myfloridamarketplace business case€¦ · governor, legislature, department of management...

MyFloridaMarketPlace

Business Case

Amended November 2010

Original Submission July 2010


MyFloridaMarketPlace Business Case Submission

Amended November 2010

Section 1 – Executive Summary

Section 2 – Program Overview

Section 3 – DMS Cost Benefit Analysis and Recommendation

Exhibit 1 – Cost Benefit Analysis Detailed Worksheet………………………………19

Exhibit 2 – eProcurement Shadow System Comparison…………………………… 24

Exhibit 3 – Functionality Comparison………………………………………………. 32

Exhibit 4 – CEG Cost Benefit Analysis……………………………………………… 34

Section 4 – DMS Transition Plan

Section 5 – Procurement and Contract Management Process

Exhibit 1 – MyFloridaMarketPlace Timeline………………………………………. 6

Appendix 1 – OPPAGA/BPCI Report

Appendix 2 – Supplemental Materials

MyFloridaMarketPlace Facts …………………………………………………….… 2

MyFloridaMarketPlace Chronology…………………………..………………….… 5

Strategic and Tactical Plan………………………………………….......................... 19

Exhibit A – FY 2009 Accomplishments..………………………………………….... 27

Exhibit B – FY 2010 Accomplishments..………………………………………….... 30

Exhibit C – DMS Organization Structure..…………….………………………....... 36

Exhibit D - Accenture Organization Structure..…………………………………… 37

Exhibit E – MFMP System User Information.…………………………………...… 38

Exhibit F – Customer Satisfaction Survey Results…………………………….…... 44


Page 1 of 4

Section 1


November 2010

Executive Summary

Summary of Recommendation:

The Department of Management Services (Department or DMS) recommends re-competing the

contract for the MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) services. This course of action is in accordance

with the recommendation contained in the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government

Accountability (OPPAGA) report dated January 12, 2009. As to the reprocurement, it is the intent of

the Department to continue to follow the recommendations of the report with two minor exceptions:

(1) that DMS continues outsourcing of Disaster Recovery (DR) hosting services with the Service

Provider; and (2) that DMS continues the outsourcing of the Billing and Collections Services (BCS).

The analysis below provides the rationale for its recommendations.

Background:

Section 287.057(22), F.S., authorizes DMS to develop an eProcurement solution. Specifically, this

section states, “The department, in consultation with the Agency for Enterprise Information

Technology and the Comptroller, shall develop a program for online procurement of commodities

and contractual services. To enable the state to promote open competition and to leverage its buying

power, agencies shall participate in the online procurement program, and eligible users may

participate in the program…..” Chapter 287.057(22)(a), F.S., further provides: “[t]he department, in

consultation with the agency, may contract for equipment and services necessary to develop and

implement online procurement.” The statute also permits the use of a transaction fee to fund the cost

and operation of the online procurement system.

Based upon this authorization, DMS procured an online procurement program that later became

known as MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP). DMS executed the Web-based eProcurement contract

October 9, 2002. Based on recommendations in the OPPAGA BCPI report dated January 12, 2009,

and after an extensive renegotiation effort by both the Department and vendor, a second renewal of

25 months was executed, effective July 1, 2009. The current contract expiration date is December 8,

2012.

Agency Mission:

DMS provides a variety of centralized services to Florida’s state agencies, enabling them to focus on

their primary missions. These services include, but are not limited to: providing state group

insurance benefits to state employees, facility management services for state buildings, private prison

services to incarcerate prisoners, and retirement program services to state employee retirees. These

services also include establishing state term contracts and purchasing agreements for agencies and

eligible users to use and DMS providing centralized procurement services through the Division of

State Purchasing (SP) - these services include the MFMP online procurement system.


Page 2 of 4

Section 1

Stakeholders:

Currently, 32 state agencies use MFMP, including the Office of Legislative Services added in late

September 2008. The system, as of this writing, has more than140,000 vendors registered of which

more than 43,000 are certified business enterprises (CBEs) and has 15,000 users. The system is

interfaced with the State’s Vendor Bid System (VBS), where state agencies and some universities and

local governments issue notices of bid opportunities. MFMP is also interfaced with the state’s

financial system, the Florida Accounting and Information Resource Subsystem (FLAIR). Other

stakeholders include but are not limited to: state agencies, vendors, Department of Financial Services,

Governor, Legislature, Department of Management Services’ Office of Supplier Diversity (OSD),

State Purchasing (SP) and CIO. MFMP system utilization has grown since project inception,

demonstrating that the system is widely used and accepted by state agencies.

OPPAGA Report and Recommendations:

The 2008 General Appropriations Act directed the OPPAGA to conduct an independent study of the

state's eProcurement system, MyFloridaMarketPlace (see Appendix 1). To complete the study,

OPPAGA contracted with BCP International (BCPI), a company that provides advisory services in

information technology planning, integration and management and business transformation.

The five options for continued eProcurement services that OPPAGA directed to be considered are:

1. Continue contract with Accenture;

2. In-source all support of the MFMP system to state employees;

3. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider for the MFMP system;

4. In-source some of the support to state employees and solicit a competitive bid for a service

provider for the remaining support of the MFMP system; and

5. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider and a new system.

BCPI recommended a hybrid of post-contract alternative 1 (renegotiate current contract) and 4 (in-

source some functions and solicit a competitive bid as a long-term solution).

DMS Plan:

In accordance with OPPAGA’s recommendations, DMS completed option 1 and renegotiated and

renewed the contract with the current vendor, thereby achieving significant reductions in cost that

meet or exceed the OPPAGA/ BCP report recommendations.

DMS also plans to implement OPPAGA’s post contract option 4 with two minor revisions:

The recommendation to in-source the Disaster Recovery (DR) site hosting, and

The recommendation to in-source the Billing and Collection Services (BCS).

DMS investigated the recommendation to in-source the DR hosting. DMS’ conclusion was that any

in-source of DR hosting would be in the City of Tallahassee as this is where the state owned

resources centers are. DMS believes that placing production equipment and DR equipment in the

same city is not in the state’s best interest. The current DR hosting is in Suwannee, Georgia, which is

sufficiently removed from Tallahassee and should be impervious from any disaster event in

Tallahassee.


Page 3 of 4

Section 1

DMS also investigated the in-sourcing of the BCS staff. DMS conducted a full study of in-sourcing

of the BCS in 2006 (see Section 3). The results of that study are still pertinent today.

There are several substantive reasons for having the contractor retain responsibility for the billing and

collections operation. Pursuant to the authority in section 287.057(22), F.S., the contractor is paid

from fees after the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) is satisfied. Therefore, the Service Provider is

highly incented to do a diligent job of collecting fees. The OPPAGA report does provide that the

potential loss of revenue should be considered as part of an evaluation. DMS considered that factor,

and concluded that lost revenue collection would exceed any possible savings. Finally, with the state

now retaining any excess fees collected above the LBR and contract expenses, the state is incented to

enhance revenue collection as well as reduce cost.

Timeline:

DMS estimates that once the prospective Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) responses are received, the

Department will need approximately nine months for response evaluation, negotiations, and contract

execution. The procurement timeline DMS developed allows for nine months of transition services.

(Section 5).

Risk Mitigation Strategy:

Risk mitigation may consist of both real risks that require mitigation and perceived risks that may or

may not require mitigation. The recent contract renewal and renegotiation was successful in

mitigating several risks to the state. The risks mitigated include:

Termination language was updated with new provisions that are more favorable to the state;

Several performance measures were improved and strengthened to provide for better customer

service;

The Service Provider continues to assume the risk of contract payment from transaction fees,

however, provisions were also added requiring the Service Provider to negotiate in good faith

for service level reductions if there were to be a shortfall in revenue to cover the contract cost;

and

The Service Provider must provide Termination Assistance Services and Transition Planning

(See Section 4)

In proceeding with a competitive bid for a new contract to replace the current contract, DMS will

strive to continue to address and mitigate these risks. In addition, an approach to handle contract

non-performance by a vendor was developed. (See Section 5). DMS also plans to have contract

language that will address any potential shortfalls in revenue. With 10 years of history, revenue loss

through decreased revenue collection or possible redistribution of revenue is the more significant

remaining threat to the MFMP operation.

Finally, a Contingency Budget (CB) for system enhancements will be built into the new contract to

provide for continued improvement including customer driven changes.

Governance Concerns/ Strategy:

With the augmentation of the CB during the recent contract renewal and renegotiation, MFMP has a

sound governance structure and relies on its Change Review Board (CRB) to guide prioritization of


Page 4 of 4

Section 1

system enhancements. The CRB is comprised of representatives from DMS and other agencies with

a stake in changes to the system.

There are two governance concerns that loom for the new contract. The first includes the Southwood

Shared Resource Center (SSRC) moving in the direction of being a full-service provider. At the end

of the current contract, the state takes possession of all equipment (hardware, software,

customizations) for the MFMP operation currently hosted at the SSRC. If the SSRC becomes a full-

service provider rather than providing a hosting solution it will present a governance issue in that

there would be split responsibility between a service provider and the state. Historically, split

responsibilities present governance challenges in that, when issues occur, it is a challenge to

determine who has responsibility. MFMP is already working with the DMS CIO and the SSRC to

develop clear lines of responsibility in the new contract. Specific contract language will be

developed to address the agency roles for the new ITN and will be addressed during contract

negotiations.

The second challenge in governance is the evolution of the partnership between DFS and DMS to

address system changes related to new laws. As DFS develops its systems for the Federal IRS 3

percent holdback, there will be impacts to DMS that are difficult to plan for at this time.

Cost Benefit Analysis:

It would cost the state an average estimated $17,860,000 annually to insource MFMP as compared to

an estimated $15,400,000, to continue the MFMP contract. This is an additional cost of $2,460,000

annually.

Conclusion:

Based on the data in this submission and based on the OPPAGA report, DMS submits this Business

Case with the recommendation that DMS proceed to re-compete the MFMP contract to obtain a

service provider to run the current operation.


Page 1 of 7

Section 2


November 2010

Program Overview

Background

MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) is the State of Florida's online exchange for buyers and

vendors. In operation for more than seven years, the system transformed how Florida purchases

goods and services. Before MFMP, purchasing and paying meant multiple phone calls and faxes

between vendors and customers. Buyers combed through 840 separate product catalogs that

featured more than 70,000 items, which were not easily searchable. Approval of purchases

within state agencies was done manually via paper being passed around an agency. Vendors

were mailed purchase orders and vendors mailed back invoices. Invoices were manually checked

and approved before payments were made. The process was time consuming, expensive and

prohibited productivity.

Today, MFMP is a source for centralized procurement activities, streamlining interactions

between vendors and state government entities, and providing the tools to support award-

winning procurement for the State of Florida. MFMP automates the state’s order, approval,

invoicing and payment approval process, making the procurement cycle more cost effective and

time efficient than a traditional paper based system. Additionally, there are electronic tools to

streamline the development and execution of solicitations. Key system features include online

certification of minority business enterprise, online catalog shopping, online quoting, commodity

receiving, and enterprise reporting.

Five modules comprise MFMP:

Buyer is the tool state agencies use to issue purchase orders (PO) to registered

vendors.

Analysis is an analytical reporting tool that combines PO/contract data, vendor

information, and payment records.

Sourcing is an electronic notification and bidding tool used by DMS for STC

development.

eQuote is an electronic notification and quoting tool.

Vendor Information Portal (VIP) is the system in which vendors register to do

business with the state.

MFMP provides vendors with the opportunity to register to do business with state agencies. In

October 2009, the MFMP vendor registration system was upgraded and re-introduced as the

Vendor Information Portal (VIP). VIP incorporated three systems and is now one easy-to-use

system. The old process included a 48-hour delay and required vendors to enter information into

multiple registration sites to receive electronic notifications. VIP streamlined the vendor

registration process, enabling vendors to obtain their registration, billing and Vendor

Performance Tracking (VPT) feedback through a single portal. In VIP, vendors can now elect

to receive bid notifications for formal and informal solicitations from three state-issued systems


Page 2 of 7

Section 2

(MFMP eQuote, MFMP Sourcing, and the Vendor Bid System (VBS)). Before VIP,

approximately 7,000 vendors were receiving VBS notices for formal solicitations; after VIP was

implemented, more than 75,000 vendors began receiving formal solicitation notifications. In

addition, VIP interfaces with other state systems, including the Office of Supplier Diversity's

certification system. This integration facilitates the registration, review and certification process

to connect minority, women and service-disabled veteran business owners with business

development opportunities. VIP will also interface with the Department of Financial Services

W-9 Verification system as part of the IRS mandated 3 percent withholding project. Streamlining

the state registration process also enhanced the vendors' registration experience and reduced the

number of MFMP customer service desk tickets by 15%.

MFMP also provides enterprise reporting. In July 2010, Analysis 3.0 was launched. The new

Analysis 3.0 provides state-of-the-art reporting tools to agency customers and combines data

from three separate systems, including the state’s accounting system (FLAIR). While historically

customers used manual processes to assemble data, Analysis 3.0 provides customers with an

automated spend visibility solution with data that is refreshed nightly. For the first time, agencies

will be able to pull purchase order (PO) and invoice data from MFMP, encumbrance and

payment information from FLAIR, and registered vendor data from the Vendor Information

Portal (VIP); all from a single reporting tool. This saves agencies administrative time and effort

by reducing the time they spend manually compiling data from several systems. These upgraded

features also enhance the information available for state agencies and legislators to analyze

spending patterns and create strategic sourcing opportunities.

Currently 32 state cabinet and executive agencies use MFMP. As of October 2010, MFMP has

135,000+ vendors registered of which 45,000+ are certified business enterprises (CBEs) and has

15,000 agency customers (Appendix 2). The system is interfaced with the state’s Vendor Bid

System (VBS) through which state agencies and some universities and local governments issue

notices of bid opportunities and is also interfaced with the Florida Accounting and Information

Resource Subsystem (FLAIR).

The MFMP program is self-funded through a 1 percent fee paid by vendors selling to the state

funds the Division of State Purchasing operations, the Office of Supplier Diversity operations

and the MFMP system.

MFMP has received several awards, including: Excellence in IT Leadership Award from IT

Florida, Honorable Mention given by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing,

ComputerWorld Laureate, Leadership in Public Sector from IT Florida, and 2010 NASCIO

Finalist. The October 2010 Florida Government and Technology Conference featured MFMP

when the theme was “Exploring Technology Innovation and Security.” State CIO, David Taylor,

discussed the powerful reporting capability MFMP offers.

Authority

Section 287.057(22), F.S., authorizes DMS to develop an eProcurement solution. Specifically,

F.S. states, “[t]he department, in consultation with the Agency for Enterprise Information

Technology and the Comptroller, shall develop a program for online procurement of

commodities and contractual services. To enable the state to promote open competition and to


Page 3 of 7

Section 2

leverage its buying power, agencies shall participate in the online procurement program, and

eligible users may participate in the program…..” This section goes on to say, “[t]he department,

in consultation with the agency, may contract for equipment and services necessary to develop

and implement online procurement.” The statute also permitted the use of a transaction fee to

fund the cost and operation of the online procurement system.

Based upon this authorization, DMS procured an online procurement program that later became

known as MFMP. DMS executed the Web-based eProcurement contract on October 9, 2002.

The contract was for a term of 61 months. Contract language provided for a renewal of three (3)

years or, alternately, an additional 61 months. A three-year renewal was exercised in 2005 that

provided coverage until November 7, 2010. Subsequently, based on recommendations in the

OPPAGA BCPI report dated January 12, 2009, a second renewal of 25 months was executed as

part of a renegotiation effective – this renewal was effective July 1, 2009. The expiration date of

the contract is now December 8, 2012.

The renegotiation of the above-mentioned renewal significantly exceeded the recommendations

outlined in the 2009 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability/BCP

International study (see Appendix 1). In sum, the renegotiation efforts yielded the following:

Reduction of overall annual cost from $18.7M to $14.8M beginning July 1, 2009 –

provides savings of $13.325M for the remaining term of the contract.

Addition of available enhancement effort hours at no additional cost.

Commitment from service provider to deliver major software and hardware upgrade

during extended contract term.

Improvement in three (3) monthly performance measures.

Significant reduction of existing contract termination penalty.

Improvement in transition provisions to support State planning for post contract

options.

Stakeholder Involvement, Communication and Training

The need to “do more with less” to meet customer expectations becomes more important than

ever, resulting in greater leveraging of technologies. Similarly, as stakeholder needs and new

and better customer service is realized, new technologies and customer expectations increase and

must be analyzed and implemented.

MFMP constantly creates and meets performance expectations, customer needs and

communicative opportunities by using tools such as surveys, customer service desk callback

samples, communication audits, change review board, and change requests to allow its customers

to voice concerns and recommend improvements to vendor customer service.

Specifically, MFMP routinely solicits and receives input from the customer roundtable (CRT)

and the change review board (CRB). The CRT consists of all the MFMP Purchasing and

Finance and Accounting liaisons from every state agency. The CRB membership consists of

volunteer liaisons from 13 of the 32 state agencies.


Page 4 of 7

Section 2

The CRB provides guidance to DMS MFMP operations by prioritizing change requests or

improvements to the MFMP systems. The CRB was also leveraged during the upgrade of Ariba

Buyer to the current Ariba version 8.2.2 (MFMP 2.0) and will be called on again for the Ariba

version 9r1 (MFMP 3.0) upgrade. Most importantly, MFMP leverages its CRB participation for

user acceptance testing of change requests, for CB monitoring, and overall guidance for system

enhancements.

