12 20 Rural Hlth 1 10 11HR 0 0 0 HR 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0 Prop & Constr 0 0 0ExecMgt 0 0 0 ExecMgt 0 0 0Controller 0 0 0 Controller 0 0 0DD Council 10 5 15 DD Council 4 7 11MMIS 0 0 0 MMIS 0 0 0

18 7 25 24 7 31

3rd Quarter 2012 - 2013 4th Quarter 2012 - 2013

Timely Approvalsby Division Q1 & Q2

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days


DepartmentReview Total Divisions

Internal Division


DAAS 4 5 9 DAAS 2 5 7DCDEE 6 13 19 DCDEE 5 17 22DHSR 3 14 17 DHSR 0 0 0DIRM 0 4 4 DIRM 0 0 0DMA 4 11 15 DMA 3 25 28DMH 10 10 19 DMH 6 8 14DSOHF 8 5 13 DSOHF 11 11 22DPH 17 9 26 DPH 12 6 18DSB 0 0 0 DSB 0 0 0DSDHH 0 0 0 DSDHH 0 0 0DSS 34 5 39 DSS 10 25 35DVR 1 2 3 DVR 0 0 0OES 0 0 0 OES 0 0 0Rural Hlth 1 4 5 Rural Hlth 1 5 6HR 0 0 0 HR 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0 Prop & Constr 0 0 0ExecMgt 0 0 0 ExecMgt 0 0 0Controller 0 0 0 Controller 0 0 0DD Council 0 0 0 DD Council 0 0 0MMIS 0 0 0 MMIS 0 0 0

12 8 20 5 9 14

1st Quarter 2012 - 2013 2nd Quarter 2012 - 2013

Divisions submitting all contracts prior to the effective date Q4

Division of Aging and Adult ServicesDivision of Health Service RegulationDivision of Mental HealthDivision of State Operated Healthcare FacilitiesDivision of Vocational RehabilitationOffice of Rural Health and Community CareCentral Management and Support – NC Council on Developmental Disabilities

Department Timely ApprovalsDHHS SFY 2013

Contract Approal Time-Frames SFY 2012 - 2013

Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval less

than 30 days prior tothe effective date

46%

Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval more

than 30 days prior to the effective date

14%

Other - Including Legislative increase

amendments

0%

Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval on orafter effective date

40%

Timely Approvalsby Division SFY 2013

Division% more than 30 days prior to effective

date

% less than 30 days prior to

effective date

% on or after

effective date

Other - Including

Legislative increase

amendments

DAAS 15% 0% 85% 0%DCDEE 6% 39% 55% 0%DHSR 0% 92% 8% 0%DIRMDMA 25% 25% 50% 0%DMH 59% 28% 13% 0%DSOHF 30% 50% 20% 0%DPH 24% 65% 11% 0%DSBDSDHHDSS 15% 42% 42% 0%DVR 3% 55% 42% 0%OESRural Hlth 19% 81% 0% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgtControllerDD Council 0% 100% 0% 0%MMIS

Timely Approvals for SFY 2013

Timely Approvalsby Division SFY 2009 - 2010


date


effective date

% on or after

effective date

Other - Including


amendments

DCD 3% 97% 0% 0%DHSR 2% 96% 2% 0%DIRM 0% 0% 100% 0%DMA 20% 55% 25% 0%DMH 15% 75% 10% 0%DMH - Facilities 7% 61% 32% 0%DAAS 0% 67% 33% 0%DPH 39% 54% 5% 2%DSBDSDHHDSS 28% 35% 15% 12%DVR 10% 80% 10% 0%OES 0% 100% 0% 0%Rural Hlth 5% 67% 28% 0%EconOpp 0% 58% 42% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 0% 50% 40% 10%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS


Division

% more than 30 days prior to effective

date


effective date

% on or after

effective date

Other - Including


amendments

DCD 7% 62% 31% 0%DHSR 8% 88% 4% 0%DIRM 0% 25% 75% 0%DMA 14% 26% 60% 0%DMH 4% 89% 7% 0%DMH - Facilities 0% 100% 0% 0%DAAS 0% 75% 25% 0%DPH 8% 87% 5% 0%DSBDSDHHDSS 31% 50% 19% 0%DVR 0% 100% 0% 0%OES 0% 33% 67% 0%Rural Hlth 5% 79% 16% 0%EconOpp 1% 54% 45% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 25% 50% 25% 0%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS


Timely Approvalsby Division SFY 2011 - 2012


date

% less than 30 days prior to effective

date

% on or after effective

date

Other - Including


amendments

DCD 13% 59% 28% 0%DHSR 3% 65% 32% 0%DIRM 0% 60% 40% 0%DMA 11% 28% 61% 0%DMH 18% 54% 29% 0%DMH - Facilities 5% 77% 18% 0%DAAS 0% 100% 0% 0%DPH 17% 71% 13% 0%DSB 0% 100% 0% 0%DSDHHDSS 31% 29% 40% 0%DVR 0% 94% 6% 0%OES 0% 0% 100% 0%Rural Hlth 5% 90% 5% 0%EconOpp 22% 59% 19% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 0% 50% 50% 0%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS 0% 100% 0% 0%


Division

% more than 30 days prior to effective

date

% less than 30 days prior to effective

date

% on or after effective

date

Other - Including


amendments

DCD 0% 7% 93% 0%DHSR 6% 94% 0% 0%DIRM 0% 33% 67% 0%DMA 49% 40% 11% 0%DMH 8% 70% 22% 0%DMH - Facilities 38% 62% 0% 0%DAAS 0% 50% 50% 0%DPH 13% 68% 19% 0%DSBDSDHHDSS 5% 15% 80% 0%DVR 0% 100% 0% 0%OESRural Hlth 5% 71% 24% 0%EconOpp 0% 0% 100% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 0% 0% 100% 0%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS 0% 100% 0% 0%


Timely Approvals Trend AnalysisSFY 2010 – SFY 2013

SFY 2010 - 2013 Approval Time Frame Comparison

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

More than 30 days Less than 30 days On or Aftereffective date

Other - Includinglegislative increase

SFY 2010

SFY 2011

SFY 2012

SFY 2013

Divisions submitting all contracts prior to the effective date SFY 2013

Office of Rural Health and Community Care

Central Management and Support – NC Council on Developmental Disabilities

1st Quarter On or After Effective Date

SFY 2010 - 2013 Q1 Compliance Comparison

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DCD DMH DSOHF DPH DSS Rural Hlth

SFY 2010Q1

SFY 2011Q1

SFY 2012Q1

SFY 2013Q1

ComplianceComparison

Compliance RatingSFY 2013 Q 4

4Q

234

96

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

# nonCompliant

# Compliant

71% in Compliance*Goal – 95%

Compliance Rating SFY 2013 TrendQ1 - Q 4

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

33

230

1349

43

45

234

96

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

# NonCompliant

# Compliant

10%

49%

21%

71%

% in compliance

Compliance Rating Q3 & Q4

Division

# of Contracts or Amendments

Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

%

In

Co

mp

lia

nc

e

DAASDCDEE 12 0 0%DHSR 1 0 0%DIRMDMADMH 3 1 33%DSOHF 6 2 33%DPH 33 29 88%DSBDSDHHDSS 12 0 0%DVR 14 10 71%OES

Rural Hlth 6 1 17%HRProp & ConstrExecMgtControllerDD Council 1 0 0%MMIS

Overall: 88 43 49%

Q 3 - OPCS Reviews

Division


Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

% In

Co

mp

lia

nc

e

DAAS 5 0 0%DCDEE 111 100 90%DHSR 10 0 0%DIRMDMADMH 21 5 24%DSOHF 22 8 36%DPH 29 28 97%DSBDSDHHDSS 75 42 56%DVR 51 47 92%OES


