DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 20, 2009 Welcome Introductions Contract Compliance Reporting...
-
Upload
beverley-ellis -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 20, 2009 Welcome Introductions Contract Compliance Reporting...
DHHS COE Meeting AgendaAugust 20, 2009
• Welcome
• Introductions
• Contract Compliance Reporting
• Questions and Answers
• Merged Systems Update
Office of Procurement &
Contract Services
SFY 2008 - 2009Contract Report for Center of Excellence
August 2009
Average Number of Days to Review Contracts or Amendments
SFY 2009 – Q4 (RFPs not included)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Internal Department Total
Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals
by Division - Q4 (RFPs not included)
Average# of Days
Average# of Days
Average# of Days
DivisionsInternal Division
DepartmentReview Total
DCD 16 11 27DHSR 3 4 7DIRM 8 18 26DMA 8 15 23DMH 13 5 18DMH - Facilities 12 4 16DAAS 2 3 5DPH 14 5 19DSB&HH 0 0 0DSS 25 5 30DVR 5 6 11OES 1 13 14Rural Hlth 1 8 9EconOpp 1 15 17HR 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0ExecMgt 2 5 7Controller 0 0 0DD Council 0 0 0MMIS 0 0 0
12 6 18
SFY 2008 - 2009
Average Number of Days SFY 2009 Q1 – Q4
0 10 20 30
Number of Days
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Qu
art
erl
yAverage Number of Days to Review
Contracts SFY 2009
Internal Division
DepartmentReview
Average Number of Days to Review Contracts or Amendment SFY 2009
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
SFY 2009
Internal Department Average
Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals by Division - SFY 2009 (RFPs not included)
Average# of Days
Average# of Days
Average# of Days
Divisions
# of Contracts
and Amend. Reviewed by
Internal Division
DepartmentReview Total
DCD 39 16 12 27DHSR 45 3 4 7DIRM 3 8 18 26DMA 20 9 17 27DMH 40 12 4 16DMH -Facilities 57 10 7 17DAAS 3 2 3 5DPH 129 13 5 19DSB&HH 0 0 0 0DSS 65 24 6 30DVR 20 4 7 12OES 2 1 13 14Rural Hlth 21 1 8 9EconOpp 38 1 15 16HR 0 0 0 0Prop & Constr 0 0 0 0ExecMgt 10 2 7 9Controller 0 0 0 0DD Council 0 0 0 0MMIS 0 0 0 0
492 11 7 18
SFY 2008 - 2009
Total Average Number of Days to Review Contracts SYF 07 to SFY 10
21
18 18
16
17
18
19
20
21
SFY 07 SFY 08 SFY 09
Avg # days
Timely Approvals DHHS Q4 SFY 2009
25%
63%
12%
0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
QTR 4
> 30 days prior < 30 days prioron or after the effective date Leg. Increase
Timely Approvals DHHS Q1 thru Q4 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
> 30 days prior < 30 days prioron or after the effective date Leg. Increase
Timely Approvals by Division Q3 & Q4 (RFPs not included)
Division
% more than 30 days prior to
effective date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after effective
date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
Division
% more than 30 days prior to
effective date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after effective
date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
DCD 0% 100% 0% 0% DCD 4% 96% 0% 0%DHSR 0% 100% 0% 0% DHSR 0% 100% 0% 0%DIRM 0% 0% 100% 0% DIRMDMA 20% 80% 0% 0% DMA 33% 0% 67% 0%DMH 0% 100% 0% 0% DMH 31% 56% 13% 0%DMH - Facilities 0% 100% 0% 0% DMH - Facilities 15% 81% 4% 0%DAAS DAAS 0% 100% 0% 0%DPH 34% 58% 3% 5% DPH 45% 51% 4% 0%DSB&HH DSB&HHDSS 17% 50% 0% 33% DSS 45% 42% 11% 2%DVR 0% 100% 0% 0% DVR 50% 50% 0% 0%OES OESRural Hlth 0% 50% 50% 0% Rural Hlth 0% 67% 33% 0%EconOpp 0% 0% 100% 0% EconOpp 0% 64% 3% 0%HR HRProp & Constr Prop & ConstrExecMgt 0% 67% 0% 33% ExecMgt 0% 75% 25% 0%Controller ControllerDD Council DD CouncilMMIS MMIS