The DMS MFMP team meets with customers regularly via quarterly CRT meetings, CRB

meetings, and process improvement workgroups. Additionally, the team also discusses the

program at the monthly Florida Association of State Agency Administrative Services Directors

meetings and the monthly agency Purchasing Directors meetings. DMS MFMP operations team

also enjoys representation in the National Institute for Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), Florida

Association of Public Purchasing Officers (FAPPO), and the National Association of State

Purchasing Officers (NASPO), and regularly participates in these associations and publishes

white papers and eProcurement studies to gauge stakeholder opinions.

Within the past few years, the MFMP communications/training program has been expanded.

Interactive online learning, online recorded training tours, and in-person instructor-led classes

were introduced to aid adoption to MFMP. The addition of online learning enables agency

customers to participate in MFMP training at their leisure, in the comfort of their own office.

MFMP also recently expanded outreach to the vendor community by holding vendor learning

webinars directed to educate vendors on a variety of topics, including registering with MFMP

Vendor Information Portal and finding business opportunities.

This past fiscal year, MFMP also held two first-ever conference workshops for vendors and

buyers. Cross training sessions were available from MFMP system tips and tricks, to Florida

Purchasing 101 and Florida state term contract training.

Additionally, the team publishes a bi-monthly eNewsletter for agency buyers and vendors. While

most of this material is targeted to MFMP system users, some of the content (e.g., state term

contract information and purchasing tips) are shared with other eligible users (OEUs) who make

up more than 60 percent of state term contract spend each year.

To support transparency in government spending and program planning, MFMP also posts all

training and meeting materials online for both buyers and vendors online at the following web

link: http://dms.MyFlorida.com/buyertoolkit and http://dms.MyFlorida.com/vendortoolkit

Finally, process improvement and automation is dramatically on the rise. MFMP continually

compiles data from its stakeholders: annual surveys, call center transcripts, website feedback and

annual meetings/focus groups. MFMP leverages its stakeholders to make processes and

experiences more efficient and effective for our customers through our change management

process.

http://dms.myflorida.com/buyertoolkit

http://dms.myflorida.com/vendortoolkit


Page 5 of 7

Section 2

Customer Utilization

Over the term of the MFMP contract, customer adoption of the program has grown. Customers

simply need a computer and a Web browser to access MyFloridaMarketPlace. This provides

accessibility to buyers statewide and to any vendor that wishes to register with the State of

Florida.

MyFloridaMarketPlace has been released to all executive branch agencies (which was part of the

initial scope of the program) as well as to the Legislature, SSRC and to the State Courts divisions

in Florida. MFMP is also working with the Agency for Persons with Disability as the agency

prepares to cease using the Department of Children and Families shadow requisitioning system,

ARTS, and transitions to MFMP by Spring of 2011.

The program has continued to improve targeted efficiencies, including both reduced requisition

to purchase order cycle time and reduced invoice to check cycle time metrics. Overall system

usage has also grown from 38K transactions in FY04 to more than 452K transactions in FY09.

MFMP also provides a consistent way of looking at results for targeted metrics related to

procurement and invoice processing productivity. MFMP delivers a quarterly statewide Agency

Benchmarking Activity (ABA) report to all customer agencies to focus on increasing efficiency

and effectiveness in the day-to-day procurement and payment processes. Additionally, the ABA

provides the opportunity for agencies to learn from their peer agencies and measure effectiveness

for processes against established benchmarks. By focusing on agency cycle-times, they

significantly reduced over the system’s tenure by as much as 33 percent.

Customers continue to be satisfied with the MFMP program. Satisfaction is tracked through

annual customer satisfaction survey results. The 2010 MFMP Customer Satisfaction survey,

which was issued to more than 1,400 MFMP customers, demonstrated that overall satisfaction

has increased by 3 percent last year, has increased nearly 17 percent since 2006, and the current

satisfaction rating is 97 percent.

Year Purchasing F&A Overall

2006 84% 77% 80.5%

2007 89% 94% 91%

2008 94% 90% 93%

2009 93% 95% 94%

2010 97% 96% 97%


Page 6 of 7

Section 2

Looking Forward

DMS understands the call to “do more with less” while still maintaining customer expectations.

Beginning in September 2010, work began on the MFMP 3.0 (Ariba 9r1) upgrade, which is

scheduled to launch in September 2011. During the upgrade effort, DMS will confirm current

customizations, perform rigorous system testing and deploy a new MFMP 3.0 training program.

The annual customer satisfaction survey is tool in which DMS polls customer upgrade

requirements. DMS asked customers, “What features of the system could be improved?”

Overwhelmingly, customers indicated that the wanted a more robust catalog and catalog search

capabilities. In addition, customers requested a reduction of pages (screens) when creating

invoices. DMS obtains more feedback on customer needs from the customer roundtable, change

review board and agency one-on-one meetings.

DMS is also in the process of enhancing the Sourcing tool, which is currently used by the

Division of State Purchasing for State Term Contract development. Sourcing 3.0 is slated to

launch in the spring of 2011 and will expand a solicitation tool into an overall project

management solution. The tool will provide a consistent template for solicitation development, a

content clause library, and make available a history of approvals and document submissions.

Sourcing will also offer a dashboard view of current project status displaying pending approvals

required and overdue items, and give vendors the ability to preview event information to

determine if it is in line with business that they would choose to bid on (i.e., vendors can then

make the decision join the event).

In addition to the upgrade, over the next year MFMP will focus on several strategic / tactical

goals. Annually, MFMP develops a strategic / tactical plan identifying goals for the coming

fiscal year (See Appendix 2). For a successful program of this magnitude, it is crucial to keep a

thumb on the pulse of the eProcurement marketplace. This plan shapes the team’s focus and is

aligned with the Division of State Purchasing’s strategic goals.

In FY 10/11, strategically, the team will focus on several goals, including:

Coordination with DFS for W-9 verification deployment - In line with federal

legislation, MFMP is working with DFS to implement a coordinated solution for

verifying vendor W9 information.

VBS / SPURSview updates - While VBS and SPURSview are widely used tools, the

technology is dated and not user-friendly. During FY 10, the team consolidated

customer feedback for proposed enhancements.

Enhanced MFMP public relations and marketing - This area includes increasing

awareness of MFMP activities and successes through various media and outreach

channels, including buyer and vendor training events.

Strengthen Revenue Collection - This area includes continued enforcement around

transaction fee reporting and payment requirements.

One eProcurement and payment system - The MFMP team continued to make

progress in this area during FY 10, including completing a detailed analysis and

comparison of the various shadow systems used by the Department of Children and


Page 7 of 7

Section 2

Families, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services. To move forward with comprehensive use, there is a need to

minimize, if not eliminate, all shadow system use for requisitioning. Additionally,

the team will continue to work with agencies to increase invoicing adoption.


Page 1 of 39

Section 3


November 2010

MyFloridaMarketPlace Cost Benefit Analysis and Recommendation

The current contract with Accenture for the MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) system ends on

December 8, 2012. Before that date, the state must decide how to continue services for an online

procurement system. MFMP is an award-winning program and was most recently named as a

finalist for a National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) award. For

more than 20 years, NASCIO has honored outstanding information technology achievements in

the public sector and recognizes information technology initiatives that exemplify best practices,

support the public policy goals of state leaders, assist government officials to innovatively

execute their duties, provide cost-effective service to citizens, and help government operations

run more efficient and effective.

To reach a recommendation as to the best course of action for the State of Florida at the end of

the current eProcurement contract, DMS conducted market research and analysis of the findings.

Through that analysis, DMS considered several post contract options, identified by BCP

International (BCPI), and the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

As part of this options analysis, DMS reviewed the current eProcurement market across many

states, as well as several Florida procurement shadow systems. DMS also collected cost data,

and studied the comparable data to assist in analyzing the identified options.

When BCPI completed its 2009 OPPAGA report on MFMP, it identified five options for

proceeding with operations after the termination of the current eProcurement contract. DMS

agrees that the five options outlined in the report are the options to consider and conducted a

careful analysis of the costs, advantages, disadvantages, risk and mitigation strategies of each

option. The five options are:

1. Continue contract with current provider.

2. Insource all support of the MFMP system to state employees.

3. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider for the MFMP system.

4. Insource some of the support to state employees and solicit a competitive bid for a

service provider for the remaining support of the MFMP system.

5. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider and a new system.

For reasons more fully outlined below, DMS agrees with the BCPI determination that options 2

and 5 are non-viable. BCPI recommended that the state pursue Option 1 in the short term and


Page 2 of 39

Section 3

develop a strategy to pursue Option 4, a continuation of the contract with the current provider.

DMS followed the BCPI-recommended Option 1 to continue with the current contractor in the

short term, and renewed the contract with Accenture for three additional years. In addition to

extending the contract term, DMS achieved contract savings during negotiations, and additional

services, when the vendor agreed to absorb the cost of the Billing and Collections Services costs

and to augment the Contingency Budget, which provides for ongoing system improvements.

The new contract cost is fixed at $1,233,333.33 monthly or $14.8 million annually.

Based on this comprehensive research and analysis, DMS recommends a modified Option 3 to

maintain the Ariba platform and issue a competitive solicitation for a new service provider for

the continued operations of the MyFloridaMarketPlace system.

Market research shows that the Ariba application is considered one of the best eProcurement

Systems available for public use. Based on the current contract cost of $14.8 million annually,

DMS does not anticipate an increase in costs to maintain the current application in a new

contract.

In the Option 3 competitive solicitation, DMS plans to include a request for vendors to offer

eProcurement components to possibly add to the state‟s current eProcurement system, possibly

as an add alternate, that would enhance the eProcurement system services (e.g., travel, asset

management, contract management, others). Seeking add alternates enables the state to try new

technology while maintaining the existing familiar and customer-approved program. In addition

to these add alternates and enhancements to the current system, DMS proposes drafting the

Invitation To Negotiate to allow for competitive alternative solutions meaning further

investigation of Option 5 is possible during the solicitation.

Until a competitive solicitation is completed, DMS can only project costs for a new e-

Procurement contract based on the experience of other states using eProcurement contracts. They

range from $1 million per year for six years, to $70 million over the course of five years. DMS

expects overall costs to remain constant or to decrease after a competitive procurement.

DMS analysis of the five options is outlined in the following pages.


Page 3 of 39

Section 3

Option 1: Continue contract with current provider

Continuing with the current provider is not a viable option as the current contract does not have

any remaining renewals.

Advantages Disadvantages

The known entity would make costs

consistent

Not legally viable

The ongoing relationship between DMS

and the vendor would ensure that there is

no interruption in service.

No opportunity for competition

Continuation of the Ariba platform, in use

by the state for almost eight years, would

be possible.

DMS predicts that savings are possible

with a new contract through a solicitation,

which is likely not possible if contract is

continued.

Option 1 Cost Analysis

The current contract cost is fixed at $1,233,333.33 monthly or $14,800,000 annually. If the state

continued the contract, the current price represents the costs of this option.

Option 1 Determination

DMS recommends that this option be rejected because it is not viable. The current contract with

the vendor expires on December 8, 2012. Pursuant to section 287.058(g), F.S., there are no

further renewals left for the contract, and therefore, continuation of the contract is not an

available option.


Page 4 of 39

Section 3

Option 2: Insource all MFMP system support to state employees

Insourcing MFMP will require state employees to handle all functions related to the system

including maintaining the systems technology support and development, the customer service

desk, billing and collections team, and purchasing all hardware and software required.

Cost Analysis

The insource cost estimate includes a number of assumptions built in that must be considered.

They are:

1. The marketplace requires salary levels to be competitive for these highly technical skill

sets. The average hourly bill rate for an Ariba programmer ranges from $200-300 and

hour, depending on experience.

2. The cost estimates for technical resources must take into consideration that the state does

not have the ability to spread these resources over multiple projects or the ability to roll-

off resources when needed. The costs for technical resources must be accounted for as

full-time employees for the life of the project. A service provider has many clients with

similar needs, and its technical architecture staff would more efficiently be deployed over

several projects as it is likely that the vendor has multiple projects in development or

operating at the same time. However, if the state insourced, state resources would be

required full-time for the single project because the state will not have other similar

projects that these staff members could rotate between to share resources.

3. Ariba, the state‟s current program, is a leader in public sector eProcurement solutions.

The state will continue to use Hardware and Software from the existing system.

4. Hardware requires refreshing every fourth year and software licensing must be renewed

annually. BCPI estimates that hardware/software costs will be $4.6 million annually.

5. There will be a one-year ramp up period over which the contract will have to be

maintained while the state gradually transitions to complete insourcing, resulting in costs

for the state operation and contract cost. Year 1 costs reflect this assumption.

Based on the above assumptions and those contained in exhibit 2, the estimated summary of the

costs to insource the MFMP operations over the next 5 years is shown below.


The costs of this option are estimated below:

Grand Total In-Sourcing

Costs

for MFMP

Year 1

2013

Year 2

2014

Year 3

2015

Year 4

2016

Year 5

2017 5-year Total

DMS Labor Total $ 8,093,250 $ 10,165,500 $ 9,308,250 $ 8,093,250 $ 10,165,500 $ 45,825,750

Software/Hardware Maintenance Total

$ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 23,000,000

Subcontractor Total $ - $ 2,088,000 $ 1,386,000 $ - $ 2,208,000 $ 5,682,000

Transition/Ramp Up Cost* $ 14,800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,800,000

Annual Grand Total Costs $ 27,493,250 $ 16,853,500 $ 15,294,250 $ 12,693,250 $ 16,973,500 $ 89,307,750

*Assumption for year 1 is that cost of recruitment, transition and ramp-up will equate to only the first year of

operating costs


Page 5 of 39

Section 3

Along with developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the benefits and consequences

(Advantages and Disadvantages) of insourcing the MFMP Operations and summarized the

considerations in the table below:


Agency user familiar and satisfied with the

existing system

Transition of services may result in an

interruption of services

State owns the “code-line” once the

contract is over

Ariba personnel are costly; experts in the

platform are normally paid from $200-300

an hour

Would allow state employees to develop

expertise

As software upgrades are included in the

price by vendor, the state may be missing

opportunity to get the best or most up to

date software available unless funds are

maintained to purchase the upgrades

Reduce dependencies on contractor State may have difficulty hiring and

retaining employees with the right skill set

Provides state employees with better career

opportunities

Required technical expertise does not exist

with current state employees

State employees are more familiar with

state business processes and requirements

Requires additional facilities to house

program office

Not the core competency of the current

state employees

The state does not have the ability to

spread these resources over multiple

projects as this is a completely unique

project


After evaluating the costs and the advantages and disadvantages, DMS found, like BCPI, that

this option is not the most viable option for the state or MFMP. In its analysis DMS found, as

did BCPI in its report, that the state salary range is not aligned with the requirements of Ariba

developers who normally earn $200-$300 an hour. This pay discrepancy may make it difficult to

retain platform experts as state employees. In addition, this type of work is not the core

competency of the state.

Further, overall costs to insource the eProcurement program exceed yearly contract costs for

outsourcing to a vendor. In addition, as BCPI highlighted, customer confidence is a risk to be

mitigated as typically the state does not maintain this type of large scale IT project. During the

FY 09/10, MFMP Customer Satisfaction survey demonstrates that customer confidence and

satisfaction with the system is high with an overall satisfaction rate of 97 percent.


Page 6 of 39

Section 3

Option 3: Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider for the MFMP system

DMS explored a modification to this option: soliciting a competitive procurement for a new

service provider while maintaining the current Ariba platform. Ariba is a leader in current

software solutions. Market research indicates that organizations typically take five to 10 years to

fully adopt changes in the procurement function. MFMP has been in operation for almost eight

years and the most recent customer satisfaction survey demonstrates that customer satisfaction

with MFMP is high, with 97 percent of MFMP customers being very satisfied with the current

system. Continuing operations in Ariba after a competitive bid would ensure that the state

maintains this level of customer service satisfaction while obtaining the most competitive price

available in the current market.


The cost estimate for a new service provider includes a number of assumptions built in that must

be considered. They are:

1. Sufficient time would be available to transition the eProcurement management services

to a new service provider under the terms of the existing eProcurement contract.

2. The new service provider will absorb transition costs while the existing provider

transitions the system.

3. All components of the existing operations will be maintained: Billing and Collections,

customer service desk support, technical architecture, etc.

4. Customer satisfaction and confidence in the system is important.


Hardware and Software from the existing system will be used.

6. Change management, or how agencies react to a change, is a concern.

The current eProcurement contract for MFMP costs $14.8 million annually. This includes

consulting services, support desk overhead, and all hardware and software licensing. BCPI

projected that a new contract with the same level of service would cost $14 million annually. The

State of Virginia has a similar eProcurement Ariba program called eVa. and our market research

shows these estimates are in line with Virginia‟s operating costs. Virginia, like Florida, uses a

broad suite of services. The Virginia contract costs $70 million more than five years with a

service provider. Annually the costs are $14 million, equal to the BCPI prediction for Florida;

however the service provider in Virginia does not maintain the customer service desk, nor does it

maintain the Invoicing component for Virginia that MFMP does for Florida. In a new

competitive bid, DMS seeks to beat BCPI‟s estimated contract cost of $14 million during

negotiations.


Page 7 of 39

Section 3

DMS currently has the resources and bandwidth to conduct the solicitation at no additional cost

to the State of Florida. We estimate the following costs and potential benefits in the table below.

The forecasted cost for a new eProcurement contract is $70 million.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Operation

Costs (labor,

hardware and

software)

$14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $70,000,000

Transition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Along with the developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the benefits and consequences

(Advantages and Disadvantages) of re-soliciting the MFMP Operations and summarized the



Promotes open competition Potential for major disruption of services

and operations if a new vendor is selected

Opportunity for a different point of view Significant transition period required

Opportunity to adjust performance metric

terms

Awarded vendor potentially unfamiliar

with state purchasing, MFMP and

customized software

Minimizes state resources requirements

(staff, facilities, etc.)