Overall: 330 234 71%

Q 4 - OPCS Reviews

Compliance Rating Q1 & Q2

Division


Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

%

In

Co

mp

lia

nc

e

DAAS 6 0 0%DCDEE 112 0 0%DHSR 1 1 100%DIRMDMA 2 1 50%DMH 2 0 0%DSOHF 10 0 0%DPH 27 22 81%DSBDSDHHDSS 51 2 4%DVR 51 1 2%OES

Rural Hlth 1 0 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgtControllerDD CouncilMMIS

Overall: 263 27 10%

Q 1 - OPCS Reviews

Division


Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

%

In

Co

mp

lia

nc

e

DAAS 22 0 0%DCDEE 11 0 0%DHSRDIRMDMA 2 0 0%DMH 6 1 17%DSOHF 2 0 0%DPH 12 11 92%DSBDSDHHDSS 1 0 0%DVROES

Rural Hlth 6 1 17%HRProp & ConstrExecMgtControllerDD CouncilMMIS

Overall: 62 13 21%

Q 2 - OPCS Reviews

Contract ComplianceQ4 SFY 2013(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)

Division contract compliance should strive to achieve a 95% rate

Office of Rural Health and Community Care – 100%Division of Public Health – 97%

Divisions at or above the 75% markDivision of Child Development and Early Education – 90%

Department Compliance Rate SFY 2013

Department Compliance Rating SFY 2013

Out of Compliance

57%

In

Compliance

43%

Compliance Rating by DivisionSFY 2013

Division


Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

%

In

Co

mp

lia

nc

e

DAAS 33 0 0%DCDEE 246 100 41%DHSR 12 1 8%DIRMDMA 4 1 25%DMH 32 7 22%DSOHF 40 10 25%DPH 101 90 89%DSBDSDHHDSS 139 44 32%DVR 116 58 50%OES


Overall: 743 317 43%

SFY 2013 - OPCS Reviews

Goal for Contract ComplianceSFY 2013(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)

Division contract compliance should strive to achieve a 95% rate

No Divisions to Report

Divisions at or above the 75% markDivision of Public Health – 89%

SFY 2009 to 2013 Overall Compliance Comparison

66%

56% 56%

26%

43%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

SFY 09 SFY 10 SFY 11 SFY 12 SFY 13

% Compliance

SFY 2010 - 2013 Compliance Comparison

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DCDEE DMH DSOHF DPH DSS DVR

SFY 2010

SFY 2011

SFY 2012

SFY 2013

SFY 2010 - 2013 Compliance Comparison

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DHSR DIRM DMA DAAS Rural Hlth ExecMgt MMIS

SFY 2010

SFY 2011

SFY 2012

SFY 2013

Division # No

n Co

mpl

iant

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Miss

ing D

iv.

Appr

ovals

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Miss

ing D

ept.

appr

oval

s#

Non

Com

plia

nt

Cont

ract

or

Form

s#

Non

Com

plia

nt

Wor

kshe

ets

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Gen

eral

Cov

er

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Scop

e of

Wor

k

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Perfo

rman

ce

Mea

sure

s#

Non

Com

plia

nt

Oth

er E

dits

re

quie

rd#

Non

Com

plia

nt

HR S

alar

y &

Frin

ge#

Non

Com

plia

nt

Cont

ract

or

Budg

et#

Non

Com

plia

nt

Fund

ing

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Oth

er

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Mai

n Re

cord

# No

n Co

mpl

iant

Eval

uatio

n Se

ctio

n#

Non

Com

plia

nt

Cont

ract

G

ener

atio

n

DAAS 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 100% 4 80% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DCDEE 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 5% 5 5% 0 0% 0 0% 3 3% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DHSR 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 10% 1 10% 0 0% 0 0% 9 90% 9 90% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DIRMDMADMH 0 0% 3 14% 1 5% 1 5% 3 14% 2 10% 11 52% 5 24% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DSOHF 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 7 32% 3 14% 3 14% 0 0% 1 5% 2 9% 3 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DPH 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DSBDSDHHDSS 5 7% 0 0% 3 4% 3 4% 14 19% 1 1% 25 33% 10 13% 1 1% 0 0% 2 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DVR 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%OES

