1 / 57

Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 3:00 P.M.

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

jonas-burke
Download Presentation

Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 3:00 P.M.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State Purchasing Contract Administrators’ Meeting January 13, 2005 3:00 P.M.

  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.

  13. Training ProgramAction to Date

  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.

  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. 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. Standardize Contract Processes CFEG Project Gate Management Process Current Projects Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Business Case Procurement Contract Management Change Management Post Implementation Monitor Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 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. Proposed Solution New Constellation of Integrated Systems Contractor Performance Rating (?) 4 1 2 State Term Contract User Survey (Active) MFMP Vendor Performance Tracking (In Development) Contract Management Software (?) 3

  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? • What? • Ability to Analyze Data • Reduce Admin Overhead • Improved Turn Around • A Focus for Management Attention How? • A Single Location for information • Standard Reporting Format • Common Terminology • Provide immediate benefit to user

  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

  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. 67 22 90 344 58 119 Major Findings by Component

  36. 5 4 3 6 13 26 26 6 Major Findings by District

  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 more timely access to SMORES SMORES Timeline for CAP CPU has 30 days to generate the Monitoring Report, but MAY decide to complete report earlier 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. 30 DAYS 3 DAYS 4 DAYS 3 DAYS NOW 3 days from the actual report completion date will be allowed for data entry in SMORES Contract Manager has 7 days to notify the provider of CAP requirements, with the clock starting to tick from the actual report completion date.

  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

  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

  47. Performance Data Flow Dashboard Management Data reported via Dept Systems (HSn, One Family,etc.) Automated Recovery Reports System generated data, Measurement definition Algorithm, etc. Manual data & corrective action status Provider Performance SMORES Contract Manager/ Monitor/etc. Data Reported via Provider Reports Reports Manual Input

  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

More Related