Potential for an unknown vendor could

create risks.

Potential to improve system operations

Agency users are familiar with the system

Potential to reduce contract pricing

Potential to add new system features to the

existing platform

Current

Contract

Annual Costs

BCPI Projected

Annual Costs

Virginia Annual

Contract Costs

Cost to issue the

solicitation

Minimum Potential

Annual Savings

$14,800,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 Included in

state salaries

$800,000


Page 8 of 39

Section 3

Option 3 Determination After reviewing the available market, DMS believes that maintaining the Ariba platform and

pursing a competitive solicitation is the most viable option and the best approach for the state‟s

customers. Pursuing this option would be the least impactful to state agencies that have been

using the system for many years. The current system is now considered the norm for doing

procurement business in Florida. In addition, the Ariba platform is a leader in eProcurement

solutions and the state will own this solution product at the term of the current contract.

DMS recommends a competitive solicitation for services after the contract expires. DMS

believes that the resulting contract will have additional savings off the current contract, which

would make this option even more attractive.


Page 9 of 39

Section 3

Option 4: Insource some of the support to state employees and solicit a competitive

bid for a service provider for the remaining support of the MFMP system

DMS investigated insourcing some of the support functions of the MFMP operation.

Specifically, DMS explored insourcing Disaster Recovery hosting and Billing and Collections

services as recommended by the BCPI report.


The cost estimate for the insource of Disaster Recovery services and Billing and Collection

services includes a number of assumptions built in that must be considered. They are:

1. All state-owned resource centers are in Tallahassee.

2. New contract will contain similar funding language that requires the vendor to assume

the risk for collection of the transaction fees.

3. Sufficient time would be available to transition the Disaster Recovery hosting and Billing

and Collection services to the state under the terms of the existing eProcurement contract.

4. DMS will need to add four additional state employee resources to perform Billing and

Collection Services


The state will continue to use Hardware and Software from the existing system.

DMS estimated the cost for insourcing the Disaster Recovery hosting by subtracting the hosting

costs for Disaster Recovery from the entire cost of the production environment. To calculate

savings, BCPI estimated that Disaster Recovery hosting should be approximately one-tenth of

entire production costs.

BCPI estimates that for the Disaster Recovery production environment, as part of the current

contract, costs the vendor approximately $65,000 annually. As of this date, hosting services

provided by the Southwood Shared Resource Center (SSRC) for the MFMP production

environment costs approximately $62,000 annually. Using this BCPI estimate, Disaster

Recovery hosting by the SSRC would cost about $6,200 annually. Thus, insourcing Disaster

Recovery hosting could save approximately $58,800 a year.

Labor Cost

including

benefits

Current production environment costs $65,000

Estimated insourced Disaster Recovery hosting

costs

$6,200

Potential savings $58,800

DMS also estimated the insourcing costs for Billing and Collection. BCPI estimated the current

contract costs for the contract vendor for Billing and Collection services are approximately


Page 10 of 39

Section 3

$500,000 for one manager and three collection agents. DMS estimates that insourcing these four

positions would cost approximately $364,500 including benefits.

Annual FTE

Need

Individual

Salary

Labor Cost

including

benefits

Billing & Collections Lead 1.00 $ 75,000 $ 101,250

Billing & Collections Operations 3.00 $ 65,000 $ 263,250

Total Additional salary $364,500

Based on these projections, insourcing both Disaster Recovery services and Billing and

Collection services would save the state approximately $192,300 annually.

Using BCPI‟s estimate that a renegotiated eProcurement contract would average $14 million

annually, insourcing Disaster Recovery hosting and Billing and Collections services would

reduce estimated annual contract fee to $13,807,700.

The forecasted cost for a new eProcurement contract is $69,038,500. Assuming that DMS would

require a one-year transition before assuming full responsibility for Billing and Collections

services, the total cost of Option 4 is $69,538,500.


Operation

Costs (labor,

hardware and

software)

$13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $69,038,500

Transition

services

$500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000

Total $14,307,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $69,538,500

Along with the developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the Advantages and

Disadvantages of insourcing some components of the MFMP Operations and summarized the



Reduce dependencies on contractor Because the current contract provides that

the DMS LBR is paid before the contractor

receives payment, the state would lose the

incentive for the vendor to collect

transaction fees.


Page 11 of 39

Section 3

Disaster recovery services will be easier to

maintain locally

Production equipment and disaster

recovery equipment will be in the same city

Provides flexibility Requires additional state employees to

support MFMP

Reduces contractual costs Potential for unknown vendor creates risk

Opportunity to adjust contract and

performance issues

Requires additional facilities to house

program office

Agency users are familiar with the system Knowledge transfer required

Potential to improve system operations Transitions period required


DMS recommends rejection of this option for several reasons. First, DMS does not believe that

insourcing these functions is in the best interest of the state. If the SSRC hosted Disaster

Recovery, then the hosting would take place in the same city where the production equipment is

located. Placing production equipment and Disaster Recovery equipment in the same city is not

in the state‟s best interest as it may cause substantial system interruption if a disaster occurred in

Tallahassee. Potential savings of less than $60,000 a year do not mitigate this risk. The current

Disaster Recovery hosting facility is in Suwannee, Georgia, which is sufficiently removed from

Tallahassee to reduce the risk to the system from a disaster event in Tallahassee.

Similarly, DMS believes that insourcing Billing and Collections is not in the best interest of the

state. The new eProcurement contract will contain, as does the current contract, compensation

language similar to the language in Modification No. 6:

The Revenue Share will be paid solely from the amount of the Transaction fees collected

by the Department. Prior to paying the Revenue Share, the Department is entitled to

deduct up to $678,192 per month from the amount of Transaction Fees collected in order

to funds its Legislative Budget Request for functions related to state purchasing. Service

Provider shall bear the entire risk if the revenue produced through the Transaction Fee is

less than the amount necessary to pay both the LBR and the Revenue Share.

Thus, the incentive for the service provider is high to ensure that the state collects revenue to

cover not only DMS State Purchasing costs but the contract costs as well. The service provider,

not the state, bears all the risk for increasing collections. The costs avoided through insourcing

this function do not outweigh the risk associated with the state assuming full collection

responsibility.


Page 12 of 39

Section 3

Option 5: Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider and a new system

DMS researched the option of replacing the Ariba platform with another too, and analyzed this

option, by reviewing the current eProcurement market. The market includes a wide array of

solution types, from one-process applications to a variety of applications suites. Several of the

larger competitors in the procurement applications market have released significant updates to

their product lines. Ariba's 9r1 and Oracle have both released new versions of their software. As

part of a scheduled upgrade in September 2011, MFMP will adopt Ariba‟s 9r1 version, which

will mean the state has this updated technology.

Gartner, the leading IT advisory firm, recently rated 14 „best-of-breed‟ eProcurement systems

across several categories. The ranked eProcurement systems provide an array of functionality.

Gartner‟s research assessed the 11 most common capabilities clients require in eProcurement

systems. For each product that met the inclusion criteria, Gartner evaluated each of the 11

critical capabilities on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most positive rating.

The top solutions overall for both the private and public sector, according to the study, included

Ariba, Basware, BirchStreet Systems, Elcom, Periscope and Proactis. Gartner‟s findings are

below:

Critical Product

Capabilities

Ari

ba

Ba

swa

re

Bir

chS

treet

Sy

stem

s

Co

up

a

Elc

om

ePlu

s

Ket

era

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

Per

fect

Co

mm

erce

Per

isco

pe

Pu

rch

asi

ng

Net

Pro

act

is

Pu

rid

iom

Sci

Qu

est

Ver

ian

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

Fixed-Asset

Acquisition 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.5 3.5

Internal Store

Support 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Basic Purchasing

Functionality 4.5 4.5 4.8 3.5 4.7 4.3 3.5 3.8 5.0 3.8 5.0 4.0 3.2 4.5

Invoice Matching 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.8 4.2 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5

Catalog Support 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0

Specialized Casual

UI 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.7 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0

Supplier

Collaboration 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0

Public-Sector

Functionality 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5

Extended

Configurability 4.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.8 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.5 3.0

Heterogeneous

Integration 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.8 3.0

Multisite Support 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 3.0

Average 3.6 3.7 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.5


Page 13 of 39

Section 3

Gartner also evaluated 14 eProcurement systems currently in use only in the public sector.

Gartner reports that these software solutions enable public-sector organizations to transform

procurement processes. Vendors such as Ariba, BirchStreet Systems, Periscope and Proactis are

rated as the top excellent solutions for public sector.

Option 5 Cost Analysis The cost estimate for competitive solicitation of a new service provider and a new system

includes a number of assumptions built in that must be considered. They are:

1. The alternate system must be an enterprise Internet-based solution comprised of a

requisitioning, cataloging, receiving, and invoicing components or Florida will suffer a

regression in technology.

2. The state cannot risk a lapse in eProcurement services. There will be a 30-month

transition period over which the state will need to extend the current eProcurement

contract while it defines the requirements of the new system and the new service provider

develops it.

3. Customer confidence and understanding of the new program is critical.

4. Startup costs for training and system adoption are necessary.

Costs vary greatly and depend on the product and whether the state implements an entire product

line. Depending on the scale of the project and solution selected, prices can range from $1

million to $14 million annually. Florida‟s current solution is the most comprehensive public

sector eProcurement solution in the United States. The system handles requisitioning, as well as

invoicing, receiving, vendor registration, quick quoting, sourcing, vendor performance tracking

and other functions. Because of the comprehensive nature of Florida‟s system, there is not an

Use

Case Ari

ba

Ba

swa

re

Bir

chS

treet

Sy

stem

s

Co

up

a

Elc

om

ePlu

s

Ket

era

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

Per

fect

Co

mm

erce

Per

isco

pe

Pu

rch

asi

ng

Net

Pro

act

is

Pu

rid

iom

Sci

Qu

est

Ver

ian

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

Public

Sector

use Case

Rating

3.5 3.1 3.5 2.3 3.5 3.3 2.8 2.5 4.1 3.1 4.1 3.4 3.3 3.6

Overall

Rating 3.6 3.7 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.5

Product

Viability

Rating Ex

cell

ent

Ex

cell

ent

Ex

cell

ent

Ex

cell

ent

Go

od

Go

od

Fai

r

Go

od

Ex

cell

ent

Ex

cell

ent

Ex

cell

ent

Go

od

Ou

tsta

nd

ing

Go

od


Page 14 of 39

Section 3

exact comparison to the MFMP program; however, Virginia is the closest system considering the

expansiveness of the suites. DMS explored what other states have as online procurement

systems and collected information regarding the programs including system costs where

available:

1. District of Columbia - The District of Columbia contracted with Unisys in 2003 for the

implementation of Ariba‟s Buyer, Analysis and Invoicing modules for $12 million. In

2010, the District contracted directly with Ariba to upgrade the Buyer and Analysis

modules and to implement the Sourcing and Contracts module.

2. California - The State of California‟s Department of General Services contracted with

BidSync in 2008 for a $7 million requisition solution that could incorporate other DGS

home grown applications. The BidSync application only tracks requisitions to purchase

orders. DGS has other systems to track solicitations and contract management. BidSync

implemented a solution called eProcurement in March 2009. eProcurement is a hosted

solution for six years at $1 million per year.

3. Texas - The State of Texas contracted with NIC (a subsidiary of Deloitte) in 2008 for $6

million to implement a sourcing and contract management solution called TXSmartBuy.

The program is now funded by a 1.5 percent administrative fee (percent of purchases

placed though the system) that is paid directly to the vendor for maintenance services.

4. Kansas – The State of Kansas contracted with Accenture in 2008 for $29 million to

implement the PeopleSoft application. Functionality included eProcurement, Purchasing,

Invoicing, Sourcing and Contract Management.

5. Mississippi - The State of Mississippi contracted with Cogsdale to implement an

eProcurement system WebProcure in December of 2006. Their system includes an online

vendor portal, solicitations posting, online bidding, order management processes and

electronic catalogs.

6. North Carolina - The State of North Carolina contracted with Accenture in 2000 for $32

million to implement the Ariba Buyer and eQuote solutions. The state is currently

evaluating solicitation responses for additional procurement solutions.

7. Georgia - In 2008 the State of Georgia contracted with Cherry Road to implement the

PeopleSoft Purchasing module for $8 million. They also contracted with SciQuest to

implement a catalog tool for $1 million per year.

8. Arizona - The State of Arizona signed a five-year contract with Periscope for $9 million

in 2009 to implement an eProcurement system BuySpeed. The first phase of the

application went live in July and phase two will go live in October 2010 to the remaining

state agencies. The solution includes vendor administration, online bid submissions and

evaluations, requisition, purchase order, electronic catalog ordering and receiving.

9. Virginia – The State of Virginia contract with CGI in 2000 for $14 million to implement

the Ariba Buyer application with selected agencies. Virginia has since renewed its


Page 15 of 39

Section 3

contract with CGI for 5 years for $70 million for maintenance and to bring on additional

users.

DMS also reviewed other known Florida state agency eProcurement shadow systems/alternate

requisitioning systems to gather information for comparison to the statewide current system. The

features of each system regarding requisitioning, receiving, and invoicing were documented and

available cost information was collected.

1. PRS, the requisitioning system currently used by the Florida Department of Corrections

(DC) and the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), is housed on the DC Intranet and

developed and maintained by DC‟s internal IT department. The annual cost is estimated

at $356,940.

2. AIMS, an Internet based procure-to-pay system used by the Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services is an Oracle application which is maintained by Image API.

AIMS has a robust document management system. The estimated annual cost is

$630,000.

3. ARTS is housed on the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Intranet and is

developed and maintained by DCF‟s internal IT department. ARTS‟ main functions

include requisitioning, and PCard notification. Estimated annual cost is $214,663.

Find a full report of these agency eProcurement shadow systems/alternate requisitioning systems

in exhibits 2 and 3.

In addition to contract costs for a completely new system, there would be startup costs associated

with any transition. The existing contract for MFMP expires in December 2012; there is not

sufficient time under the current contract to issue a solicitation, award a contract, and have the

awarded service provider implement and train on a new eProcurement system. DMS would need

to extend the existing contract for a significant period of time. When the system was first built,

two agencies began using MFMP approximately 22 months after the original solicitation was

issued. One year later 12 agencies were using the system. Now more than seven years later, 32

agencies use MFMP. If a new system is built it is expected that it will be years before a large

number of agencies could be transitioned to a new system, just as the state experienced with

implementation of the current system.

Changing systems is not the only cost to consider when exploring this option. More than 15,000

customers currently use MFMP. Any transition to another system would require complete

retraining of these users. In addition to agency customers, vendors also use MFMP‟s Vendor

Information Portal; more than 140,000 vendors are registered to use the Vendor Information

Portal. In total, more than 155,000 people would require training on a new system, which would

require additional resources and money.


Page 16 of 39

Section 3

Approximately $50,000 would be required for re-training agency and vendor customers. An

estimated 100 in-person, instructor led classes would be held in five major Florida cities:

Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Tallahassee and Tampa. Additional courses could also be held

via WebEx technology.

In the event a new system is developed, the state will experience a learning curve.

Approximately, 10 percent of the workforce will require training on a new system. The state

would also lose administrative time as agency customers were retrained on the new system. It is

assumed that:

• more than 7,500 people would attend a class

• that class would take four hours

• the average hourly rate including benefits was $30

• administrative time lost would equal $900,000.

The forecasted costs for a new eProcurement system and a new provider includes the new system

operation costs and a 30-month transition window as the 32 agencies transition from the current

system to the new system. DMS calculated operation costs based on the average revenue share

the current service provider received during the first five years of the existing contract.


Operation

Costs (labor,

hardware and

software)

$13,200,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $66,000,000

Transition Cost $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $7,400,000 $0 $0 $37,000,000

Total $28,000,000 $28,000,000 $20,600,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $103,000,000

Along with the developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the benefits and consequences

(Advantages and Disadvantages) of transitioning to a new platform with a new service provider

and summarized the considerations in the table below:


Increases open competition Forces state to completely restart the

program

Opportunity to adjust contract and

performance terms

Lost program momentum


Page 17 of 39

Section 3

Provides vehicle for price negotiations Requires user retraining

Potential to improve system operations All cost to date for the current platform

would be considered sunk costs

Potential to obtain an even more powerful

public section eProcurement solution

Significant transition period required

Agency users possibly frustrated with

another change

Contract lead time required that may

increase costs of transition

A transition could cause a setback for

customer confidence


Issuing a competitive solicitation for a new platform and service provider is the most costly and

riskiest of all five options. DMS State Purchasing has dedicated the past several years in

customer outreach/training. This effort has paid off and customer satisfaction with MFMP is at

97 percent. All this effort would be lost if the state transitioned to a new system. Currently more

than 15,000 state employees and more than 140,000 vendors use MFMP tools; these people

would need to be re-trained in the new system.

At the end of the current eProcurement contract, the state will own the hardware and software

including all Florida specific customizations that comprise MFMP. If the state elects Option 5,

all funds spent to date will be sunk costs. Additionally, moving to a new platform would require

the longest implementation time of all five options because the state would need to develop new

requirements and a new system before the procurement process could begin.

In the recommended competitive solution as part of Option 3, DMS would also request

alternative solutions in bids so that further investigation of Option 5 is possible.