Timely Approvals for 2009 (Q4)Timely Approvals for 2009 (Q3)
Timely Approvals by Division Q1 & Q2 (RFPs not included)
Division
% more than 30 days prior to
effective date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after effective
date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
Division
% more than 30 days prior to
effective date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after effective
date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
DCD 0% 100% 0% 0% DCD 0% 100% 0% 0%DHSR 0% 96% 4% 0% DHSR 17% 83% 0% 0%DIRM 0% 0% 100% 0% DIRM 0% 0% 100% 0%DMA 50% 50% 0% 0% DMA 0% 86% 14% 0%DMH 0% 91% 9% 0% DMH 17% 66% 17% 0%DMH - Facilities 0% 15% 85% 0% DMH - Facilities 0% 100% 0% 0%DAAS 0% 100% 0% 0% DAAS 0% 0% 100% 0%DPH 31% 56% 13% 0% DPH 38% 54% 4% 4%DSB&HH DSB&HHDSS 0% 43% 57% 0% DSS 0% 7% 57% 36%DVR 0% 50% 50% 0% DVR 0% 100% 0% 0%OES 0% 100% 0% 0% OES 0% 100% 0% 0%Rural Hlth 0% 0% 100% 0% Rural Hlth 8% 84% 8% 0%EconOpp 0% 25% 75% 0% EconOppHR HRProp & Constr Prop & ConstrExecMgt ExecMgt 0% 0% 100% 0%Controller ControllerDD Council DD CouncilMMIS MMIS
Timely Approvals for 2009 (Q1) Timely Approvals for 2009 (Q2)
Approval Time FramesQ4 SFY 2009(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)
All division contracts require approval before the effective date
Divisions sending all contracts for approval
before effective date (Q4 - SFY 2009)
• Division of Child Development
• Division of Health Service Regulation
• Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
• Division of Aging and Adult Services
Timely Approvals DHHS SFY 2009 (RFPs not included)
Contract Approval Time-Frames SFY 2008 - 2009
Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval on or
after effective date
17%
Other -Including Legislative increase
amendments
2% Contracts or
amendments rec'd for approval more
than 30days prior to the effective date
18%
Contracts or amendments rec'd for approval less
than 30days prior tothe effective date
63%
Timely Approvals by Division SFY 2009 (RFPs not included)
Division% more than 30 days prior to effective
date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after
effective date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
DCD 3% 97% 0% 0%DHSR 2% 96% 2% 0%DIRM 0% 0% 100% 0%DMA 20% 55% 25% 0%DMH 15% 75% 10% 0%DMH - Facilities 7% 61% 32% 0%DAAS 0% 67% 33% 0%DPH 39% 54% 5% 2%DSB&HHDSS 28% 35% 15% 12%DVR 10% 80% 10% 0%OES 0% 100% 0% 0%Rural Hlth 5% 67% 28% 0%EconOpp 0% 58% 42% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 0% 50% 40% 10%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Timely Approvals for SFY 2009
Timely Approvals by Division SFY 2007 – SFY 2008(RFPs not included)
Division% more than 30 days prior to effective
date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after
effective date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
DCD 34% 41% 25%DHSR 4% 76% 20%DIRM 0% 0% 100%DMA 7% 64% 29%DMH 28% 59% 11% 2%
DAAS 0% 100% 0%DPH 25% 53% 14% 8%DSB&HHDSS 56% 26% 7% 11%DVR 44% 56% 0%OES 0% 67% 33%Rural Hlth 0% 81% 19%EconOpp 74% 19% 7%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 25% 25% 50%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Timely Approvals for SFY 2007
Division% more than 30 days prior to effective
date
% less than 30 days prior to
effective date
% on or after
effective date
Other - Including
Legislative increase
amendments
DCD 25% 58% 2% 15%DHSR 2% 58% 40% 0%DIRM 0% 25% 75% 0%DMA 31% 54% 15% 0%DMH 15% 79% 6% 0%DMH - Facilities 1% 47% 52% 0%DAAS 0% 100% 0% 0%DPH 11% 71% 14% 4%DSB&HHDSS 36% 35% 8% 21%DVR 0% 100% 0% 0%OES 0% 86% 14% 0%Rural Hlth 0% 86% 14% 0%EconOpp 59% 36% 5% 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 16% 79% 5% 0%ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Timely Approvals for SFY 2008
