DHHS COE Meeting AgendaJanuary, 2014

□Contract Compliance Reporting□Contract Update□Questions and Answers

Office of Procurement &

Contract Services

Quarter 2 – SFY 2014Contract Report for Center of Excellence

January 2014

Q2 - Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals (RFPs not included)

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

Average# of Days

DivisionsInternal Division

DepartmentReview Total

DAAS 1 7 8DCDEE 9 10 19DHSR 0 0 0DIRM 0 0 0DMA 0 0 0DMH 14 3 17DSOHF 1 38 39DPH 17 8 25DSB 0 0 0DSDHH 0 0 0DSS 31 4 35DVR 4 12 16OES 0 0 0Rural Hlth 2 8 9HR 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0ExecMgt 1 0 1Controller 0 0 0DD Council 0 0 0MMIS 0 0 0

11 9 20

Q2 - Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Oct. Nov. Dec. 2nd Quarter

Internal Department Total Avg Day

Q2 - Department Timely ApprovalsContract Approal Time-Frames

Q1 & Q2 Combined 2013 - 2014

Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval on or

after effective date

45%

Other -Including Legislative increase

amendments

0%

Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval more

than 30days prior to the effective date

10%

Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval less

than 30days prior tothe effective date

45%

Department Timely ApprovalsQ2 - Monthly Comparison

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Oct. Nov. Dec. 2nd Qtr.

% On or after the effective date

Q2 - Contract and Amendment Approval Times (RFPs not included)

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 25% 50% 25%DCDEE 0% 4% 96%DHSRDIRMDMADMH 0% 60% 40%DSOHF 0% 100% 0%DPH 15% 45% 40%DSBDSDHHDSS 29% 57% 14%DVR 0% 100% 0%OESRural Hlth 0% 100% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 0% 0% 100%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS

Timely Approvals for 2014 (Q2)

Q2 - Divisions submitting all contracts prior to the effective date

□Division of State Operated Healthcare Facilities

□Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

□Office of Rural Health and Community Care

Q2 - Compliance Rating Monthly Comparison

424 4

50

96

16 8

120

020406080

100120140160180

Oct. Nov. Dec. 2nd Qtr.

Num

ber

of C

ontr

acts

Compliant Non Compliant

30%

20%

33%

29%

In Compliance %

Q2 - Compliance Rating

Division

# of Contracts or Amendments

Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

% In

Co

mp

lia

nc

e

DAAS 4 1 25%DCDEE 82 1 1%DHSRDIRMDMADMH 5 3 60%DSOHF 1 1 100%DPH 20 8 40%DSBDSDHHDSS 21 8 38%DVR 25 25 100%OES

Rural Hlth 11 3 27%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 1 0 0%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS

Overall: 170 50 29%

Divisions with a Compliance Rating above 90%

□Division of State Operated Healthcare Facilities - 100%

□Division of Vocational Rehabilitation - 100%

Division # No

n Co

mpli

ant

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Miss

ing D

iv.

Appr

ovals

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Miss

ing D

ept.

appr

ovals

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Cont

racto

r Fo

rms

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Wor

kshe

ets

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Gene

ral C

over

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Scop

e of

Wor

k

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Perfo

rman

ce

Mea

sure

s#

Non

Com

plian

t

Othe

r Edit

s re

quier

d#

Non

Com

plian

t

HR S

alary

&

Fring

e#

Non

Com

plian

t

Cont

racto

r Bu

dget

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Fund

ing

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Othe

r

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Main

Rec

ord

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Evalu

ation

Se

ction

# No

n Co

mpli

ant

Cont

ract

Gene

ratio

n

DAAS 1 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 25% 1 25% 2 50% 1 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DCDEE 79 96% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 6 7% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DHSRDIRMDMADMH 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 40% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DSOHF 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%DPH 9 45% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 2 10% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DSBDSDHHDSS 3 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 9 43% 2 10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DVR 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%OES

Rural Hlth 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 73% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 1 100% 0 0% 1 100% 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%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS

Overall:

95 56% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 5 3% 28 16% 8 5% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Q 2 - OPCS Reviews I