Page 18 of 39

Section 3

DMS Recommendation

DMS recommends Option 3, modified slightly – pursuing a competitive solicitation for a new

service provider to manage the existing eProcurement Ariba platform. The table below

summarizes the five-year costs for all of the viable options:


Option 1 not viable not viable not viable not viable not viable not viable

Option 2 $27,493,250 $16,853,500 $15,294,250 $12,693,250 $16,973,500 $89,307,750

Option 3 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $70,000,000

Option 4 $14,307,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $69,538,500

Option 5 $28,000,000 $28,000,000 $20,600,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $103,000,000

As explained above, Option 1 (continue with current vendor) is not viable, and DMS agrees with

BCPI that Option 2 (complete insource of all MFMP functions) and Option 5 (bid for completely

new system) would not be in the best interests of or advantageous to the state given their high

costs.

An advantage to Option 3 (competitive solicitation for a new service provider) over the other

options is that it would be the least impactful to state agencies that have used the system for

many years. They now consider the current MFMP system the norm for doing procurement

business in Florida. In addition, the Ariba platform is a leader in eProcurement solutions and the

state will own this solution product at the term of the current contract.

Costs for Option 4 (insource some functions) are slightly less than Option 3; however, DMS

believes that Option 3 is the best approach for the state because the state would retain or gain

significant advantages with Option 3. Those advantages include:

• The state‟s vendor will have a strong incentive to provide Collections and Billing

Services.

• The state will greatly mitigate the risk for system interruption if a disaster occurred in

Tallahassee by having the Disaster Recovery hosting services done by a vendor in

another city. In the resulting contract of the competitive solicitation component of Option

3 for full services for MFMP, the state has the potential for additional savings off the

current contract. This cost-savings potential may bring Option 3 costs even to or less

than Option 4 costs.

Given these advantages of Option 3, DMS recommends it as the best course for the state as we

continue our work helping state agencies and vendors do business together.

Exhibit 1 - Labor Support Projections MFMP Business Case

November 2010

Annual FTE

Need

2013

Individual

Annual

Salary

2013 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2014

Individual

Annual

Salary

2014 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2015

Individual

Annual

Salary

2015 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2016

Individual

Annual

Salary

2016 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2017

Individual

Annual

Salary

2017 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

Program Management

Program Sponsor 0.25 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$

Program Director 1.00 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$

Program Manager 1.00 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$

Operatinos/PM Management 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$

Operations/PM Reporting 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$

Financial Administration 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$

Program Admin Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$

Legislative Coordination 0.10 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ Subtotal 6.35 644,625$ 644,625$ 644,625$ 644,625$ 644,625$

Application Management

Application Support Team Manager 1.00 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$

Application Operations Lead 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$

Ariba Technical Architect 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$

Application Release Lead 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$

Ariba Buyer Support (including Contracts &

Invoicing)

8.00 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$

Ariba Sourcing Support 2.00 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$

Ariba Analysis Support 2.00 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$

Ad hoc Reporting Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$

Integration Support / DFS Coordination 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$

Interface Support 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$

Vendor Registration Support (including Vendor

Performance Management)

2.00 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$

Vendor Fee Billing System Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$

eQuote Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$

Catalog Enablement Support 1.00 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$

eInvoicing Support 1.00 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$

Application Testing 3.00 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ Subtotal 29.00 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$

Technical Support

Technical Support Team Manager 1.00 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$

Environment Configuration Management / SRC

Coordination

1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$

Ariba Configuration Management 2.00 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$

Database Administrator 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$

System Administrator 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$

Security/Network Administrator 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$

Performance/Load Testing 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ Subtotal 8.00 857,250$ 857,250$ 857,250$ 857,250$ 857,250$

Section 3, Exhibit 1


November 2010

Annual FTE

Need

2013

Individual

Annual

Salary

2013 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2014

Individual

Annual

Salary

2014 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2015

Individual

Annual

Salary

2015 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2016

Individual

Annual

Salary

2016 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2017

Individual

Annual

Salary

2017 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

Buyer Stakeholder Management

Buyer Stakeholder Team Manager 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$

CSD Operations Lead 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$

CSD Administration/QA 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$

CSD Level 1 Agents for Buyer and Vendor

Inquiries

10.00 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$


Inquiries

5.00 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$

CSD Off-phone Support 3.00 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$

Training Material Management 1.00 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$

Training Delivery 1.00 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$

Communications 1.00 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$

Agency Liaisons/Outreach 2.00 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ Subtotal 26.00 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$

Vendor Stakeholder Management

Vendor Stakeholder Team Manager 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$

Billing & Collections Lead 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$

Billing & Collections Operations 3.00 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$

CSD Level 1 Agents for Billing Inquiries 4.00 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$


Inquiries

2.00 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$

Legal/Policy Billing Support 0.50 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$

Strategic Sourcing Support 5.00 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ Subtotal 16.50 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$

Total FTEs (Operations Only) 85.85

Total Labor Costs (Operations Only) 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$



November 2010

Annual FTE

Need

2013

Individual

Annual

Salary

2013 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2014

Individual

Annual

Salary

2014 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2015

Individual

Annual

Salary

2015 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2016

Individual

Annual

Salary

2016 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2017

Individual

Annual

Salary

2017 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

Ariba Upgrade

Incremental DMS Personnel

Upgrade Manager 1.00 120,000$ 162,000$ 120,000$ 162,000$

Ariba Techncial Architect 1.00 115,000$ 155,250$ 115,000$ 155,250$

Ariba Buyer Developer 3.00 100,000$ 405,000$ 100,000$ 405,000$

Ariba Analysis Developer 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

Ariba Sourcing Developer 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

Testing Coordinator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

Environment Configuration 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$

Database Administrator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

System Administrator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

Conversion Coordinator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

Conversion Support 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$

Training/Change Management Support 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$ Subtotal 15.00 2,072,250$ 2,072,250$

Contractor Personnel Hourly Rate

Annual

Labor/

Expense Cost Hourly Rate

Annual

Labor/

Expense Cost

Ariba Techncial Manager 1.00 300$ 606,000$ 300$ 636,000$

Ariba Technical Architect 1.00 250$ 510,000$ 250$ 540,000$

Ariba Developer 2.00 225$ 462,000$ 225$ 492,000$

Performance Planning/Testing 1.00 250$ 510,000$ 250$ 540,000$ Subtotal 5.00 2,088,000$ 2,208,000$

Projected FLAIR Replacement Integration Implementation

Incremental DMS Personnel

Integration Implementation Manager 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$

Integration Technical Architect 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$

Integration Design 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$

Integration Development 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$

Integration Testing 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$

Performance Testing 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ Subtotal 9.00 1,215,000$

Contractor Personnel Hourly Rate

Annual

Labor/

Expense Cost

Techncial Manager 1.00 250$ 510,000$

Technical Architect 1.00 225$ 462,000$

Integration Developers 2.00 200$ 414,000$ Subtotal 4.00 1,386,000$



November 2010

Annual FTE

Need

2013

Individual

Annual

Salary

2013 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2014

Individual

Annual

Salary

2014 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2015

Individual

Annual

Salary

2015 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2016

Individual

Annual

Salary

2016 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

2017

Individual

Annual

Salary

2017 Total

Labor Cost

including

Benefits

Assumptions

Due to recent trends No annual COLA Adjustment included

Benefits Cost as Percentage of Salary 35%

Ariba Upgrades Every Three Years (includes hardware refresh) - 2011, 2014, 2017

FLAIR Replacement Occurs in 2015

Contractor Personnel Required for Both Ariba Upgrade and FLAIR Replacement Integration

Contractor Costs include Hourly Rates plus Expenses for 50% of resources @ $5K/month


Exhibit 1 - Total Cost Estimate MFMP Business Case

November 2010

Estimated Total In-Sourcing Costs:

Ongoing Operations

Year 1

2013

Year 2

2014

Year 3

2015

Year 4

2016

Year 5

2017 5-year Total

DMS Labor Total 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 40,466,250$

Software/Hardware Maintenance Total 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 23,000,000$

Annual Total Costs 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 63,466,250$


Buyer Upgrade

Year 1

2013

Year 2

2014

Year 3

2015

Year 4

2016

Year 5

2017 5-year Total

DMS Labor Total -$ 2,072,250$ -$ -$ 2,072,250$ 4,144,500$

Subcontractor Total -$ 2,088,000$ -$ -$ 2,208,000$ 4,296,000$

Annual Total Costs -$ 4,160,250$ -$ -$ 4,280,250$ 8,440,500$


Projected FLAIR Replacement

Integration

Year 1

2013

Year 2

2014

Year 3

2015

Year 4

2016

Year 5

2017 5-year Total

DMS Labor Total -$ -$ 1,215,000$ -$ -$ 1,215,000$

Subcontractor Total -$ -$ 1,386,000$ -$ -$ 1,386,000$

Annual Total Costs -$ -$ 2,601,000$ -$ -$ 2,601,000$

Grand Total In-Sourcing Costs

for MFMP

Year 1

2013

Year 2

2014

Year 3

2015

Year 4

2016

Year 5

2017 5-year Total

DMS Labor Total 8,093,250$ 10,165,500$ 9,308,250$ 8,093,250$ 10,165,500$ 45,825,750$

Software/Hardware Maintenance Total 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 23,000,000$

Subcontractor Total -$ 2,088,000$ 1,386,000$ -$ 2,208,000$ 5,682,000$

Transition/Ramp Up Cost* 14,800,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,800,000$

Annual Grand Total Costs 27,493,250$ 16,853,500$ 15,294,250$ 12,693,250$ 16,973,500$ 89,307,750$

* Assumption is that cost of recruitment, transition and ramp-up will equate to the first year of operating costs

Do Not Distribute - Proprietary and Confididential Section 3, Exhibit 1


Page 24 of 39


Exhibit 2: eProcurement Shadow System Comparison

BACKGROUND

Section 287.057(22), Florida Statutes (F.S.), authorizes the Department of Management Services (DMS)

to develop an eProcurement solution, stating that “The department, in consultation with the Agency for

Enterprise Information Technology and the Comptroller, shall develop a program for online procurement

of commodities and contractual services. To enable the state to promote open competition and to leverage

its buying power, agencies shall participate in the online procurement program, and eligible users may

participate in the program…” Section 287.057(23) (a) goes on to say, “The department, in consultation

with the agency, may contract for equipment and services necessary to develop and implement online

procurement.” The statute also permitted the use of a transaction fee to fund the cost and operation of the

online procurement system.

Based upon this authorization, DMS procured an online procurement program now known as

MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP). Since its inception, 940,000 purchase orders have been issued and

more than 1,500,000 invoices have been processed. MFMP is used by 32 state entities including

executive, cabinet and judicial agencies and state commissions. While MFMP is an enterprise

eProcurement solution, some agencies use shadow eProcurement systems or alternative eProcurement

systems.

In early 2010, DMS Division of State Purchasing compiled a list of known agency eProcurement shadow

systems/alternate requisitioning systems and reviewed each system to determine if MFMP could meet the

agency‟s requisitioning needs. Three tools were identified: two agency shadow requisitioning systems and

one alternate agency requisitioning system.

Department of Children and Families‟ (DCF) Automated Requisition Tracking System (ARTS),

Department of Corrections‟ (DC) Purchase Requisition System (PRS), and

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services‟ (DOACS) Administrative and Image

Management System (AIMS).

The intent of the exercise was to gather information on alternate systems to understand these agencies‟

needs and determine potential gaps in MFMP. The features of each system regarding requisitioning,

receiving, and invoicing were documented and available cost information was collected.

A high-level overview of each system follows. A detailed comparison of all the tools can be found in

Exhibit 5.


Page 25 of 39


ARTS

ARTS is the requisitioning system used by DCF and the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD).

Currently, DCF handles the majority of the purchasing responsibilities for APD. In 2011, APD will

resume purchasing responsibilities and is working with DMS to transition exclusively to MFMP.

ARTS is housed on the DCF Intranet and is developed and maintained by DCF‟s internal IT department.

The main function of ARTS includes requisitioning, travel notification, and PCard approval.

PURCHASING PROCESS

The purchasing process begins with a requester‟s need for a commodity core service and a field requester

submitting a request to the purchasing office in the form of a requisition. ARTS identifies requisitions by

type: PCard, Blanket, Emergency, and Regular. While the requisition process in ARTS is similar to the

process in MFMP (without the automated workflow that MFMP offers), ARTS does not accommodate

attachments.

The purchasing office reviews the request (after obtaining supervisory approval) in ARTS to ensure

purchasing rules are followed and either approves or denies the requisition. Upon approval, E-mail

notifications are then generated alerting approvers an item is in their approval queue. The purchasing

office then creates and issues the purchase order through MyFloridaMarketPlace. If the order requires

encumbering, MFMP encumbers (reserves) the funds in FLAIR.

The receiving process in ARTS is also very similar to MFMP; however ARTS requires an approval flow

for receipts. Once goods or services are received in ARTS by the end user, Finance and Accounting

completes the receipt in MFMP based on the information in ARTS.

OBSTACLES TO TRANSITIONING TO MFMP

There are no known policies are rules that would prohibit DCF from transitioning to MFMP. As APD is

making the transition to MFMP, DMS believes that DCF could as well.

DCF Business Process:

•Requisition

•ReceiptARTS

•Purchase Order

•Receipt

MFMP InvoicingFLAIR


Page 26 of 39


PRS

PRS, the requisitioning system currently used by the Department of Corrections (DC) and the Florida

Parole Commission (FPC), developed and maintained by DC‟s internal IT department and housed on the

DC Intranet. Users access PRS through a network ID. Each user role/permission (Requisitioner,

Purchasing, etc.) requires you to logout and uniquely log back in under the different role.

PURCHASING PROCESS

The purchasing process begins with a requester‟s need for a commodity or service and a field requester

submitting a request to the purchasing office in the form of a requisition. Additional details regarding

PRS Requisitions include:

Requires a contract manager for service requisitions

History shows date and time of most changes made, however it does not record text changes i.e.

line item description

Requester enters “Estimated Cost,” and once Purchasing obtains quotes the actual price can be

entered

Purchasing reviews the request in PRS to ensure that purchasing rules are followed and approves or

denies the requisition. The purchasing office then creates a requisition in MFMP, which, once approved,

generates a purchase order. PRS does not have invoicing or receiving components; DC completes these

activities in MFMP.


PRS utilizes the DC Intranet rather than the internet because most correctional institutions do not have

internet access within the walls of the institution. As MFMP is an Internet based application, MFMP

cannot meet DC‟s needs; however DMS offered, at no cost to DC, to make MFMP available on their

intranet. DC declined the offer.

DC’s Business Process:

RequisitionPRS• Purchase

Order

• Receipt

MFMP InvoicingMFMP


Page 27 of 39


AIMS

AIMS, an Internet based procure-to-pay system used by DOACS since 2001, is an Oracle application and

continues to be maintained by Image API. AIMS is comprised of six modules:

Purchasing (requisitions, purchase orders, and receiving reports)

Bids (electronic bid records)

Research (system searches)

Leases (not currently used)

Invoicing (disbursements)

Travel (both authorization and payment)

This document focuses mainly on the purchasing and payment modules.

PURCHASING PROCESS

Access to AIMS is permission-based and is administered by DOACS purchasing office. There are

security features built into AIMS to allow for separation of duty (i.e., requesters and contract managers

cannot be the receiver for a particular order).

The purchasing process begins with a requester‟s need for a commodity or service and a field requester

submitting a request to the purchasing office in the form of an electronic requisition. While AIMS has

some drop-down choice fields, many are free text.

The purchasing office edits all fields and maintains the choice tables which dictate the choices available

to users in the drop-down boxes. There are several standard reports available to assist the purchasing

office, including a Processing Workload report.

Purchasing reviews the request to ensure that purchasing rules are followed and approves or denies the

requisition. Purchase order documents are auto-generated by AIMS; they are then printed, signed, and

transmitted to the vendor via fax or traditional mail.

AIMS has an extensive document management system; all documents associated to a requisition have a

scannable barcode so that if items are printed and altered they can easily be scanned and attached to the

appropriate transaction. Documents can also be e-mailed to non-AIMS users through the system. The

document management portion of AIMS is very comprehensive and well developed. Document

management may have been the main focus of the system.

Receipts (generated for all commodities) are completed by receivers and cannot be completed by the

requester or the contract manager. For services, the system creates a Contract Services Summary which is

similar to a Partial Payment Log.

INVOICING PROCESS

Invoices are generated in the system by fiscal representatives. They are input to AIMS and then routed to

Finance and Accounting for auditing and approval. AIMS enables the agency to audit invoices online.

AIMS does not pre-audit invoices and the system will not allow the invoice to contain items that were not

included on the order.


Page 28 of 39


Disbursements are sent to FLAIR via a batch process initiated by a user in the Finance and Accounting

Office. A unique feature AIMS offers is the ability to process Journal Transfers payments to state

agencies.

The Department of Financial Services has access to AIMS to review documents for audit purposes.


AIMS offers a robust document management system, which is currently not available in MFMP.

Additionally, DOACS has the option to not use MFMP for procurement.

Section 570.07(41), F.S., states “Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 287.057(22) that require all

agencies to use the online procurement system developed by the Department of Management Services,

the department may continue to use its own online system.”


Page 29 of 39


COST COMPARISON

Cost data was collected on MFMP, ARTS, PRS and AIMS. Process efficiencies would result in

administrative cost avoidance if DC and DCF transitioned to MFMP. Additionally if DOACS, DC, and

DCF transitioned to MFMP, the cost of supporting the requisitioning, invoicing and receiving

components of their systems would be eliminated.

MFMP

The current cost of the MFMP contract is $14.8 million per fiscal year. Salary costs for the DMS MFMP

team total approximately $250,000 per fiscal year.

Currently 32 state agencies utilize MFMP, including the support, maintenance, and customer service desk

at no cost to the agencies. DMS pays for both the DMS MFMP team, the Division of State Purchasing

and the contract cost via the revenue generated from the 1 percent transaction fee.