Timely Approvals Trend Analysis SFY 2007 – SFY 2009
SFY 2007 - 2009 Approval Time Frame Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M ore than 30 days Less than 30 days On or Aftereffective date
Other - Includinglegislative increase
SFY 2007
SFY 2008
SFY 2009
Goal for Approval Time FramesSFY 2009(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)
All division contracts require approval before the effective date
Divisions sending all contracts for approval
before effective date (SFY 2009)
• Division of Child Development
• Office of Education Services
• Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Division of Aging and Adult Services successfully met this goal two years straight for SFY 07 and SFY 08
Goal for Approval Time Frames SFY 2009(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)
Approval more than 30 days
prior to effective date
Divisions rising above the 50% mark
(SFY 2009)
• The Division closest to this goal isDPH with 39% of their contracts
• Next is DSS with 28% of their contracts
• Office of Economic Opportunity successfully met this target two years in a row for SFY 07 and SFY 08 with 79% and 59% respectively.
Compliance Rating SFY 2009 Q4
4Q
139
81
0
50
100
150
200
250
# nonCompliant
# Compliant
63% in Compliance*Goal – 95%
Compliance Rating SFY 2009 Trend Q1 thru Q4
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
0
50
100
150
200
250
# NonCompliant
# Compliant
57%78%74% 63%
% in compliance
Compliance Rating Q3 & Q4
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# C
om
pli
an
t
% In Compliance
DCD 6 6 100%DHSR 2 2 100%DIRM 1 0 0%DMA 5 4 80%DMH 7 5 71%DMH -Facilities 3 1 33%DAASDPH 38 33 87%DSB&HHDSS 6 3 50%
DVR 10 10 100%OESRural Hlth 4 1 25%EconOpp 1 0 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 3 2 67%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 86 67 78%
Q 3 - OPCS Reviews
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments Reviewed by
OPCS
# C
om
pli
an
t
% In Compliance
DCD 26 9 35%DHSR 11 11 100%DIRMDMA 6 1 17%DMH 16 14 88%DMH -Facilities 27 21 78%DAAS 1 1 100%DPH 51 45 88%DSB&HHDSS 38 32 84%
DVR 4 3 75%OESRural Hlth 3 0 0%EconOpp 33 0 0%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 4 2 50%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 220 139 63%
Q 4 - OPCS Reviews
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2009 Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
Compliance Rating Q1 & Q2
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# C
om
pli
an
t
% In Compliance
DCD 2 2 100%DHSR 26 24 92%DIRM 1 0 0%DMA 2 2 100%DMH 11 10 91%DMH -Facilities 20 3 15%DAAS 1 1 100%DPH 16 7 44%DSB&HHDSS 7 2 29%
DVR 4 2 50%OES 1 1 100%Rural Hlth 2 0 0%EconOpp 4 1 25%HRProp & ConstrExecMgtMore@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 97 55 57%
Q 1 - OPCS Reviews
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# C
om
pli
an
t
% In Compliance
DCD 5 3 60%DHSR 6 6 100%DIRM 1 0 0%DMA 7 6 86%DMH 6 5 83%DMH -Facilities 7 7 100%DAAS 1 0 0%DPH 24 22 92%DSB&HHDSS 14 4 29%
DVR 2 2 100%OES 1 0 0%Rural Hlth 12 11 92%EconOppHRProp & ConstrExecMgt 3 0 0%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 89 66 74%
Q 2 - OPCS Reviews
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2009 Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
Department Compliance Trend Analysis Q 1 – Q 4 SFY 2009
Q1 - Q4 Compliance Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DCD DM H DM H -Facilities
DPH DSS DVR ExecM gt
