1 / 25

apd regulations at 45 cfr part 95

sandra_john
Download Presentation

apd regulations at 45 cfr part 95

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. APD regulations at 45 CFR Part 95 Training for State staff II

    2. 2

    3. 3 Major Changes in APD Rule APDU Exemption of prior approval for procurement in the Annual or As-Needed update. Shorter APD Updates for Maintenance and Operation projects One-two page Operational APD for States not doing any development Procurement Permits States to follow procurement standards in Part 92, not Part 74. States may submit acquisition checklist, reducing submission requirements for lower-risk IT projects. Higher dollar thresholds for prior Federal approval; assumes that low-risk procurements will be exempted from prior approval. Department retains authority to provide greater oversight if a State procurement policies increases cost or risk of failure. Independent Verification and Validation Authority for all human service programs More IV&V triggers

    4. 4 APD Requirements

    5. 5 Procurement Requirements

    6. 6 Procurement (con’t)

    7. 7 Submission Thresholds Submission thresholds are based on risk as well as dollar threshold (with different thresholds based on lower risk); Operations and Maintenance – very low risk so eliminate prior approval requirements for O&M procurements, reduce APDU requirements for O&M to only 1-2 pages annually, Hardware and COTS Software Upgrades- medium risk so increase threshold from $5 million to $20 million; Software Development – Remains a high risk, so $6 million threshold for prior approval submission but permit flexibility on 20% of increased funding in contract amendments if increase is within scope of original contract. State can request exemption from prior approval if adequately described in the APD Update or As-Needed APD. State must still submit justification for high-risk sole source procurements over $1 million, but State procurement policies govern. After considering different approaches suggested by States, vendors, CIO’s and other organizations, we opted for a risk based approach to oversight Focusing Federal oversight on high risk IT projects and lessening our oversight on the areas we felt were low-risk. After considering different approaches suggested by States, vendors, CIO’s and other organizations, we opted for a risk based approach to oversight Focusing Federal oversight on high risk IT projects and lessening our oversight on the areas we felt were low-risk.

    8. 8 Low Risk Operations and Maintenance Projects Eliminate prior approval requirements for O&M acquisitions (RFP, IFB, contract and contract amendments). Reduce APD requirements for state projects in maintenance and operation mode to 1-2 page annual document that covers: Summary of O&M activities (to ensure O&M, not software enhancements). Summary of annual funding (to provide approval). Acquisition plan (to ensure full and open competition to maximum extent feasible). Maintenance – Definition in OCSE AT -06-03 – totality of activities required to provide cost-effective support to an operational software system Regional Fiscal Analysts need a dollar amount that has been approved so they can approve the quarterly grant in those lines of the funding document. Not all programs distinquish between enhancements and maintenance. . Even those that do, the States submission is spotty. Software maintenance means routine support activities that normally include corrective, adaptive, and perfective changes, without introducing additional functional capabilities. Corrective changes are tasks to correct minor errors or deficiencies in software. Adaptive changes are minor revisions to existing software to meet changing requirements. Perfective changes are minor improvements to application software so it will perform in a more efficient, economical, and/or effective manner. Software maintenance can include activities such as revising/creating new reports, making limited data element/data base changes, and making minor alterations to data input and display screen designs. Software maintenance that substantially increases risk or cost or functionality will require an as-needed ITD. Maintenance – Definition in OCSE AT -06-03 – totality of activities required to provide cost-effective support to an operational software system Regional Fiscal Analysts need a dollar amount that has been approved so they can approve the quarterly grant in those lines of the funding document. Not all programs distinquish between enhancements and maintenance. . Even those that do, the States submission is spotty. Software maintenance means routine support activities that normally include corrective, adaptive, and perfective changes, without introducing additional functional capabilities. Corrective changes are tasks to correct minor errors or deficiencies in software. Adaptive changes are minor revisions to existing software to meet changing requirements. Perfective changes are minor improvements to application software so it will perform in a more efficient, economical, and/or effective manner. Software maintenance can include activities such as revising/creating new reports, making limited data element/data base changes, and making minor alterations to data input and display screen designs. Software maintenance that substantially increases risk or cost or functionality will require an as-needed ITD.