ARTS

ARTS currently uses one full time employee (FTE) in the IT section to support the AIMS application,

costing an estimated $90,000 per fiscal year. This FTE is part of the DCF IT Helpdesk which supports

ARTS questions (along with other DCF systems).

It is unknown what hardware including servers that run ARTS and the cost to maintain that equipment;

however, that cost should be considered in the total cost of the ARTS system.

Presently, DCF staff creates a requisition in ARTS and approves it. Then the purchasing office re-enters

the requisition into MFMP and approving it to issue a purchase order (PO). The estimated cost of this

duplicated effort is below:

Staff Estimated

Administrative Cost

for FTE

Estimated time to

re-enter in MFMP

Estimated number

of PO‟s/Receipts

for DCF/APD in

FY 08/09

Total Estimated

Cost For

Duplicative Effort

Staff to create

Requisitions

$ 30.00/hour 15 min 9955 $74,662.50

Staff to Create

Receipts

$30.00/hour 5 min 20,000 $50,000

Administrative

Overhead Total

$124,662.50

Application

Support

$90,000

TOTAL $214,662.50

ARTS is paid for from the DCF budget.


Page 30 of 39


PRS

PRS uses one-half an FTE in the DC IT section to support the PRS application costing an estimated

$45,000 per fiscal year.

It is currently unknown what hardware, including servers, run PRS and the cost to maintain that

equipment; however, that cost should be considered in the total cost of the PRS system.

Presently, DC staff also creates a requisition in PRS and approves it, with the purchasing office re-

entering the requisition into MFMP and approving it to issue a PO. The estimated cost of this duplicated

effort is below:

Estimated

Administrative Cost for

FTE

Estimated time to re-

enter requisition in

MFMP

Estimated Number of

POs issued by DC in FY

09/10

Total Estimated Cost

$ 30.00/hour 15 min 41,592 $311,940

Application Support $45,000

Grand Total $356,940

PRS is paid for from the DC budget.

AIMS

As stated earlier, AIMS was developed and is partially maintained by a contracted vendor. In the last six

full fiscal years, DOACS has paid Image API more than $3.8 million.

FY 05 $707,448.65

FY 06 $726,473.04

FY 07 $967,308.78

FY 08 $614,025.36

FY 09 $412,503.66

FY 10 $434,708.76

FY 11 (as of August 2010) $29,059.98

TOTAL $3,891,528.23

NOTE: This is a summary of all spend between DOACS and Image API. It is possible that some of this

spend is not exclusively related to AIMS.

DOACS prints, signs, and then mails all purchase orders; it is estimated that this manual effort would cost

$3.11 per PO.

Paper for the PO ($15 per 500 sheets)(average PO uses 4 pieces of paper) $ 0.12

Envelopes ($25 per box of 500) $ 0.05

Postage $ 0.44

Administrative time in printing and mailing (average cost for FTE+30.00 per hour,

Average time to print and mail 5 minutes) $ 2.50

Total $ 3.11


Page 31 of 39


DOACS issued 2,483 POs in FY 09/10; the administrative cost to deliver these POs was $7,722.13.

Currently it is unknown what hardware, including servers and other technical components, run AIMS and

the cost to maintain that equipment; however, that cost should be considered in the total cost of the AIMS

system.

AIMS is paid for from the DOACS budget.


Page 32 of 39


Exhibit 3: Functionality Comparison

Area Function Feature M

F

M

P

A

R

T

S

P

R

S

A

I

M

S

General System

Management

Ability to change approval flows X X X

General Vendor

Management

Online Vendor Registration System X

General Vendor

Management

Imports vendor load from FLAIR or agency maintained vendor

list

X X

General Transparency Purchase Orders are posted on publicly viewable site (i.e.

SPURSView)

X

General Audit History System actions recorded and easily viewable for each transaction X X

General Accessibility Internet based application available 24/7 X X

General Field Population Drop-down boxes and pre-populated fields X X X

General Field Population Free form data entry X X X X

General Attachments System supports attachments X X X

General Notifications System generated email notifications X X X X

Invoicing Electronic

Invoicing

Accepts electronic invoices from vendors X

Invoicing Reconciliation Automatic matching of PO, Invoice, and Receipt (if applicable) X

Invoicing Payment Type Ability to complete Journal Transfer (interagency) payments X

Invoicing Integration with

FLAIR

Disbursement information systematically sent to FLAIR for

payment upon approval

X X

Invoicing Payment

Tracking

PO Balance tracks all payments for a PO X X

Receiving Commodities Receipts generated for all commodities X X

Receiving Centralized

Receiving

Central Receiver functionality by Ship To address X

Reporting Ad-Hoc

Reporting

Ad-Hoc Analytical Reporting Tool X

Reporting Operational

Reporting

Operational Reports provided via a Secure Website X X

Reporting Transactional

Data

System Searches X X X

Requisitioning Requisitioning General and P-card Requisitions X X X X

Requisitioning Approval Flow Automated Approval Flow X X

Requisitioning Approval Flow Agency directed Approval Flow X X X X

Requisitioning Integration with

FLAIR

Encumbrance Integration with FLAIR X X

Requisitioning Items Line Item and Punch-out Catalogs X

Requisitioning Items Ability to mark items with a Recycled Indicator X X

Requisitioning Documentation Ability to identify a contract manager for services X X


Page 33 of 39


Area Function Feature M

F

M

P

A

R

T

S

P

R

S

A

I

M

S

Requisitioning Purchase Order

Generation

System Generated Purchase Order X X X

Requisitioning Purchase Order

Generation

Purchase Order automatically delivered to vendor X

Requisitioning Modifying

Requisitions

Change Requisitions X X X X

Requisitioning Modifying

Requisitions

Cancelling Requisitions X X X X

System

Administration

User

Permissions

User permissions can be restricted by divided standardized roles

and/or groups

X X X X

System

Administration

Approval

Authority

Delegating approval authority from one user to another during

extended leave

X

Technical

Support

HelpDesk Technical assistance provided via a full-time helpdesk X X

Exhibit 4 - CEG Cost Benefit Analysis MFMP Business Case

November 2010

Tangible Changes

Division/Office: Division of State Purchasing Project: eProcurement

Program(s) Title: MyFloridaMarketPlace Project Sponsor: Linda South

Tangible Changes in Program Operations resulting from Project Implementation

Program Operational Cost Elements FY FY FY FY FY

Changes in Program Operational Costs (Negative Values = Decreased Costs) 2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 TOTAL

A. Personnel -- Operational Costs $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $76,250,000

A-1.a. State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,250,000

A-1.b. State FTEs (# FTEs) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

A-2.a. OPS FTEs (Salaries) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

A-2.b. OPS FTEs (# FTEs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

A-3.a. Staff Augmentation (Contract Cost) $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $74,000,000

A-3.b. Staff Augmentation (# of Contract FTEs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

B. Plant & Facility -- Operational Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

C. External Service Provider -- Operational Costs $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000

C-1. Contractor Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

C-2. Maintenance & Support Services $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000

C-3. Network / Hosting Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

C-4. Data Communications Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

C-5. Other Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

D. Data Processing -- Operational Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

D-1. Hardware $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

D-2. Software $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

D-3. Other Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

E. Others -- Operational Costs $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $34,075,000

E-1. Training $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

E-2. Travel $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000

E-3. Other Specify DMS LBR $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $34,000,000

Subtotal of Operational Costs ( Rows A through E) $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $110,625,000

F. Revenues / External Contribution / Fiscal Offsets $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250

F-1. Revenues Specify Funding from the 1% transaction fee $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250

F-2. Federal Participation Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

F-3. Grants Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Changes in Program Operational Costs (Sum of Rows A through E minus Row F) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($10,502,250)

($2,100,450) ($4,200,900) ($6,301,350) ($8,401,800) ($10,502,250)

Character of Program Cost Change Estimate

Choose Type Level of Uncertainty - Enter % (+/-)

Detailed/Rigorous*

Not to Exceed**

Order of Magnitude***

Negative Values indicate decreased Costs (i.e., Tangible Benefits). Positive values indicate increased operational costs outside of those specified in the ProjectCosts spreadsheet. FY Totals are carried forward to the

InvesmentSummary sheet for investment summary calculations

Cumulative Change



November 2010

Division/Office: Division of State Purchasing Division of State Purchasing Project: eProcurement 0

Program(s) Title: MyFloridaMarketPlace MyFloridaMarketPlace Project Sponsor: Linda South

Project Cost Elements Project Cost Table Character of Project Costs Estimate

(Project Planning,Development & Implementation Only - FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL Choose Type Level of Uncertainty - Enter % (+/-)

No Operational Costs) 2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Detailed/Rigorous

State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Not to Exceed

OPS FTEs (Salaries) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Order of Magnitude

Staff Augmentation (Contract Cost) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Consultant Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Hardware $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Software $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Network Infrastructure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Training $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Project Costs (*) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Cumulative Project Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Project Costs are carried forward to the InvestmentSummary form



November 2010

Project Investment Summary 0

Agency: Division of State Purchasing Project: eProcurement

Program(s) Title: MyFloridaMarketPlace Project Sponsor: Linda South

Investment Summary

FY FY FY FY FY

2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Cost of Capital (as published by State CFO) 4.24% 4.36% 4.22% 4.19% 4.39%

Cost Benefit Analysis

I $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $10,502,250

II Total Project Cost (ProjectCosts Form) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

III Return on Investment (Row I minus Row II) $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $10,502,250

IV Payback Period (years) N/A Payback Period is the time required to recover the investment costs of the project.

V Breakeven Fiscal Year 2011-12 Fiscal Year during which the project's investment costs are recovered.

VI Net Present Value (NPV) $9,275,935 NPV is the present-day value of the project's benefits less costs over the project's lifecycle.

VII Internal Rate of Return (IRR) NO IRR IRR is the project's rate of return.

Proposed Funding Sources for Project Costs by Fiscal Year

FY FY FY FY FY

2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

VIII $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

IX Trust Fund Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

X Federal Match Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

XII Grants Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

XII Other Specify 1 % Transaction Fee $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250

$24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250Project Funding Totals

General Revenue

TOTAL

TOTAL

Prospective Source(s) of Project Funding

Investment Summary

Net Savings Resulting from the Project

(TangibleChanges Form)

Return on Investment Analysis


Section 4

MyFloridaMarketPlace Transition Plan

Fiscal Years 2010 - 2012

Prepared by: Shireen Sackreiter Title: Project Manager Organization: Accenture

MFMP Transition Plan DRAFT v1.3 Page 2 of 51

Table of Contents

1. Document Change Control .................................................................................................................... 4

2. Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 4

3. Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 5

a) Agency Information .......................................................................................................................... 5

b) Current Vendor Information ............................................................................................................. 5

c) New Vendor Information .................................................................................................................. 5

d) Transition Plan Objectives ................................................................................................................ 6

Phase 1: Shadowing .................................................................................................................................. 7

Phase 2: On-the-Job-Transition (OJT) ...................................................................................................... 7

Phase 3: Pre-Acceptance ........................................................................................................................... 8

Phase 4: Acceptance ................................................................................................................................. 8

e) Outstanding Issues ............................................................................................................................ 8

4. Transition Team Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 10

5. Systems Support Resources .......................................................................................................... 11

a) Facilities........................................................................................................................................... 11

b) Hardware ........................................................................................................................................ 12

c) Software .......................................................................................................................................... 13

d) Documentation ............................................................................................................................... 13

e) Budget ............................................................................................................................................. 14

6. Transition Planning .......................................................................................................................... 16

a) Performance Measures and Reporting ..................................................................................... 16

b) Governance and Management Approach ................................................................................ 18

c) Problem Resolution ...................................................................................................................... 19

MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 3 of 51

d) Documentation Strategies ........................................................................................................... 19

e) Transition Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 21

1. Training .............................................................................................................................................. 23

a) Required Skill Levels ................................................................................................................... 23

2. Transition Project Deliverables and Associated Tasks .............................................................. 24

Appendix A: Lessons Learned Record ................................................................................................. 30


1. Document Change Control

The following is the document control for the revisions to this document:

Version

Number

Date of Issue Author(s) Brief Description of Change

1.1 Walt Bikowitz Initial draft of transition plan

1.2 Shireen Sackreiter Second draft of transition plan

1.3 Shireen Sackreiter

Rachael Lieblick

Third draft of transition plan

2. Definitions

The following are definitions of terms, abbreviations and acronyms used in this document:

Term Definition

MFMP MyFloridaMarketPlace

DMS Department of Management Services

DFS Department of Financial Services

SIRS System Investigative Requests

PM Performance Metrics

SSRC State Shared Resource Center


3. Overview

a) Agency Information

Identify the Agency, Sub-Agency, Bureau/Division Name, and Site Location

Agency Information

Department of Management Services

Division of State Purchasing

4050 Esplanade Way

Suite 360 C

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

Project Site Information

2002 Old St. Augustine Blvd

Suite E-45

Tallahassee, FL 32301

b) Current Vendor Information

Identity the vendor and the vendor point of contacts

Accenture

Buffie D. Rodri, Director

Shireen S. Sackreiter, Program Manager

c) New Vendor Information

Identity the vendor and the vendor point of contacts

Selected Vendor

Points of Contact TBD


d) Transition Plan Objectives and Relevance to MFMP Project

Charter

Briefly describe the objectives of this plan, e.g., scheduling the transition current vendor to new vendor, identifying staffing and operation and maintenance needs.

DMS and Accenture signed Contract Modification No. 6 on July 15, 2009, which

requires the vendor, Accenture, to deliver a transition plan. The modification states,

“In January 2010, the Parties will begin meetings to develop a high-level plan and

timeline for the successful transition of the System and the Services upon the

termination or expiration of this Contract (the “Transition Plan”). The Parties will

work together to document the Transition Plan by July 1, 2010 and to regularly update

and refine it thereafter.” The first version of this plan was developed in Spring of 2010

and has continued to evolve as new business needs and priorities are identified or

existing ones changed.

This transition plan is in line with the MFMP Project Charter which includes the

following Guiding Principles:

1. Provide consistent and effective service to State agency users and vendors through

implementation of Performance Measures, which comprehensively address system

and customer support.

2. Support increased and consistent utilization of MyFloridaMarketPlace, enabling the

State to leverage a complete repository of State agency purchasing patterns for

aggregation of demand and streamlining of processing.

3. Support the State as a world class purchasing organization, focusing on

optimization of the price paid and quality received from commodities and services

procured.

MFMP customers have come to expect consistent operational excellence (attributable

to existing service provider maintaining over 99% compliance with the established

performance metrics). Change Management will play an important role in helping to

manage the transition for agency customers and State vendors, and it is important to

provide consistent and effective services to MFMP customers during the transition

timeframe. With that in mind, the phases within this plan have been organized so that

tasks can be smoothly transitioned to the new service provider in a reasonable

timeframe with minimal, if any, negative impact to MFMP’s end customers. The

MFMP team will adhere to these Guiding Principles throughout transition, with a focus

on transitioning the operational processes that support the existing performance


metrics.

The objectives of the transition plan are to define and document processes and

approach for transition of operations, applications and hardware, and create a schedule

with prioritized order of transfer for each of the transition areas that will result in

uninterrupted support for the users of MFMP. The transition will be performed through

a combination of knowledge transfer phases: Shadowing, On-the-Job Transition (OJT),

Pre-Acceptance, and Acceptance. Each transition phase will transfer increasing levels

of responsibility and ownership of specified resources to the new Service Provider at

the completion of the scheduled knowledge transfer modules.

The goal of the transition is to provide a complete and thorough exchange of

knowledge required to support and maintain the MFMP applications, including the

extensive customizations that have been implemented. The transition to the new

Service Provider will involve several knowledge transfer phases in addition to the

current production support tasks. These four distinct transition phases will provide a

governance model to support the knowledge transfer.

The following will provide details for each transition phase along with the level of

knowledge transfer attained by completion of each transition phase.

Phase 1: Shadowing

The new Service Provider Transition Team Members will shadow Accenture personnel

to gain insight on daily tasks performed by the Accenture Team. This transition phase

will require the new Service Provider Transition Team Members to pair with an

Accenture team member and observe the day to day tasks completed by that team

member. This will allow for the new Service Provider Transition Team Members to

become knowledgeable on live production and support tasks. In addition to observing

current tasks of production support, the new Service Provider Transition Team

Members will review appropriate documents to enhance their knowledge base (Design

Documents, Business Rules, etc.). Accenture will facilitate workshops with the new

vendor during this phase to transition knowledge in areas that benefit a deeper

understanding prior to transitioning. The workshops will include the following: 1)

overviews of existing procedures, processes and tools used to support transition topic;

2) demonstrations of existing applications, tools, etc.; 3) review of existing pertinent

documentation related to transition topic. This shadowing phase will also include a

comprehensive communication and change management plan to ensure in the operation

of MFMP remains consistent and to help guide expectations across the various

stakeholder groups.

Phase 2: On-the-Job-Transition (OJT)

The OJT phase of knowledge transfer will ease new Service Provider resources into

participating and performing live production support to a specific application or

functionality. New Service Provider resources rely on Accenture to continue resolving


issues and any decisions that arise during the OJT transition timeframe. The initial

stages of OJT (2-4 weeks per application / functionality) will consist of the new Service

Provider working with Accenture to further understand an entire issue and all the

details supporting the resolution. The second stage of OJT (2-4 weeks per application /

functionality) will afford the new Service Provider resources the opportunities to

perform daily tasks with the assistance of Accenture support teams.

Phase 3: Pre-Acceptance

The Pre-Acceptance transition phase shifts production support and quality assurance

tasks to the new Service Provider Transition Team Members. New Service Provider

personnel will be the primary point of contact for production support tasks. During this

phase Accenture support teams will validate execution of tasks, alleviating any issues

that could occur with production and quality assurance daily activities. The Accenture

support teams will also participate in issue resolution solely in a support role.