SFY 2009 Q1 SFY 2009 Q2 SFY 2009 Q3 SFY 2009 Q4
Q1 - Q4 Compliance Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DHSR DIRM DM A DAAS OES Rural Hlth EconOpp
SFY 2009 Q1 SFY 2009 Q2 SFY 2009 Q3 SFY 2009 Q4
Contract ComplianceQ4 SFY 2009
(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)
Division contract compliance should strive to achieve a 95% rate
• Division of Health Service Regulation – 100%
Divisions at or above above the 75% mark (Q4-09)
• Division of Mental Health (not including Facilities) – 88%• Division of Mental Health Facilities – 78%• Division of Aging and Adult Services – 100%• Division of Vocational Rehabilitation – 75%• Division of Public Health – 88%• Division of Social Services – 84%
Department Compliance RateSFY 2009
Department Compliance Rating SFY 2009
In
Compliance
66%
Out of Compliance
34%
Compliance Rating by DivisionSFY 2009
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# C
om
pli
an
t
% In Compliance
DCD 39 20 51%DHSR 45 43 96%DIRM 3 0 0%DMA 20 13 65%DMH 40 34 85%DMH -Facilities 57 32 56%DAAS 3 2 67%DPH 129 107 83%DSB&HHDSS 65 41 63%
DVR 20 17 85%OES 2 1 50%Rural Hlth 21 12 57%EconOpp 38 1 3%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 10 4 40%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 492 327 66%
OPCS Reviews
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2009 Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
Goal for Contract ComplianceSFY 2009
(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval)
Division contract compliance should strive to achieve a 95% rate
• Division of Health Service Regulation – 96%
Divisions at or above above the 75% mark (SFY 2009)
• Division of Mental Health (not including Facilities) – 85%• Division of Vocational Rehabilitation – 85%• Division of Public Health – 83%
SFY 2007 to 2009 Overall Compliance Comparison
57% 61%66%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
SFY 07 SFY 08 SFY 09
% Compliance
Compliance Rating by Division SFY 2008
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2008 (SFY Totals)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments Reviewed by
OPCS
# C
om
pli
an
t
% In Compliance
DCD 48 25 52%DHSR 43 20 47%DIRM 4 1 25%DMA 13 9 69%DMH 33 18 55%DMH -Facilities 73 22 30%DAAS 2 2 100%DPH 130 83 64%DPH-MinHDSB&HHDSS 88 43 49%DVR 88 87 99%OES 7 1 14%Rural Hlth 7 3 43%EconOpp 61 50 82%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 19 14 74%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 616 378 61%
OPCS Reviews
Compliance Rating by Division
SFY 2007
D i v i s i o n
# o f C o n t r a c t s o r A m e n d m e n t s
R e v i e w e d b y O P C S
# C
om
pli
an
t
% C o m p l i a n t
D C D 4 4 2 6 5 9 %D H S R 5 0 3 6 7 2 %D I R M 1 0 0 %D M A 1 4 9 6 4 %D M H 4 6 3 3 7 2 %D A A S 2 1 5 0 %D P H 1 1 3 6 1 5 4 %D P H - M i n HD S B & H HD S S 1 0 5 8 1 7 7 %D V R 8 0 4 8 6 0 %O E S 3 1 3 3 %R u r a l H l t h 1 6 1 2 7 5 %E c o n O p p 7 0 4 6 %H RP r o p & C o n s t rE x e c M g t 8 3 3 8 %M o r e @ 4C o n t r o l l e rD D C o u n c i lM M I S
O v e r a l l : 5 5 2 3 1 5 5 7 %
O P C S R e v i e w s
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2007 (SFY Totals)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
SFY 2007 - 2009 Compliance Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DCD DM H DM H -Facilities
DPH DSS DVR ExecM gt
SFY 2007
SFY 2008
SFY 2009
SFY 2007 - 2009 Compliance Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DHSR DIRM DM A DAAS DSB&HH OES RuralHlth
EconOpp
SFY 2007
SFY 2008
SFY 2009
SFY07-SFY 09 Compliance Comparison AnalysisNo Division consecutively met the 95% compliance 3 years in a row.