    9. 9 Impact on States: APDU New Project – Same Implementation APD including Feasibility Study, Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Benefit Analysis, Cost allocation Enhanced Funded As-Needed APD Project Updates – raise submission threshold from $100,000 to $300,000 [Note: There is currently no authority to provide enhanced funding.] Regular Rate APD Project Updates Cost Benefit Analysis – eliminate requirement for annual CBA updates NPRM – instead of annual ual CBA – now only once every three years and may stop when Federal program office confirms you have broken even. After comments, eliminated all together. When read in conjunction with O&M ITD- another option to closing APD. Can keep open waiting for next influx of system development funding, but far less Federal submission requirements NPRM – instead of annual ual CBA – now only once every three years and may stop when Federal program office confirms you have broken even. After comments, eliminated all together. When read in conjunction with O&M ITD- another option to closing APD. Can keep open waiting for next influx of system development funding, but far less Federal submission requirements

    10. 10 Impact on States: Procurements RFP Competitive – Can self-attest using the Checklist IM 05-03 RFP Sole Source- If over $1 million, need to provide justification. (Change – the state procurement laws and policies govern sole source justification) Contracts Hardware – $20 million Software Development – $6 million Hybrid – use the lower threshold Contract Amendments – don’t need to submit for prior approval until exceeds 20% of base contract There were comments on the Acquisition Checklist – Several States urged it be expanded to contracts, not just RFP’s. One State (NY) stressed that Feds must accept the checklist, shouldn’t be a Fed option to ask for more detail. and not ask for copies of their State procurement policies There were comments on the Acquisition Checklist – Several States urged it be expanded to contracts, not just RFP’s. One State (NY) stressed that Feds must accept the checklist, shouldn’t be a Fed option to ask for more detail. and not ask for copies of their State procurement policies

    11. 11 Independent Verification and Validation Require Independent Verification and Validation for high risk projects. Triggers include: Are at risk of missing statutory deadlines; Are at risk of failing to meet a critical milestone; Indicate the need for a new project or total system redesign; Develop systems under waivers; At risk of failure, significant delay, or significant cost overrun; Fail to adequately involve state program offices in development and implementation of system project. States procurement policies put the project at risk These are where the balance of increased attention to high-risk projects come in. OMB encouraged over 10 years ago. CSE has had since Welfare Reform. Very successful, No failed projects since IV&V. Not new to child support and many of the other program offices had been requiring for “troubled” projects, but now consistent across programs. Trigger doesn’t automatically require State to acquire IV&V services. NY- after assessment review – no IV&V, ND – they fixed all issues before our on-site visit. CT- fixed so we cancelled the IV&V. Never more than quarterly, many are semi-annual or annual reviews. States find useful for State oversight, especially in Budget hearings and change in administration.These are where the balance of increased attention to high-risk projects come in. OMB encouraged over 10 years ago. CSE has had since Welfare Reform. Very successful, No failed projects since IV&V. Not new to child support and many of the other program offices had been requiring for “troubled” projects, but now consistent across programs. Trigger doesn’t automatically require State to acquire IV&V services. NY- after assessment review – no IV&V, ND – they fixed all issues before our on-site visit. CT- fixed so we cancelled the IV&V. Never more than quarterly, many are semi-annual or annual reviews. States find useful for State oversight, especially in Budget hearings and change in administration.

    12. 12 Waiver of Any APD Requirement Provide for Waiver process for any APD requirement : New to Part 95, but CSE has current regulatory authority Must provide alternative approach that enables it to be in substantial compliance with other requirements. Waiver and alternative approach can be all or portion of APD regulatory provisions Must demonstrate why meeting regulatory provision is unnecessary or inappropriate; Secretary (or designee) will review to assure that all processes provide for effective and efficient program operation. If approved, waiver becomes part of state’s approved APD. If approved, state must have IV&V assessment to determine degree of IV&V needed. Child Support already had this authority, but rarely used except for statewideness, Alternative Systems Configuration Why meeting condition is unnecessary Must have alternantive approach that addresses the need for the underlying requirement. Diminishes the State’s ability to meet program requirements Or more efficient, economical and effective administration of the programs Child Support already had this authority, but rarely used except for statewideness, Alternative Systems Configuration Why meeting condition is unnecessary Must have alternantive approach that addresses the need for the underlying requirement. Diminishes the State’s ability to meet program requirements Or more efficient, economical and effective administration of the programs