Phase 4: Acceptance

Acceptance is the final knowledge transfer phase. During Acceptance, new Service

Provider Transition Team Members will assume full responsibility for all production

support tasks. Decision making and issue resolution will be resolved wholly by the

State. Accenture support teams will remain in a support role for coaching on an as

needed basis.

To support a smooth and successful transition, DMS will identify and provide key

personnel to bring new service provider up to speed at the onset of the new contract.

This team should also work with Accenture and the new Service Provider to develop

the comprehensive communication and change management program to help set

stakeholder expectations.

e) Outstanding Issues

State any project planning issues or problems relevant to transition planning which are known as of this plan revision.

At this time there is one potential activity that may occur, which is not within the

control of DMS, but will have an impact on operations and any transition activities.

DFS has an enterprise initiative that will require system enhancements for MFMP,

although the timing of this event is not currently known. DFS is planning to replace

it’s Statewide Accounting and Information system, known as FLAIR. The integration

that exists between FLAIR and MFMP is significant and the most complex

enhancement at MFMP. Should that event occur during transition activities it will

have impacts to timeline and resources.

In addition, although we do not forsee any of these items impacting project transition


activities we actively record and manage risk items per our risk management process,

see section 6(c) Problem Resolution for additional information.


4. Transition Team Roles and Responsibilities

Identify the roles and responsibilities associated with the transition. Roles to identify include the primary vendor point of contact, Agency Transition Manager, Regional Transition Manager, key technical staff, customer or help desk support, and any others who have been assigned to support the transition.

When the new vendor identifies resources that will be responsible for these task, DMS

and Accenture will collaborate to assign the appropriate resources. Without the exact

schedule or available resources from the new provider defining a detailed approach is

impossible. This transition work plan will evolve overtime as more of the variables are

defined.

Transition Role Who Responsibilities

Transition Team Leader Rachael Lieblick (DMS)

Shireen Sackreiter (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Responsible for execution of

transition and reporting to senior

management

Project Leader Rachael Lieblick (DMS)

Buffie Rodri (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Responsible for overall transition

and program delivery

Stakeholder

Management

Amy Zeigler (DMS)

Eric Swanson (DMS)

Anne Rabon (DMS)

Kim Koegel (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Training, communication, and

agency/vendor liaison coordination

Database Administrator John Baynon (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Database administration and

maintenance

Systems and

Networking

Ken Sain (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Networking at all physical

locations

Production Support Brian Cliburn (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Batch, Interface, and Enhancement


Provider) Development

Desktop Support Ed Gendusa (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Local desktop maintenance &

support applications

Help Desk Kim Koegel (ACN)

Amy Zeigler (DMS)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Tier 1 and Tier 2

Platform Support Ed Fody (ACN)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Hardware maintenance and

application configuration

Project Development Mike Jackman (ACN)

Rachael Lieblick (DMS)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Issue Resolution and New

Application Development

Billing & Collections Ron Leggett (ACN)

Eric Swanson (DMS)

TBD (New Service

Provider)

Revenue compliance

Appropriate personnel will be involved as needed for each activity.

5. Systems Support Resources

a) Facilities

Describe the facilities where the transition will take place. This description may include office space, wiring closets, computing equipment, safety and security requirements, special power needs, room construction, etc.


The transition will occur at the existing project facility location, , the disaster recovery

center (housed in Atlanta), and any facilities maintained by the new Service Provider. The

project facility requires a secure keyfob for entry into the site, which includes a reception

area, open floor plan with 5 offices and 2 conference rooms, a central break room, phone

closet, and a locked server room. This is the main workspace for the project team.

The disaster recovery center is a secured facility which requires multiple security clearance

measures to enter. While this would not be the main point of transition, it would require a

walk through and on-site transition of security access. The SSRC houses the production

equipment for all the applications and is the site of work performed on the hardware, which

requires State of Florida Level 2 Background clearance for entry.

The project facility requires a secure keyfob for entry into the site, which includes a

reception area, open floor plan with 3 offices and a conference room, a central break room,

phone closet, and a locked server room. This is the main workspace for the project team.

The open workspace contains 50 cubed workstations and 5 offices, which may

accommodate up to 12 individuals. This space is already equipped with network drops to

house 62 people, but may require additional drops for additional resources during the

transition period.

b) Hardware

Describe the hardware and how the transition will take place. This description may include office space, wiring closets, computing equipment, safety and security requirements, special power needs, room construction, etc.

Office and Hardware Space

The transition will require adequate space to house the project team. In addition to

workspace, the project site will need adequate and properly equipped facilities to house

between 10 and 15 servers utilized to support application development hardware, testing

hardware, and production hardware related to helpdesk activities. The project site server

room will also need to house 15 application development workstations running on

uninterruptible power supplies. This space should be adequately cooled, secured from the

remaining project space, and have adequate and redundant power to support the required

computing hardware.

Production Hosting Facility

The project will require approximately 2 to 4 cabinets (approximately 160 RU’s of space) in

a dedicated data center facility. The facility should have appropriate security, redundant

power, redundant cooling, redundant internet connectivity, staffing, and computing services

(such as security and network support services) to support a production application to the

State’s requirements, as well as to support non-production environments such as the training


and production-mirror environments. The facility should provide industry standard support,

response times, and 24/7 access needed to support enterprise level applications.

Disaster Recovery Hosting Facility

The project will require approximately 2 to 3 cabinets (approximately 120 RU’s of space) in

a dedicated data center facility. The facility should have appropriate security, redundant

power, redundant cooling, redundant internet connectivity, staffing, and computing services

(such as security and network support services) to support a production application to the

State’s requirements. In addition, the facility should be no less than 250 miles away from

the primary facility in order to provide adequate geographic disparity for Disaster Recovery

purposes. A bandwidth-appropriate connection must be established between the Production

Hosting Facility and the Disaster Recovery Hosting Facility to facilitate the data-syncing

processes needed to support the backup procedures.

c) Software

Describe the software currently used to support the operations with an explanation of how the software transition will occur.

There are currently over 15 software products used in the operations and support of the

MFMP program. These products support 9 applications that comprise the MFMP solution.

These products include the primary Ariba software solutions, as well as database, web,

application, call center, customer tracking, and issue tracking software programs.

Accenture has aligned each of these software products to have a license conclusion or

purchase order end date coinciding with the end of the contract term, December 2012. The

new Service Provider will have the flexibility to transition existing licenses and terms or

purchase new software applications upon consummation of the contract.

d) Documentation

Describe the documentation storage and access processes used to support transition activities.

Project specific paper documentation is stored locally at the project site in locked cabinets.

Key project document materials, such as project deliverables, contract modifications, etc.

have been scanned and are available electronically via on-site document storage. Team

specific materials, such as SIR/Change Request designs, Unit/System/Regression testing

results, job aids, vendor collection materials, etc., are also stored within project servers that

are only accessible on-site or via the project site virtual private network.

Project specific procedural documentation from the various MyFloridaMarketPlace teams

(PMO, Stakeholder Management, Application Management, and Technical Architecture

Management) is stored electronically at the project site location.


e) Budget

Provide an overview of the budget that will support maintenance and operations (e.g. dollars per year, budget source, etc.). Identify where budget information related to maintenance and operations activities may be found.

Currently, MyFloridaMarketPlace is supported by a 1% transaction fee that is paid by

vendors doing business with the State of Florida. The transaction fee applies to every

purchase and contract for commodities and services unless exempt by rule. The transaction

fee first supports the DMS Division of State Purchasing, and the Office of Supplier

Diversity. The fee also partially supports purchasing related systems supported by DMS IT

Services. These costs are known as the DMS State Purchasing Legislative Budget Request

(LBR), which the Legislature annually authorizes. LBR expenses average about $7.2 to $8

million annually.

After payment of LBR expenses the fee is used to pay for the Accenture contract, which

currently is about $14.8 million annually. The Legislature also annually authorizes use of

the fees to make payments to Accenture.

The Billing and Collection Services (BCS) under the MFMP contract is responsible for

collecting the revenue from the fees. Revenue generation has average between $24 million

and $25 million annually. For fiscal year 2010, it is estimated that revenue will exceed

expenses by about $2.5 to $3 million. Any excess revenues will remain in the Operating

Trust fund until such time as the State Legislature determines what to do with the fees.

Currently, projected fees are sufficient to cover all contract costs.

As outlined in Section VI of Contract Modification No. 6, effective 7/1/2009, Accenture

will provide reasonable transition assistance services. Transition services rendered before

the end of the contract date by Accenture will be covered without additional compensation.

As part of the Transition Assistance and as designated by the Department, Service Provider

shall (i) cooperate with the Department and/or the New Provider in connection with the

transfer of the System and the Services to the Department or such New Provider, (ii) notify

and explain to the Department and/or the New Provider the then current procedures and

operations Service Provider follows to provide the Services and operate the System, (iii)

provide to the Department and/or the New Provider a list of equipment, proprietary software

and software licenses then used to operate the System and provide the Services, (iv) return

Department-owned materials being utilized by Service Provider to the Department and/or

New Provider, (v) transfer to the Department and/or New Provider all property subject to

transfer in Sections 6, and 8.5.3, including any documentation available to use the same, (vi)

answer questions related to the transition and migration of the System or the Services on an

as-needed basis, and (vii) to the extent reasonable, provide such other services, functions or

responsibilities that are inherent or necessary to the transition of services substantially

similar to the Services or to the proper performance of the System, provided that such

services, functions or responsibilities shall be limited to those that can be delivered with the

current Service Provider team staffing (including subcontractors if required). The new

Service Provider will be expected to cover transition expenses for their team as well as the


establishment of new facilities, infrastructure, hardware hosting sites, etc. The Accenture

team will maintain responsibility for current facilities and infrastructure locations until the

conclusion of the contract.


6. Transition Planning

a) Performance Measures and Reporting

Identify key performance measures for maintenance activities and for product or service performance. Include information on how measures will be captured and reported.

MyFloridaMarketPlace has a comprehensive set of 25 monthly performance measures as

defined in Contract Modification No. 4, dated October 18, 2005. These performance

measures cover software application availability, application average response time,

business function performance, application services support, customer support, reporting

and compliance. Performance metric compliance has been over 99% since inception. . The

measures are captured and reported in a monthly report and the intention is for the new

provider to continue providing the monthly report and maintaining the associated

documentation. The new Service Provider will be responsible for producing the monthly

Performance Metrics Report during the Pre-Acceptance phase and for achieving the

monthly performance metrics during the Acceptance phase.

The following is the list of 25 performance measures Accenture is held accountable for

achieving and measuring on a monthly basis:


Software Application Availability Success Criteria

1 General availability >= 99% (= NA / TRA*100)

2Severity Level 1 - System Outage response

time during Business Hours >= 99% w/i 30 min

3Severity Level 1 - System Outage resolution

time

>= 95% w/i 4 hours

(240 minutes)

100% w/i 8 hours

(480 minutes)

4Severity Level 2 - System Outage response

time during Business Hours >= 99% w/i 90 min

5Severity Level 2 - System Outage resolution

time

>= 75% w/i 1 BD

(1,440 minutes)

Software Application Average Response Time

6Average response time during Business

Hours100%

Create Requisition Script <= 60 seconds

Invoice Reconciliation Script <= 54 seconds

Business Function Performance

7 Purchase order issuance >= 95% w/i 1 BD

8 Invoices matched >= 95% w/i 3 BD

9 FLAIR encumbrance and payment transactions >= 90% w/i 48 hours

100% w/i 5 BD

10 Payment posting from FLAIR >= 95% w/i 24 hours

100% w/i 5 BD

Software Application Services Support

11Category 1 - Critical system issues resolution

time 100% w/i 7 BD

12Category 2 - High system issue resolution

time>= 50% w/i 1 month

100% w/i 2 months

13Category 3 - Medium system issue resolution

time >= 50% w/i 2 months

100% w/i 4 months

14Category 4 - Low system issue resolution

time>= 50% w/i 3 months

100% w/i 6 months

15 Category 5 - Operational data updates 100%

Monthly >= 80% @ month end

100% by 10th of next month

Quarterly >= 80% @ quarter end

100% by 10th of next month

Customer Service

16 Call to answer time >= 90% w/i 90 seconds

17 E-mail response time >= 95% w/i 1 BD

18 Voice mail response time >= 95% w/i 1 BD

19 Customer service desk ticket resolution >=99% w/i 3 BD

20 Catalog enablement 100% w/i 5 BD

21 Catalog refresh 100% w/i 5 BD

22 Catalog satisfaction survey (Quarterly)>=80% Satisfactory or Highly

Satisfactory

23 Enhancement Delivery (As applicable)>=80% scored on returned

surveys

Distribution Date Compliance>= 15 and < 30 calendar days

after implementation

Reporting

24 Reporting100% of up to 8

reports/month

Compliance

25 Performance Measurements Report Delivered100% delivered by 15th day

of next month


b) Governance and Management Approach

Identify new or reference existing methodologies for establishing maintenance priorities and other change management strategies.

The Governance structure is a simple one that consists of internal chain of command

reporting and external input from various customer groups (see Appendix A) For DMS, the

MFMP program director reports to the Director of State Purchasing who in turn reports

directly to the DMS Secretary. The MFMP Program Director and Operations Manager are

very experienced and given great latitude and decision making authority in all aspects of

theMFMP operation.

In addition to this internal chain of command, MFMP solicits and receives input from new

Service Provider Customer Roundtable and from new Service Provider Change Review

Board (CRB). The CRB in particular provides guidance to DMS MFMP operations by

prioritizing change requests or improvements to the system.

The structure and process has worked very successfully. The CRB has not only been

instrumental in defining and prioritizing enhancements it was especially successful during

the upgrade of Ariba Buyer to the current Ariba version 8.2.2 (MFMP 2.0). The CRB is

being utilized again for the upgrade of Ariba Buyer to Ariba 9R1 (MFMP 3.0).

The CRB membership consists of volunteer liaisons from 13 of the 32 state agencies that

use the MFMP system for their day to day purchasing and other related activities. The CRB

members do not have a term limit at this time, and currently meet on an as needed basis,

usually 2 to 3 times per year. The CRB assists DMS by prioritizing change requests or

system enhancements to the MFMP system, reviewing designs and testing and approval of

enhancements.

DMS also has enhanced training activities at regular Customer Roundtable meetings,

Purchasing Director meetings, Change Review Board meetings, System Administrator

meetings and Florida Association of State Agency Administrative Services Directors

(FASAASD) meetings. Beginning with the Ariba upgrade in April 2, 2007 and continuing

with the retirement of SPURS (June 1, 2009), the launch of the Vendor Information Portal

(October 26, 2009) and the planned enhancements to the Vendor Bid System, DMS State

Purchasing Operations has had several key successes due to improved goal setting and the

employment of strategic planning principles and execution of those principles. A key aspect

of these planning activities unlike the initial implementation of the MFMP system is

involvement of the customer agencies via various workgroups established for each

initiative.


c) Problem Resolution and Risk Management Approach

Specify the procedure for identifying, tracking, and resolving problems with the transition. Describe how stakeholder/customers will be involved in or informed about issues that may arise during transition. Describe key stakeholders and methods for communication where known.

As more fully described below, DMS anticipates using established forums and

communication channels for handling problem identification, communication, and

resolutions. MFMP has a comprehensive Risk Management Plan (Appendix C) in place to proactively

reduce exposure to events that threaten accomplishment of the program’s objectives. The

regular review or known and/or potential project risks is done so that the management team

can:

Incorporate approaches into the Project Plan that minimize or avoid identified risks

Develop proactive, contingent risk response actions

Rapidly implement risk responses based on timely identification of risk occurrence

The MFMP team currently maintains issues, action items, and project risks in an on-line

application known as RISC, which tracks the incident through closure. These items are

accessible to key stakeholders for both the Vendor and DMS. Regular reviews of open RISC

items are completed and all activities to resolve the item are documented. Risk

documentation (in the RISC tool) includes capturing key information such as:

Type of Risk

Description of the Risk

Mitigation Strategy for the Risk

Project Phase the Risk will affect

Who the Risk is Assigned to

As part of the transition process, the MFMP team will conduct sessions with the new service

provider around any existing documented risks and can provide perspective on key historical

risks that have been overcome / mitigated.

d) Documentation Strategies

Describe documentation that will be routinely revised or produced such as reports; user, usage, problem and change information; product/service documentation. Include details on where documentation is stored and how it is accessed.

During the course of the MFMP program, a sharepoint site was established that has joint

access for DMS and Accenture personnel. This site is used to store and share information for

easy access and retrieval by all authorized team members. During the transition this site will

continue to be used for the storage of pertinent documentation, in conjunction with the DMS

shared network drive (only accessible to DMS personnel).

There are several documents and reports that are provided as contractual deliverables or

operational reports, which will continue to be updated and produced throughout the


transition. This includes, but is not limited to, a Disaster Recovery Plan, Environment

Configuration Diagrams, Weekly Project Status, Risks, Action Items, Issue Logs, Monthly

Operational Metrics, Monthly Performance Metrics, Weekly CSD Survey Results, Annual

Customer Satisfaction Survey, MFMP Strategic and Tactical Plan, Operations Plan,

Organization Charts, Enhancement Designs, Migration Documentation etc.


e) Transition Schedule

Develop a detailed schedule for transition. Address transition through the implementation, maintenance, and support phases of the transition. Note critical time dependencies for the transition outlined in this document.

As mentioned earlier a detailed transition schedule will be developed and delivered in

accordance with Contract Modification No. 6 by July 1, 2010. The contract provides for a 12

month transition period. The timeline will be based on utilizing the full 12 month allocation.