No Division consecutively remained above the 75% mark 3 years in a row. However, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation came closet to this achievement with 85% and 99% compliance rates respectively in SFY 08 and SFY09.
Compliance ratings for all divisions over the last three years have fluctuated or remained flat with the exception of Division of Public Health. Best Compliance holding at 66% for SFY09. There was no correlation to be made when comparing the impact on Compliance across the quarters within each SFY. Lowest compliance was 28% in Qtr 3, SFY08, best was 78% in Qtr. 3, SFY09. Although, budget restrictions, indecisions, and ARRA may have contributed to the Timely” Approval compliance issue
Division of Public Health is the only Division to show consistent and positive compliance improvement across all three year (54%, 64% and 83%).
Division of Health Service Regulation showed the biggest compliance improvement from SFY08 to SFY09 (50%) followed by Division of Mental Health-Central Office and Facilities (30%), Division of Public Health (20%) and Division of Social Services and Office of Rural Health and Community Care (15%).
Compliance Rating by Area SFY 2009 Q4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q 4
Approval Process Required Documents
Timely Approval Performance Measures
COE Review Other Edits
Areas of Compliance by Division Q4
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments Reviewed by
OPCS
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P1 Approval Process
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P2Required
Documents
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P3Timely
Approval
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P4Performance
Measures
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P5COE Review
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
Other (Edits, NCAS header,
etc.)
DCD 26 0 0% 15 58% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 58%DHSR 11 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DIRMDMA 6 0 0% 1 17% 4 67% 0 0% 0 0% 2 33%DMH 16 0 0% 0 0% 2 13% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DMH -Facilities 27 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 0 0% 1 4% 5 19%DAAS 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DPH 51 1 2% 1 2% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 4 8%DSB&HHDSS 38 1 3% 1 3% 3 8% 0 0% 0 0% 4 11%
DVR 4 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 25%OESRural Hlth 3 0 0% 1 33% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33%EconOpp 33 0 0% 21 64% 12 36% 0 0% 0 0% 20 61%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 4 0 0% 1 25% 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% 0 0%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 2203 1% 42 19% 26 12% 0 0% 2 1% 52 24%
% of ALL contracts that have a problem in this area:
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2009 (Q4)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
Q 4 - OPCS Reviews Percentage of Contracts or Amendments NOT in Compliance per area
Compliance Rating by AreaSFY 2009 Q1 thru Q4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Approval process Required Documents Timely Approval Performance Measures COE Review Other Edits
Annual Compliance Rating by AreaSFY 2009
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
SFY 09
Approval Process Required Documents Timely Approval
Performance Measures COE Review Other Edits
Areas of Compliance by Division SFY 2009
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P1 Approval Process
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P2Required
Documents
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P3Timely
Approval
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P4Performance
Measures
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P5COE
Review
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
Other (Edits, NCAS
header, etc.)
DCD 39 1 3% 15 38% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 16 41%DHSR 45 0 0% 1 2% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DIRM 3 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DMA 20 0 0% 1 5% 5 25% 0 0% 0 0% 3 15%DMH 40 0 0% 0 0% 4 10% 0 0% 0 0% 3 8%DMH -Facilities 57 1 2% 1 2% 17 30% 1 2% 1 2% 6 11%DAAS 3 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33%DPH 129 5 4% 1 1% 6 5% 0 0% 0 0% 15 12%DSB&HHDSS 65 3 5% 5 8% 15 23% 0 0% 0 0% 12 18%
DVR 20 0 0% 0 0% 2 10% 0 0% 0 0% 1 5%OES 2 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50%Rural Hlth 21 0 0% 1 5% 6 29% 0 0% 0 0% 2 10%EconOpp 38 0 0% 22 58% 16 42% 0 0% 0 0% 20 53%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 10 0 0% 1 10% 4 40% 0 0% 1 10% 1 10%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 49210 2% 49 10% 80 17% 1 0% 2 0% 81 16%
% of ALL contracts that have a problem in this area:
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2009 (SFY Totals)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
OPCS Reviews Areas of Contracts or Amendments NOT in Compliance
SFY 2009 Top Three Compliance Issues
The top major compliance issues for SFY 2009 are Required Documents, Timely approval and Edits.