Rural Hlth 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgtControllerDD Council 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 2 67% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%MMIS

Overall:

8 2% 3 1% 4 1% 4 1% 18 5% 5 2% 60 18% 29 9% 4 1% 0 0% 16 5% 11 3% 4 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%% of ALL contracts that have

a problem in this area:

Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2013 (Q4)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS. • Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval

Q 4 - OPCS Reviews I

-Tim

ely

Appr

oval II - Approval Process

III - Document Review

IV - Contract Review V - RFA,Q,P

Compliance Rating by AreaSFY 2013 Q1 thru Q4

Areas of Compliance 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 SFY 2013

I - Timeliness Timely Approvals 15% 37% 75% 98% 60%

Division Approvals 100% 100% 100% 99% 100%

Department Approvals 100% 100% 100% 99% 99%

Contractor Forms 70% 90% 95% 99% 87%

Worksheets 48% 90% 97% 95% 78%

General Cover 79% 73% 95% 98% 89%

Scope of Work 44% 42% 68% 82% 63%

Performance Measures 60% 82% 83% 91% 79%

Other Edits 60% 89% 97% 99% 84%

HR Salary & Fringe 87% 90% 100% 100% 94%

Contractor Budget 60% 87% 89% 95% 81%

Funding 93% 92% 100% 97% 95%

Other 67% 92% 88% 99% 86%

RF? Main Record 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

RF? Evaluation Section 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

RF? Contract Generation 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

II - Approval Process

III - Document Review

V - RFA,Q,P

IV - Contract Review

Areas of ComplianceSFY 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Timely Approvals

Division Approvals

Department Approvals

Contractor Forms

Worksheets

General Cover

Scope of Work

Performance Measures

Other Edits

HR Salary & Fringe

Contractor Budget

Funding

Other

RF? Main Record

RF? Evaluation Section

RF? Contract Generation

COMPLIANCE SUMMARY SFY 09-13

Overall yearly compliance rating has decreased from SFY 09 (66%) to SFY 13 (43%) a drop of 23%. And as low as 26% in SFY 2012.SFY 11 - OW GO LIVE - to include contract generation and management. Compliance rating by Division shows that the Division’s compliance rating during the transition for the most part held steady or maintain their comparable level of performance (good or bad). It is believed that this was partly due to the fact that most contracts were already entered into the old system prior to the conversion. Few new contracts had to be entered and divisions practiced system avoidance which negatively impacted their knowledge of the system.SFY 12 – Divisions are using OW to fully build their contracts. Most divisions performance/compliance rating decreased by half of the status quo or the comparable level that they had previously maintained prior to the OW. Even divisions like Public Health who usually demonstrated compliance within the 80% range dipped to 35%. However, some divisions thrived, but it is to be noted that their contracts were not fully implemented in OW and were reviewed manually outside of the system; thus compliance with the system was not measured.SFY 13 – Although the overall compliance for SFY 13 was only 43%, almost every division had a swing in the positive direction. This indicates that for most divisions the learning curve for OW has improved.

COMPLIANCE SUMMARY SFY 13 (Q1-Q4)

Contracts after the effective date (timely approvals) decreased from 85% in Q1 to only 2% in Q4. A 83% swing in the positive directionWorksheets area in OW improved by nearly 47% from Q1Contractor Forms (documents) improved by almost 30% from Q1 to Q4.Contract Cover improved by almost 20% from Q1 to Q4.SOW, although still a major area of opportunity showed a remarkable improvement by as much as 40% from Q1 to Q4.Performance Measures and Contractor Budget compliance improved by as much as 30 to 35 % respectivelyOther Edits compliance rating improved by almost 40% from Q1 to Q4.