    13. Electronic Submissions Final rule eliminates most references to “in writing” to allow for electronic submissions and approvals in future Program offices at different readiness for accepting electronic submissions Size limitations of firewall

    14. Electronic Submissions (con’t) ACF’s email system will reject large files without notifying either party that the transmission was unsuccessful. Highlights the importance of receiving acknowledgement letter and/or email acknowledgement to make sure ACF has received your submission Experimenting with States access to posting submisions on Sharepoint (MA and AR) ACF street address for Federal Express, DHL and other courier mail is different from our mailing address

    15. 15 Disallowance of FFP for Failed Projects Provide authority to recoup regular rate funding. Current authority is limited to recouping difference between enhanced and regular rate FFP. put in regulations to bolster authority and to help balance. – If easing requirements for low-risk projects, need more tools for high –risk projects. put in regulations to bolster authority and to help balance. – If easing requirements for low-risk projects, need more tools for high –risk projects.

    16. 16 Reconsideration of Denial of FFP Due to Lack of Submission Reconsideration of denial of FFP due to lack of prior approval Codify the interpretation in AT OSSP-00-01 Original AT had detailed process and criteria, Decision in regulation to permit future flexibility by the Secretary and his/her designee. Regulation doesn’t go into the detail that the Action Transmitital issued in 2000 did. Regulation doesn’t go into the detail that the Action Transmitital issued in 2000 did.

    17. 17 New Definitions Added Acquisition Checklist – self certify compliance of RFP’s to Federal procurement requirements Base Contract – option years but not amendments COTS – ready made and available for sale to general public Noncompetitive – use long standing criteria for sole source justification Software Maintenance – used version of IEEE standard (pretty broad) Service Orientated Architecture also referred to as Service Component Based Architecture Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers – sets many standards for software and computers. Non-competitive definition – solicitation from only one source or after solicitation of a number of sources, negotiation with selected sources based on finding that competition is adequate - - the California situation where all vendors joined to provide one bid. Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers – sets many standards for software and computers. Non-competitive definition – solicitation from only one source or after solicitation of a number of sources, negotiation with selected sources based on finding that competition is adequate - - the California situation where all vendors joined to provide one bid.

    18. 18 Examples of high risk Does it trigger an IV&V? (same as on slide 11) New system development or total system redesign? Under waiver? Missed critical milestones? Lack of program office involvement? Late APD, schedule, cost overrun? Does it trigger an As-Needed APD? Regulatory thresholds indicate Federal assessment of high-low risk Operations vs. development Competitive vs. sole source procurements Hardware and operational software vs. application software development

    19. 19 Difference between M&O and development Definition of Software maintenance in final rule DCL 03-16 Examples of significant application software changes in Close out guidance IM-06-03 Maintenance and Operations Phase

    20. 20 Changes to APD Updates Previously closed APD’s will have to submit Annual Operational APD Updates No annual CBA or adjustments to cost and benefits New section for requesting Exemptions

    21. 21 NPRM and Final Rule in Federal Register March 7, 2008, Vol.73, No. 46 pages 12341-12354 Comments closed May 6, 2008 Final Regulation published October 28, 2010 in Federal Register

    22. States with Closed APD’s Will have to submit an Operational APDU annually. A 1-2 page summary of activities, procurements and estimated FFP. Flexible on effective date- please work with your Federal program analyst Solicit your participation in workgroup to develop template.

    23. Annual APD New section on Acquisition summary (only needed if you are requesting exemption from prior approval for specified RFP and contracts) Eliminate the annual cost benefit analysis and Revenue Stream module

    24. Acquisitions Federal programs will defer to state procurement standards Can request exemption from submitting for prior Federal approval if adequately described in APDU Must still comply with Federal laws (Davis Bacon, Clean Air and Water, Software Ownership Rights)

    25. Next steps Workgroup to help develop the 1-2 page Operational APD Please review and comment on the DRAFT APD State Systems Guide – mistakes, what is missing, other charts or information that would be useful? Federal systems analysts will be contacting their assigned States and Territories to follow up on additional technical assistance

More Related