Division Meeting or Exceeding Compliance goal:
Required Documents: DHSR, DIRM, DMA, DMH-Central and Facilities, DAAS, DPH, DVR and Rural Health.
Timely Approval: DCD and DVR
Edits: DHSR, DIRM, and DVR
Contract Approval ProcessSFY 2009(RFPs not included)
Correct approvals and signatures
Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that went through the correct approval process:
99% Q1 97% Q2 98% Q3 99% Q4
98 % SFY 2009
Required Documents SFY 2009
(RFPs not included)
Includes all required documentation
Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had all required documentation:
98 % Q1 96% Q2 99% Q3 81% Q4
90 % SFY 2009
Timely Approvals SFY 2009(RFPs not included)
Submitted to OPCS before effective date
Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had timely approvals:
67 % Q1 81% Q2 94% Q3 88% Q4
84 % SFY 2009
Performance Measures SFY 2009
(RFPs not included)
Contract includes required measures
Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had performance measures:
100 % Q1 100% Q2 99% Q3 100% Q4
100 % SFY 2009
COE ReviewSFY 2009(RFPs not included)
Chairs or designee approved contractsand/or amendments
Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had a COE Review:
100 % Q1 100% Q2 100% Q3 99% Q4
100 % SFY 2009
Other Items Identified in the ReviewSFY 2009(RFPs not included)
Edits, budget corrections, encumber funds, incorrect data, contract system
Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that did not have any other items to address:
93 % Q1 91% Q2 85% Q3 76% Q4
84 % SFY 2009
Areas of Compliance by Division SFY 2008
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# N
on
Co
mp
liant
P1 Approval Process
# N
on
Co
mp
liant
P2Required
Documents
# N
on
Co
mp
liant
P3Timely
Approval
# N
on
Co
mp
liant
P4Performance
Measures
# N
on
Co
mp
liant
P5COE
Review
# N
on
Co
mp
liant
Other (Edits, NCAS
header, etc.)
DCD 48 1 2% 15 31% 1 2% 1 2% 1 2% 9 19%DHSR 43 1 2% 4 9% 17 40% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2%DIRM 4 0 0% 0 0% 3 75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DMA 13 0 0% 2 15% 2 15% 0 0% 0 0% 3 23%DMH 33 2 6% 8 24% 2 6% 0 0% 0 0% 4 12%DMH -Facilities 73 0 0% 2 3% 38 52% 0 0% 0 0% 34 47%DAAS 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%DPH 130 3 2% 3 2% 19 15% 7 5% 1 1% 21 16%DPH-MinHDSB&HHDSS 88 4 5% 14 16% 7 8% 1 1% 0 0% 28 32%DVR 88 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%OES 7 0 0% 1 14% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 6 86%Rural Hlth 7 0 0% 1 14% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 3 43%EconOpp 61 0 0% 5 8% 3 5% 1 2% 0 0% 10 16%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 19 0 0% 2 11% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 3 16%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 616
11 2% 57 9% 95 15% 10 2% 2 0% 122 20%% of ALL contracts that have a
problem in this area:
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2008 (SFY Totals)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
OPCS Reviews Areas of Contracts or Amendments NOT in Compliance
Areas of Compliance by Division SFY 2007
Division
# of Contracts or Amendments
Reviewed by OPCS
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P1 Approval Process
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P2Required
Documents
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P3Timely
Approval
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P4Performance
Measures
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
P5COE
Review
# N
on
Co
mp
lian
t
Other (Edits, NCAS
header, etc.)