-Tim

ely

Appr

oval

II - Approval ProcessIII - Document

Review

IV - Contract Review V - RFA,Q,P

% of ALL contracts that have a problem in this

Q2 – Areas of Compliance( RFPs not included)Areas of Compliance 2014 Q1 Q2

I - Timeliness Timely Approvals 85% 44%

Division Approvals 100% 100%

Department Approvals 100% 99%

Contractor Forms 90% 100%

Worksheets 95% 100%

General Cover 97% 97%

Scope of Work 58% 84%

Performance Measures 90% 95%

Other Edits 100% 99%

HR Salary & Fringe 100% 100%

Contractor Budget 100% 100%

Funding 100% 100%

Other 98% 100%

RF? Main Record 100% 100%

RF? Evaluation Section 100% 100%

RF? Contract Generation 100% 100%

II - Approval Process

III - Document Review

IV - Contract Review

V - RFA,Q,P

Compliance Summary

□Contracts after the effective date for Q2 dipped by 29%. Only 15 % of contracts came in after the effective date in the previous quarter which was a 68% gain over Q1-2013 (83%). However the positive trend is slipping again with 44% of contracts coming in after the effective date for Q2-2014.

Compliance Summary

□The Scope of work is continuing to climb in the positive direction improving by 26% from 58% in Q1 to 84% in Q2

□Overall the core areas reviewed for compliance seems to be improving; whereas the most “fixable” compliance area (timely approvals) continues to decrease

Compliance Summary□Where possible divisions need to work

on their internal cycle times. Some divisions show cycle time as much as 30 days.

□Overall we are excited about the improvements as most of the compliance issues were controllable. They were made through lack of system knowledge and carelessness /inattentiveness.

Contract NewsA RFA Committee was formed in October to look at opportunities for efficiencies in the RFA process. Some key areas are:(1)Develop RFA like RFP; whereby the RFA becomes the contract(2)Look at the role of the reviewers/approvers in the contract approval process (Essential/Non Essential(3) Range Analysis to determine the average number of days it currently takes to develop a contract from a RFA(4)Committee Members: Sherri Settle, Sherri Garte, David Oglesby, David Womble, Dr. Robin Cummings, Sharon Jordan, Carlotta Dixon, Sharon Smith, bj Avent-Farmer, and Allison Owen

Performance Based Contracting

□ DHHS Policies and Procedures; Section 7; Chapter 1, General Contracting Requirements (pg. 5 of 6)

□ All contracts providing program related services must contain the five (5) elements. All other contracts (i.e. RFPs) must include the elements pertinent to the service being provide.□ Note the elements or naming convention for the elements have

changed somewhat since the policy, but the meaning and/or content that goes under these elements have remained basically the same

□ Current: Background, Purpose, Requirements, Performance Standards, Monitoring/Quality Assurance and Reimbursement. The reimbursement heading is only required if the reimbursement mechanism does follow the payment provision in the General Cover.

□ Previous: Needs Assessment, Project Objectives, Project Design, Project Evaluation and Reimbursement. Please note that depending on the nature of your grant or services, I have accepted these elements or headings in the scope as well as long as it also included a purpose and monitoring heading.

Performance Based Contracting□Performance Measure - Objective means of

assessing Performance to facilitate improvement

□The number of measures depend on the size and complexity of your project.

□All contracts must include performance measures. Program (Service related contracts) must contain input measures, output measures and outcome measures.

Performance Based Contracting

□It is recommended, but not required, to include demand measures, process measures, service quality measures and efficiency measures.

Final Reports

□Final Reports outside of Contract End Date and Budget Period□It is sometimes impossible to retrieve final

contract reports to coincide with the contract end date and final payment. Although there is some risk, via a small pol1 it is believed that the risk is minimal. However, best practice is to seek as much information (i.e. status reports, interim reports along the way) to ensure that most of the deliverable is met prior to the contract end date and final payment.

Tri-Party Agreements

□At this time OW only handles bi-party agreements. All agreements requiring more than two-parties signature please complete off-line and upload the executed copy. Note: You must still complete all of the required data elements in OW.

Federal Grant vs. Federal Contract

□Reference□http://www.pitt.edu/~offres/proposal/Gr

ants_vs_Contracts.pdf□Or see word document on OPCS

website.