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.