LEGAL NAMESNumerous contracts not approved because business not registered with the Secretary of State to do business with the state and/or the incorrect legal name. The contracting Agency (DHHS) must know who we are doing business with: Vendors must be registered The legal name shown per SOS is who we shall contract with DBA’s should be documented through the Registrar of

deeds in the county in which they operate Document Name Mismatch - All document names should be

in sync with the legal contractor nameSome contractors are exempt from registering with the state. See GS 57C-7-02 and 55A-15-01

A contractor who hires an independent contractor to sell goods

A contractor Conducting Affairs in interstate commerce

SCOPE CONSTRUCTIONConstruct your original SOW headings, subheadings, tasks, etc. using a properly formulated outline which helps to organize your information and makes it easier to construct future contract amendment.Construct your amendment to clearly outline the change or use strikethroughs (“delete task”) and underscores (“modified tasks”) to make it unnecessary for the reader to consult the original contract document to view what is changing.

SCOPE CONSTRUCTIONSeveral of our contracts provide direct services to clients. Please ensure that the service provisions/requirements are descriptive enough for complete understanding of Contractor’s roles and responsibilities vs. Division’s roles and responsibilitiesState how the clients to be served will be selected. Many contracts state the provider will serve clients but does not include how they will be selected. For instance, will the contractor bill only for services provided to the clients referred by DHHS? Or will the contractor find potential clients through its own means and then obtain Division approval of those clients?

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Measure Definition at Original contract level The number of healthcare facilities that will be

inspected during the contract term Target Value (25)

Measure Definition at Amendment level Increase the number of healthcare facilities

inspections by 15 from 25 to 40 Target value (15) or Target Value (40) If the same funding source and depending on how

you need to track the measure both TV’s are correct. Additionally, since the measure’s description clearly express the change in value, the contractor understands the performance metrics expectations.

OTHER VALUE SETSReflect accurate information for measure value sets (i.e. data source, collection process, etc.)

Example Input: $300,000

Wrong Data Source: NCAS Data Source: Invoices Collection Process: Manual

Correct Data Source: SL2013-360, Subpart XV-Health Care

Facilities Compliance, Section 25 B.1(f) Collection Process: Funds are encumbered in NCAS for

payments and allowable expenses are verified through monthly invoices submitted by the contractor

PAYMENT LANGUAGEPayment Provision – several end users are selecting multiple payment provisions in the contract cover as well as inserting additional/conflicting payment language under the scope of work. The cover is the order of precedence. If the static payment provisions options for the cover does not meet your contract need select the following option: Payment will be made in accordance with the

scope of work. Then describe the payment option applicable to the contract under the Reimbursement Heading in the SOW.

SESSION LAW/OTHERMany contracts reference a statue to support funding initiatives. Per S.L. 2013-360, the contract is being increased by $300,000. This is too vague. Please do not make the contractor hunt. Please include the applicable section (i.e. 7.3(b). etc).If you are going to use a statue or bill to support the fund source please ensure that it is accurate.Many contract justifications reference a statue to give money to a specific program. Divisions are using this to support a waiver of competition. However, if the recipient of the award is not specifically named in the statue, bill, money report, conference report, etc, you should seek competition.

REMINDERSComplete all data fields in OWUpload all executed contracts and amendments in OW.Hard Copy of executed contracts are no longer required to be sent to the Controllers Office. The controllers office was trained in May to review the executed contracts and other ancillary documents in OW. See email sent out regarding this matter for instructions.Update contract statuses, start/end dates/ funding, how procured, contract selection and all information pertaining to the contract appropriately in OW so that accurate reports can be run. This is very IMPORTANTView Lessons Learned on OPCS websiteRun Reports and Manage Your Contracts

Documents

DHHS COE Meeting Agenda Welcome Introductions Contract Compliance Reporting Questions and Answers Contract Updates