It is estimated that transition services will take a minimum of 9 months:

The new Service Provider will be responsible for providing appropriate resources as outlined

in Section 4 of the transition plan in accordance with the timeline above.

Each phase will include key tasks as outlined in the following workplan:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Phase 1

Shadowing

Phase 2

On-the-Job Transition

Phase 3

Pre-Acceptance

Phase 4

Acceptance


Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012


Phase / Tasks Start Finish

Phase I: Shadowing 1/2/2012 3/30/2012

Identify resource pairing assignments (between Accenture and new Service Provider) 1/2/2012 1/6/2012

Observe day to day tasks / Review existing operational documentation for tasks 1/9/2012 3/30/2012

Facilitate Knowledge Transition workshops & provide supporting documentation 1/16/2012 3/30/2012

Develop Change Management and Communication Plan (Related to Transition Activities) 2/1/2012 2/29/2012

Phase II: On-The-Job Transition 3/1/2012 8/31/2012

Complete team and functional/ technical assignments for new Service Provider resources 4/2/2012 4/6/2012

Shadow tasks and complete daily operational tasks (Accenture as Primary on all tasks) 4/2/2012 6/15/2012

Shadow tasks and complete daily operational tasks (Accenture as Primary, but increasing tasks done by new Service Provider) 6/18/2012 8/31/2012

Shadow key annual processing tasks (i.e. year-end processing), including coordination with DFS and full participation year-end execution 3/1/2012 7/13/2012

Phase III: Pre-Acceptance 9/3/2012 10/31/2012

Complete daily operational tasks (New Service Provider as Primary, Accenture continuing to support and validate) 9/3/2012 10/31/2012

Validate completion of daily operational tasks / Review End of Day Reports to identify concerns 9/3/2012 10/31/2012

Transition property and licenses 9/3/2012 10/31/2012

Conduct regular checkpoints at team lead level to discuss knowledge gaps / lessons learned / suggested improvements 9/3/2012 10/31/2012

Phase IV: Acceptance 11/1/2012 12/7/2012

Return any department owned materials 11/30/2012 11/30/2012

Complete daily operational tasks (New Service Provider as Primary, Accenture available to address questions in a support role) 11/1/2012 12/7/2012

Conduct regular checkpoints at project manager level to discuss any remaining knowledge gaps or need for Accenture support 11/1/2012 12/7/2012


1. Training

a) Required Skill Levels

Estimate the necessary skill levels to support the MyFloridaMarketPlace application, in terms of the following

knowledge areas: business, application software and system software.

Skill: Level of Expertise: Availability Required: Degree of Applicability:

[Description of skill] [Examples: Trainee,

Intern, moderate, expert

or explain what is

necessary]

[Indicate where the skill

must be available: On

the transition team; in

Information Technology

(IT), user area, etc.]

[Rate the applicability of the skill to

the project, using a scale of 1-5,

with 1=light and 5=heavy]

Ariba Configuration Expert IT 5

Java Expert IT 5

Springsource Expert IT 5

iWay Expert IT 5

Tibco Integration Expert IT 5

Crystal Reports Moderate IT 3

Unix Expert IT 5

Oracle Expert IT 5

MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 24 of 51

SQL Server Expert IT 4

SQL Expert IT 5

WebLogic Expert IT 4

Networking Expert IT 5

Systems

Administration

Expert IT 5

Verizon WebCenter

Management

Expert CSD 5

Pivotal Ticket Tracking Expert Project Wide 5

Microsoft Office Tools Moderate Project Wide 4

Ariba Functional

Knowledge of Buyer,

Sourcing, Analysis

Expert User 5

Content Enablement Expert User 4

2. Transition Project Deliverables and Associated Tasks

List the tasks that must be accomplished during the transition process. Some tasks will be repeated for each deliverable—be sure

to include each task for each deliverable. This list of tasks can then be given to the project manager to be included in the MS

Project schedule. The following table suggests tasks, roles for who is responsible for each task, and a general timeframe for


when the task is due. You should replace the role names with actual names, and the general time with a specific due date, and

change the text formatting back to regular text. You will probably also have additional tasks to add to the list.

The transition deliverables and tasks include the following:

Deliverable: Task Who's Responsible? When Is It Due?

Conduct transition plan

meetings

Coordinate transition

planning meeting

Technical Project Manager <Due Date>

Disaster Recovery Plan Conduct disaster recovery

testing and document

results

Platform Support, Database

Administrator, Systems &

Network Administrator,

Production Support

Annual

Environment Configuration

Diagrams

Document environment

diagrams

Platform Support Annual

Weekly Project Status Status on completed

activities, upcoming goals,

action items, issues, reports,

odu’s, and system

availability

Transition Team leader Weekly

Project Risks Project risks across all risk

areas documented and

reviewed at PMO meetings

Transition Team Leader Bi-weekly

Action Items Action items across project Transition Team Leader Bi-weekly


areas

Issue Logs Identified Project Issues Transition Team Leader Bi-weekly

Operational Metrics Report of key operational

statistics

Transition Team Leader Monthly

Performance Metrics Report of 25 contractually

obligation performance

metrics

Transition Team Leader Monthly

Annual Customer

Satisfaction Survey

Survey to customer user

base across all functional

areas of application

Help Desk Annual

Operations Plan Contractual deliverable that

contains processes, tools

and steps for completing

key operational tasks across

all project areas.

Transition Team Leader Annual

Organization Charts Organizational charts of

current team and proposed

team structure

Transition Team Leader Project Planning

Project Management

Meetings

Bi-weekly project meetings

with project executives

Transition Team Leader,

Project Leader

Bi-weekly


Appendix A: Organization Charts

Rachael Lieblick

Chief of State Purchasing Operations

Revised 09/01/09

TBD

Operations Manager

Anne Rabon

Finance and Accounting

Process Specialist

Eric Swanson

Vendor Manager

Kasey Bickley

Purchasing Process

Specialist

Amy Smyth

Communications and

Process Specialist


Project Partner

Stakeholder Team

Program M anagem ent

Accenture P roprie tary and C onfidentia l

A pplication Support

Technical In frastructure

Production SupportTechnical In frastructure

Support

B uyer S takeholder Support Vendor S takeholder Support

s

Program A dm inistrative

Support

Q A Partner

A ccenture M FM P Project Team

A pplication D evelopm ent

Strateg ic Sourcing


Appendix B: Lessons Learned Record

Project Name: MyFloridaMarketPlace Organization: Department of Management Services Department: State Purchasing Product/Process: Transition Plan

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Focus Area

Low ----------------------

High

Successes Shortcomings

Recommended

Solutions 1 2 3 4 5

Project Planning X

Strategic and Tactical

Plan

Cannot account for

unknown enterprise

changes

None at this time.

Resource Management X

Addition of DMS

MFMP project staff to

focus on training &

communication

NA None at this time.

Risk Management X

Institution of risk

review NA None at this time.

Change Control X Construction of NA None at this time.


Change Review

Board

Procurement X

Strategic Sourcing &

Additional Training

Initiatives, ABA

Shortage of DMS State

Purchasing Resources

to continue strategic

sourcing activities

None at this time.


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Focus Area

Low ----------------------

High Successes Shortcomings

Recommended

Solutions

Budget Management X

Re-negotiated

contract with lower

cap and State

collecting excess

funds

Dependent on

legislature; exemption

and grandfather

contracts with lack of

enforcement authority

make it incredibly

difficult

None at this time.

Quality Control X

Multiple QA process

and controls in place NA None at this time.

Project Status Reports X

Weekly reports and

bi-weekly PMO

meetings


Vendor Selection X NA None at this time.


TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

Focus Area

Low ----------------------


Recommended

Solutions

1 2 3 4 5

Business Requirements X Multiple hosting center moves successfully


Design Specifications X Designs approved by CRB and/or DMS members


Test Planning X Rigorous testing schedule


Development X

All related performance metrics met; no code backouts for several years


Testing X

System, regression and performance testing conducted for releases


Rollout/Implementation X Successful upgrade of all applications


Training X Training provided for all major

Initial ―train the trainer‖ approach was

None at this time.


releases not sufficient; lack of process standardization makes training significant challenge

Documentation X Key deliverables provided


Vendor Management X

Vendor met 99% or more of all performance metrics



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Focus Area

Low ---------------------- High

Successes Shortcomings Recommended

Solutions 1 2 3 4 5

Project Communication X

Multiple

communication

channels (web,

email, meetings,

eNewsletter

WebEx)


Team Experience X

Several

experienced team

members on both

vendor and DMS

team


Project Sponsor Interactions

X Regular meetings

with sponsors

Historical challenges

with frequent changes

in leadership and lack

of governance structure

None at this time.

Customer Interactions X

Survey for all

resolved issues,

meetings,

postings, trainings



Management Interactions X

Regular meetings

and ―open door‖

policy


Management Support X

Current

administration

support

Enhanced governance

by State None at this time.

Quality of Meetings X

Overall meetings

are productive,

some discussions

require multiple

meetings

Need key personnel

involved early in any

initiative, usually out of

control (lack of

governance)

None at this time.

Vendor Interactions X

Vendor ―Fireside

Chats‖, training

materials, release

of new VIP

system, increased

punchout and

eInvoicing

adoption



OVERALL PROJECT SUMMARY

Focus Area

Low ----------------------


Recommended

Solutions

1 2 3 4 5

Customer Satisfaction X

97% customer

satisfaction rating NA None at this time.

Technical Success X

Monitoring tools

enable proactive

technical mgt;

multiple data center

moves

Deep, niche technical

skills required None at this time.

Quality Product X

Product is market

leader and has

enabled

benchmarking and

data analysis


Product/Service Acceptance

X

FLAIR

reconciliation;

retirement of

SPURS

Lack of governance

resulted in

unnecessary shadow

systems and

duplication in FLAIR

None at this time.


Project On Time X

Vendor has met all

major deadlines;

performance

metrics around

timely service

delivery


Project Within Budget X

Project funded by

existing 1%

transaction fee

Exemptions and

dependence on

legislature impact

State‘s ability to collect

excess funding; early

on resulted in

contractual disputes

None at this time.

Project Objectives Met X

Project is viewed as

successful by

stakeholders


Business Objectives Met X

32 agencies use

MFMP, without

mandates (includes

legislature)

Enterprise wide system

requires governance

and mandates for use

None at this time.


Appendix C: Risk Management Process

Risk Management

This document identifies the Risk Management process being implemented by the MyFloridaMarketPlace procurement engagement. This process provides the ability to predict, capture, monitor, avoid, manage and resolve risks that may adversely affect the project. Our risk management process provides a systematic approach for identifying and assessing risks; determining cost-effective risk reduction actions; and, monitoring and reporting the progress of risk reducing actions. The risk management process outlined in this document was formulated from the tools and techniques outlined in Accenture‘s Quality and Process Improvement (QPI) program. This program is based on the software development framework specified in Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. This deliverable was created using our QPI templates and tailored to fulfill the needs of MyFloridaMarketPlace. Risk Management is the recognition, assessment and control of uncertainties that may result in schedule delays, cost overruns, performance problems, adverse environmental impacts or other undesired consequences. Risk Tracking is the actual process by which identified risks are captured, monitored and controlled.

Risk Management Process

The overall goal of the Risk Management process is to reduce the project‘s exposure to events that threaten the success of the project and its objectives. This can be attained by incorporating approaches that minimize or avoid identified risks, developing proactive, contingent risk actions, and rapidly implementing risk actions based on timely identification of risk occurrence. In order to successfully implement the Risk Management process, it is important to understand the difference between Risks and Issues.

Distinguishing between Risks and Issues

An Issue refers to a problem involving a significant choice between two or more alternatives for an event that is happening now. A Risk describes a situation that could occur, and that could potentially have a significant impact on the project.

Risk Management Process

There are five phases are associated with Risk Management:

o Planning


Risk management planning involves focusing attention on project risks, and identifying and documenting the major risks which may impact the project in adverse ways.

o Assessment Risks are documented into characteristic categories (e.g. – technical, operational, etc) and are quantified on a numerical scale according to likelihood, impact, and exposure rating.

o Analysis Appropriate actions are identified, developed, and documented to minimize the realization of each risk. These actions are also characterized by type (e.g. avoidance, acceptance, transfer, etc).

o Response Once a risk has been identified within the project, a specific set of procedures will be in place to reduce the overall exposure of the risk. The risk response will identify, record and minimize the overall exposure to risks.

o Escalation Events may occur which increase the probability a risk will occur or increase the impact of a risk. The risk response procedures include the capability to escalate a risk as appropriate.

Risk Management Planning

Risk management planning involves identifying and documenting project risks. The process focuses on determining the risks most likely to have the most severe consequences and those that produce the greatest benefit in risk reduction. This activity includes a recognition of the sources of project risks as well as the approaches for risk identification and documentation. The risk management process is an iterative cycle that begins during the initial Project Planning phase and continues throughout the lifecycle of the project as new risks are identified.

Sources of Risk

o New risks previously missed or unforeseen requirements o New risks arising from an approved change request, cost, schedule, or scope

may be amended, impacting the critical path o New risks arising from major issues progressed from the team/project levels o Further risks arising from current risks whose action requires investigation o Further risks arising from the outcome or consequence of a separate risk

occurrence o Risks identified from the third party monitor during their objective reviews of

the project. o Risks identified from the Client Quality Management Assessment (CQMA).

The CQMA is a formal review of a client engagement by an experienced Accenture team who is external and objective to the engagement.


Identification of Risks

Risks will be identified throughout the life cycle of project. Risk identification is the responsibility of all project team members, while the project management team will manage the documented risks. There are several key types of questions that must be asked when identifying and assessing a risk:

Requirements o Are the requirements technically feasible? o Are the requirements subject to significant change based on external

development? o Will the requirements meet functionality, performance, maintenance,

support, feasibility, mission, needs, and cost constraints of the system or project?

o Do the requirements satisfy client needs, expectations, and constraints; and perform as intended in the operational environment?

Capabilities o Will sufficiently skilled and capable personnel be available? o Are State management and all State resources committed to making the

needed resources available? o Are the end user groups willing and able to adapt to change? o Are there external dependencies, including legislative changes, contractor

supply and delivery, procurement, etc.

Reliability o Are the expected techniques and technologies to be used new and

untested or “tried and true?” o Is there a track record of similar projects? o Are there functionally complex data models? o Is there functionally complex processing functionality?

Time Frame o Do the project milestones depend on other internal initiatives? o Do the project milestones depend on outside events? o Are the budget/schedule estimates realistic? o Is delivery on the critical path?

Documentation of Risks

The risks identified are documented into specifically defined, tangible risk items, for which an action may be well defined and measurable. This ensures that all analyses and reporting of risks maintain an outcome-focus so that progress towards high-level objectives can be compared.


Identifying vague or non-specific risks results in actions that are ambiguous, intangible, unclearly defined, and difficult to implement adequately. Additionally, it is important not to attempt to document all possible risks and outcomes, as this can often introduce improbable scenarios. Avoid scenarios that:

o Relate to project milestones dependent on outside events o Create unnecessary concern and confusion o Shift the focus away from real or probable risks o Dilute the pool of risks, leading to diminishing returns on effort o Reduce credibility for the risk management process

Risk documentation is more concerned with identifying the areas where the consequences of the risk are most severe, and where corrective actions will produce the largest benefits in risk reduction.

Risk Assessment

The risk assessment process consists of three independent, but interrelated steps that establish the foundation for the overall risk analysis process. All documented risks will be categorized, assessed and quantified based on where the impact will occur, the perceived level of impact to the project, and the probability that the risk will occur.

The two major variables used in assessing a risk are 1) probability of the risk occurring and 2) the impact or consequence if that risk occurs. These two variables are combined to assess the risk as shown below.

3

2

1

5 – Very High

4 – High

3 – Medium

2 – Low

1 – Very Low

Very Low

0 – 20%

Low

21 – 40%

Medium

41 – 60%

High

61 – 80%

Very High

81 – 100%

Probability

Impact


Categorization of Risks

Risks are classified into one of seven different categories. These categories identify the areas of the project from an internal and external perspective. A risk may affect one or more areas of the project. Although a risk spans across multiple areas, it should be categorized where the major impact is likely to occur. Cost and Schedule risks are generally inter-related to Technological, Operational and External risks. These seven categories are:

Cost

Cost-based risks outline the non-achievement of the business model projections, including the legislative budget request (LBR). Typical cost risks include change in State or Agency level leadership, economic changes, legislative changes, and hardware/software increases.

Schedule

Schedule-based risks focus on the non-achievement of the project's key milestones within the specified time frame. Typical schedule-based risks arise from scope additions or resource unavailability.

Technological

Technology-based risks consider the application specifications and expectations. Typical risks include new/non-standard platform technology, integration problems with existing systems, migrations, performance expectations, environment complexity, conversion of bad data, and system operability.

Scope

Scope-based risks consider the impacts on the project when actions are taken that are not within the realm of the project‘s scope or that may result in the increase of the project‘s scope.

Sponsorship

Sponsorship-based risks include loss or change in sponsor goals or support that impact the project. This could include changes in program leadership or legislative support.

Operational

Operational-based risks focus on the organizational and business operational re-engineering changes arising from the systems development. Typical risks consider both the transitional and the long-term effects of the system's introduction, including the organizational and behavioral change required, the


human and physical resource planning, and communication required to facilitate a smooth transition.

External

External-based risks consider the external factors largely outside of the control of Project Management, which can directly/indirectly, affect the successful delivery of the project. Examples of external risks would be the replacement of the State‘s FLAIR system, and the People First initiative.

Assessment of Risks

The assessment process begins once a risk is categorized. This process is used

to determine the most appropriate course of action to mitigate the risk. This may

be an obvious set of actions that annul or limit the risk from occurring, or

alternatively it may be an intuitive 'best guess' of the available actions that may

mitigate the risk.

Quantification of Risks

The quantification of a risk involves three separate processes that assign a level of impact to the risk, determine the probability that the risk will occur, and identify the relative influence that can be exerted on the probability of the risk occurring. There are five thresholds established for measuring the impact, probability and exposure ratings.

Impact

This is an estimate of the adverse effect the risk, if realized, will have on the program. Risks should be assessed using the Risk Impact Rating Scale:


Table 1. Risk Impact Rating Scale

Risk Impact Rating Scale

Value Rating Definition

5 Very High Threatens success of the project

4 High Significantly disrupts the successful delivery of project objectives, major deliverables, SLAs, releases, and benefits

3 Medium Significantly disrupts the project schedule, cost, and products over the medium and long terms

2 Low Progress disrupted with moderate extensions to schedule and cost, across short and medium terms

1 Very Low Exposure slight

Probability

This is an assessment of the likelihood that a risk will occur. The assessment is based on a percentage probability of an occurrence of the risk, given the actions identified, and other factors or risks on which it is dependant. Probability should be assessed using the Risk Probability Rating Scale:

Table 2. Risk Probability Rating Scale

Risk Probability Rating Scale

Value % Definition

81 — 100 Very High Occurrence

61 — 80 High Occurrence

41 — 60 Medium Occurrence

21 — 40 Low Occurrence

20 — 0 Very Low Occurrence

Exposure Rating

This indicates the relative influence, which can be exerted on the probability of the risk occurring. The Level of Control introduces a ‗modifier‘ that quantifies the level of control that can be exerted over implementing that action. Exposure should be assessed using the Risk Exposure Rating Scale:

Table 3. Risk Exposure Rating Scale

Risk Exposure Rating Scale

Value Definition

5 Very High Exposure

4 High Exposure


3 Medium Exposure

2 Low Exposure

1 Very Low Exposure

Risk Analysis

Risk analysis is the final step in the identification, categorization, and quantification cycle. It is primarily concerned with developing specific, discrete, and measurable actions to mitigate a risk. This is not necessarily limited to the development of only one action per risk; two or more actions may be defined particularly if the action to that risk is contingent on the outcome of a prior event. Additionally, the combination of two or more interdependent risks is evaluated. The quantification or summation of individual risks, which are linked, may produce a different risk profile than the individual risks independently produced, and should be recognized by area management during the quantification process. Analysis of Risk Actions

The initial step in the risk mitigation process is risk analysis. At this stage, we develop specific, discrete, and measurable responses for each identified risk. The first risks we analyze are those that may occur earliest in the system development life cycle, regardless of the probability, and those we identify as ―high impact.‖ This reduces all short-term exposure to risk, in order to alleviate the long-term effect those risks might pose if left for later in the process. Overall, program risk action analysis covers several characteristic actions:

Avoidance

Avoidance- applying a solution that eliminates the risk before it can occur. Implementing an established technical solution in lieu of an untried, complex technology is an example of risk avoidance. It is important to consider that risk avoidance solutions may limit the ability to achieve high-level project objectives by constraining desirable solutions.

Control

Control-based actions occur at all points throughout the development lifecycle and are typically the most common action. Actions or products that become part of the Workplan or overall approach will be identified, monitored and reported as part of the regular progress reporting of the project.

Acceptance

Acceptance-based actions involve factors that may directly affect the success of the project, but are outside of the control of the Project Management and


can therefore only be ‗accepted‘. Acceptance of risks as an action may be based on the cost-ineffectiveness of any available solution. For example, an acceptance action could address a legislative or legal risk, over which minimal control could be leveraged.


Transfer

Transfer-based actions target the party best placed to analyze and implement the action to mitigate the risk, based on their expertise, experience, and suitability. Typical transfer actions could include sub-contracting to specialist suppliers who are able to reduce the overall risk exposure. Investigation

Investigation-based actions are employed when we cannot identify a specific mitigation technique for a given risk, so we launch an investigation. This includes research to more clearly define the risk or risk level.

Risk Response and Escalation

Risk responses may be proposed by one or all of the following areas:

1. Development 2. Testing 3. Service Desk 4. Client, Accenture or Third Party Management

Risk responses and actions will be recorded in the risk tracking tool. Risk responses and actions will be monitored regularly. In the event a risk requires escalation or is realized, the risk status will be changed contingent on project management approval.

If a risk response is approved, appropriate staff will be assigned to implement

actions. If disapproved, the identified risk action will be deferred. See the Risk

Response flow below:

Risk DetectedValidate New

Entries

Yes

Assign Person or

Team to Resolv e

Rejected or

Def erred

Periodic

Rev iew(Assess Validity)

Yes

Rev iew

Resolution

Resolved

Close Issue

Not Resolved

Rejected

No

Document Risk

(Create Issue)

Resolv e or prov ide an interim

recommendation to the Program

Management Team (Resolv e)

No


Risk Tracking and Reporting

Risk Tracking and Reporting is the actual process by which identified

risks are captured, monitored and controlled. All project level risks are

documented to provide the MyFloridaMarketPlace management team

with visibility to risks and the ongoing progress to mitigate them.

Handling of Risks

All risks are maintained in the Risk Tracking Document with actions that could be taken to avoid or mitigate the risks are recorded. Actions are based on the exposure rating of the risk. The exposure rating is a numerical value described below:

Exposure Rating Type of Mitigation

4 or 5 Actions that must be immediately incorporated into the appropriate plan.

2 or 3 Actions that must be documented as contingent risk actions to be incorporated in the appropriate plan in the event of risk occurrence.

1 None. By definition, such risks cannot be avoided or mitigated.


Calculating Risk Exposure

Risk exposure attempts to numerically scale each risk according to its overall level of

exposure, as shown in the mathematical expression below:

Risk Exposure = Probability x Impact

It follows that risks with a high probability and high impact are those risks that indicate a high level of exposure. Similarly, those risks with a low probability and low impact offer the lowest levels of exposure.

Consider five separate and independent risks. These risks are identified in the following table as Risks A to E. This table illustrates the calculation process used to determine the overall level of exposure of each risk. The exposure is shown in a decimal format.

Risk Probability Impact Exposure

Risk A 50% 5 2.5

Risk B 40% 2 0.8

Risk C 20% 5 1.0

Risk D 60% 4 2.4

Risk E 20% 3 0.6

Risks B and C have equivalent low levels of risk exposure, as shown in the Exposure column. Risk B has a lower probability of occurring but a significantly higher risk impact. This calculation enables a relative comparison between two risks with similar probability and/or impact. The value in quantifying each risk according to the above formula is that Project Management can focus on those risks with the highest relative exposure.

Risk Tracking Tool

Project risks will be tracked using an automated tracking tool. This document will define the type of risk, capture the status of the risk, the probability of the risk occurring, the impact on the project if the risk occurs, and identified risk actions. The spreadsheet will also calculate the project‘s exposure rating for each risk identified.


Page 1 of 6

Section 5


November 2010

Procurement and Contract Management Process

General Plan of Approach for Reprocurement:

The OPPAGA/ BCPI report (the full report is contained in section 2 of the business case)

recommends re-procuring the contract for the current MFMP operation as the most viable of the

available options. DMS is satisfied with the current operation, and agrees with the OPPAGA

report recommendation. DMS plans to procure the services using an Invitation to Negotiate

(ITN) because of the project’s magnitude (in excess of $10 million annually) and the complexity

of the project which is reflected in the scope of services.

All current contract requirements will be reviewed to ensure that the operations still requires

these activities. Any unnecessary activities will be removed for potential cost savings or

replaced for value-add activities. The current contract goals are to allow all State purchasing

permitted under law to be transacted through the eProcurement System and to encourage

widespread use of the eProcurement System.

Currently the eProcurement contract contains 25 Performance Metrics which are divided among

the following areas: system availability, system response time, business function performance,

software issue resolution, customer service, and reporting are the areas that are currently

measured. All existing metrics will be maintained in the new contract and considered for

strengthening.

In consideration for the services provided under this contract, the state will pay the awarded

contractor via a monthly fixed price amount. The Department will fund this contract through the

Transaction Fee, established by the Department in accordance with Chapter 287, Florida

Statutes. Any excess transaction fees will be maintained by the State. This approach was

successfully implemented in Modification 6 of the current eProcurement contract.

Software upgrade(s) will be included, at no additional cost to the department. The new contract,

similar to the existing contact, will include provisions that upon any termination or expiration,

the titles and perpetual software licenses required for continual operation of the eProcurement

system will be transferred or be perpetually licensed to the Department.

An additional recommendation of the OPPAGA study was to replenish the contingency fund

(fund used to make modifications to the eProcurement system). The Department would lke to

implement the recommendation of the consultant that approximately 2% of the collected

transaction fees be set aside for system enhancements.

The procurement team used to manage the eProcurement ITN will consist of existing DMS

personnel supplemented with additional resources from other stakeholders (e.g. Agency for


Page 2 of 6

Section 5

Enterprise Information Technology). The team will be involved in the development of the ITN

and the negotiation of the new contract.

DMS estimates that once the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) responses are received, that the

agency will need approximately nine months for completion of the ITN documents, response

evaluation, negotiations, and contract execution. In addition to nine months for completion of

the procurement process, the timeline developed includes an additional nine months for

transition, if necessary, to a new vendor (See exhibit 1).

Summary Statement of Work for the proposed ITN

The vendor selected as the Service Provider (“Service Provider”) shall provide for the

ongoing and continued operation of the MFMP system as described more fully in the

ITN. The Service Provider shall, at a minimum, provide all technical services described,

meet all performance measures, provide reports requested by the Department under the

Contract, attend meetings with the Department) assigned to the operation as well as

provide for ongoing continuous improvement of the system deliverables to the State of

Florida. The Service Provider shall also, within the scope of the Contract, provide

additional services as needs change.

The Service Provider shall provide transition services to the State of Florida, as required,

between the Effective Date and the Contract Start date. The Service Provider shall

include the cost of any such transition services in their bid proposal a part of their

monthly fee for the services in this ITN and resulting Contract. Payments to the Service

Provider will commence at the end of the first month (or portion thereof) of operation

after the Contract start date. The Service Provider shall be ready to be fully operational

at the Contract Start date.

At a minimum, the Respondent/ Service Provider shall provide:

a) Program Management for the Service Provider

b) Technical Architecture Operations & Support

c) Application Management

d) Disaster Recovery

e) Customer Service Desk Operations

f) Billing and Collections Services

g) Business Operations and Support of Department’s Training Efforts

Service Provider will provide implementation and deployment to any other users (new

State agencies) as allowed by State law and as directed by the Department.

During the first 60 days of the Contract Start date, the Service Provider will publish a

"Detailed Operations Plan" specifying the activities, processes and procedures for the

operations in conformance with the Statement of Work of this ITN and resulting

Contract.


Page 3 of 6

Section 5

As the eProcurement System is successfully transitioned (should transition between the

current Service Provider and a new Service Provider be required), an Operational

Acceptance Form will be completed and signed by the current Service Provider, the new

Service Provider and the Department clearly acknowledging that the item(s) transitioned

have been reviewed, tested if necessary and are in good working order.

In addition, the Service Provider will work with the Office of Supplier Diversity to

encourage, measure, and report CBE participation in the eProcurement System.

.

DMS MFMP Contract Administration:

Throughout the term of the MFMP contract, DMS has maintained a team of professionals

dedicated to the administration of the contract. The team manages the contract on a day to day

basis and the MFMP operations. As a result, Project management has been significantly

improved on both the technical front and the DMS front.

The OPPAGA/BCPI report dated January 12, 2009 stated, “Based on our interviews and resume

reviews, we determined that the DMS MFMP support team members exhibit a high maturity

level and perform their assigned roles very well.” BCPI further reported the MFMP program

management is effective. The MFMP Program Team implemented many of the practices that the

Project Management Institute identifies as required for effective program management, such as

identifying a strategic plan and associated goals,

focusing on improving communication with stakeholders,

limiting approval of system change requests,

showing diligence in contract management, and

offering continuous user training.

Contingency Plan for Contractor Non-Performance

The State’s contract with Accenture established termination approach covering three areas:

1. Termination by Mutual Consent: The contract can be terminated at any time with

written mutual consent from both the State of Florida and the Service Provider

2. Termination for Cause: The state has the right to terminate the contract with the

Service Provider for cause following an Event of Default (further defined in the

contract) by providing seven (7) days written notice. Events of Default include

payment and/or performance failures.

3. Termination for Convenience: The state and the Service Provider have the right to

terminate for convenience with 90 days written notice prior to 12:01 am Eastern

standard time on November 9, 2010.

As outlined below, the new contract will maintain provisions addressing termination for cause in

the event of non-performance by the Contractor. In addition to remedies in the Contract, a

default remedy for non-performance by a Contractor is also available in rule 60A-1.006, F.A.C.

As a last resort, and upon a finding of default, the Department could attempt to contract with the

next eligible awardee under the original solicitation.


Page 4 of 6

Section 5

Additionally, the Department will include provisions in the new contract for liquidated damages

in the event the service provider does not meet measured expectations. The provisions should

provide incentive for a Contractor to cure any problems with performance before an event of

default occurs.

Remedies for Default and Obligations upon Termination for the State of Florida:

1. Terminate this Contract by providing the service provider with seven (7) days written

notice of the effective date of termination.

2. Seek Equitable Relief and/or Institute legal proceedings against the service provider

to collect payment of any money owed including, but not limited to re-procurement

costs, system replacement costs, and liquidated damages. Will also initiate

proceedings to have Service Provider placed on the Suspended Vendor list.

3. The Service Provider’s name will be removed from State Purchasing vendor mailing

list(s).

4. Once placed on the Suspended Vendor list, State agencies will be advised not to do

business with the Service Provider without written approval from State Purchasing

until the State receives reimbursement for all re-procurement costs.

5. Upon prior notice to the Service Provider, after the expiration of any cure periods,

perform any term, condition, or covenant that has been breached by the Service

Provider at the reasonable expense of the Service Provider.

General Termination Rights

1. All right, title and interest in MFMP will be transferred to the State.

2. Transfer all licenses obtained from subcontractors and suppliers for all intellectual

property, technology, and software developed, acquired, or utilized for the system to

the State.

3. The Service Provider will license to the State the non-exclusive perpetual use of all

intellectual property, technology, and software developed, acquired, or utilized for the

system.

4. The Service Provider will transfer all right, title, and interest in the hardware,

equipment leases, and real property leases used for MFMP and are necessary for the

State to continue to operate and maintain the system.

5. All rights, titles, interests and licenses transferred to the State must be used for the

exclusive benefit of the State of Florida.

6. Service Provider must provide termination assistance services, detailed below.

Termination Assistance Services

The Service Provider is responsible for providing the below termination assistance services for

up to twelve (12) months following the termination of the contract:

1. Service Provider must cooperate fully with the State of Florida and any new service

provider.

2. All processes and procedures performed by the Service Provider to operate the system

must be explained.


Page 5 of 6

Section 5

3. Provide a list of equipment, proprietary software and software licenses used to

operate the system and provide services.

4. Return all State-owned materials being used by the Service Provider.

5. Transfer all property referred to in the General Termination Rights and the

documentation to use the equipment.

6. Answer questions related to the migration and transition of services and the system.

7. Termination Assistance Services rendered prior to the termination date of the contract

will be at no additional cost to the State. Services rendered after termination of the

contract will be at a reasonable rate, established in writing and paid solely from the 1

percent transaction fee.

Liquidated Damages:

Liquidated damages will be assessed for non-performance.

Should the Service Provider fail to achieve Initial Operational Acceptance by the transition

timeframe, as a result of factors directly within Service Provider’s control, then the Service

Provider shall pay DMS $20,000 for each calendar day after such date until Initial Operational

Acceptance is achieved.

In addition, should the Service Provider fail to achieve the Performance Metrics required as a

result of factors directly within Service Provider’s control, then the Service Provider shall pay

DMS liquidated damages for each Performance Metric not achieved above five (5) in a 12 month

period:

a. Performance Metric Failures 6 through 10: $2,500 for each failure

b. Performance Metric Failures 11 through 15: $3,000 for each failure

c. Performance Metric Failures 16 and 17: $3,500 for each failure

d. Performance Metric Failures 18 or more, the Department may proceed to

Termination of Contract under Section 10.5.1


Page 6 of 6


Exhibit 1: MyFloridaMarketPlace Timeline

3/1/2010 1/1/2013

4/1/2010 7/1/2010 10/1/2010 1/1/2011 4/1/2011 7/1/2011 10/1/2011 1/1/2012 4/1/2012 7/1/2012 10/1/2012

Department of Management Services

MyFloridaMarketPlace Timeline

4/1/2010

Begin drafting ITN

12/8/2012

Accenture contract renewal

expires7/1/2010

Complete draft

of ITN

12/23/2010

Governor and Legislature approve

MFMP Business Case

* At-risk date

11/1/2010

Submit the MFMP Business Case

to the Florida Legislature

3/1/2011

ITN proposal

responses due

1/15/2011

Release Procurement ITN

6/1/2011

Obtain funding authorization

from Governor and Legislature

* At-risk date

9/1/2011

Complete evaluation of ITN proposal

responses and select Service Provider

2/1/2012

Complete negotiation

of new contract

3/2/2012

Execute replacement contract

4/1/2011

Estimate procurement costs and submit

to Governor and Legislature for authorization

to fund new contract

4/1/2012

Place freeze on all system

enhancements and code

changes

5/1/2012

Begin transitional activities in

preparation for contract end of

12/8/12 * At-risk date

* At-risk date: If not approved by the dates in this timeline, transition

services could be affected. All transition activities completed before

the contract end date (12/8/12) will be absorbed by the current

contractor.