DCD 44 1 98% 4 91% 12 73% 0 100% 0 100% 9 80%DHSR 50 1 98% 3 94% 10 80% 0 100% 0 100% 1 98%DIRM 1 0 100% 0 100% 1 0% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%DMA 14 1 93% 1 93% 4 71% 0 100% 0 100% 1 93%DMH 46 2 96% 1 98% 5 89% 0 100% 6 87% 4 91%DAAS 2 0 100% 1 50% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%DPH 113 7 94% 4 96% 16 86% 0 100% 0 100% 34 70%DPH-MinHDSB&HHDSS 105 3 97% 5 95% 7 93% 0 100% 0 100% 15 86%DVR 80 1 99% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100% 30 63%OES 3 1 67% 2 33% 1 67% 1 67% 1 67% 1 67%Rural Hlth 16 0 100% 1 94% 3 81% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%EconOpp 70 8 89% 56 20% 5 93% 0 100% 1 99% 44 37%HRProp & ConstrExecMgt 8 0 100% 2 75% 4 50% 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%More@4ControllerDD CouncilMMIS
Overall: 55295% 86% 88% 100% 99% 75%
Overall Positive Compliance Rate for the Dept
Compliance Rating at the time of Approvals 2007 (SFY Totals)Results include only Contracts and Amendments that are approved through OPCS.
Does not include RFPs that are sent to DOA or State P&C for approval
OPCS Reviews Areas of Compliance
Areas of Compliance Trend Analysis
SFY 2007 – 2009SFY 2007 - 2009 Areas of Compliance Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ApprovalProcess
RequiredDocuments
TimelyApproval
PerformanceM easures
COE Review Other (Edits,etc)
SFY 2007
SFY 2008
SFY 2009
SFY07-SFY09 Top Three Compliance Issues- AnalysisRequired Documents, Timely Approval and Edits remain an area of
opportunity across all three years.
Timely approval fluctuated across all three years, best was 88% compliance rating in SFY07, worst was 84% in SFY09
Required Documents have improved across all three years from a low of 86% to 90% compliance, but goal still remain unmet.
Edits have improved consistently from a low of 75% to 84% compliance respectively over the last three years, but goal still remain unmet.
Performance Measure Quality Rating
• A basic 3 point rating scale is utilized to determine the quality of measures in PBCs.
• Scale: 1=Average; 2 = Good and 3 = Excellent
Rating Definition• Demand: The intended beneficiaries/targeted population/ and number of units to
be served in the contract are clearly identified and defined• Input: The amount of resources required to provide the services to the customer
are clearly identified• Output: The quantity of the services expected to be completed or provided to
the customer are clearly identified• Outcome: Outcome measures are aligned with the contracts goals and
objectives and clearly reflect a result, consequence, or a particular benefit • Service Quality: Quality measures clearly evaluate customer satisfaction with
the service or product provided or the appropriateness of the service being provided or how the service was provided
• Efficiency: Cost relationship of input to outputs to outcomes are identified
Division Demand Input Output OutcomeService Quality Efficiency Total #
DAAS X X X X X X X 0 0 0
DCD 89% 100% 100% 100% 96% 89% 96% 9 27 162
DHSR X X X X X X X 0 0 0
DIRM X X X X X X X 0 0 0
DMA 33% 100% 100% 67% 100% 33% 71% 1 3 18
DMH 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 4 12 72
DMH -Facilities 33% 100% 100% 100% 78% 22% 72% 3 9 54
DPH 99% 100% 97% 96% 89% 100% 95% 50 150 900
DSS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 18 108
DVR 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 3 9 54
EconOpp 100% 100% 100% 67% 50% 100% 86% 2 6 36
Exec Mgmt X X X X X X X 0 0 0
OES X X X X X X X 0 0 0
Rural H 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% 100% 89% 3 9 54
DepartmentTotals 94% 100% 98% 96% 88% 95% 94% 81 243 1458
SFY 2009 - PBC Quality Rates
# o
f co
ntr
acts
rev
iew
ed
Co
lum
n T
ota
ls
Po
ssib
le #
per
Ro
w
Division Demand Input Output Outcome
Service Quality Efficiency Total # #
of c
ontr
acts
re
view
ed
Pos
sibl
e #
of
poin
ts p
er
Col
umn
Pos
sibl
e #
of
poin
ts p
er
Row
DAAS 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 1 3 18
DCD 73% 98% 98% 98% 98% 92% 93% 17 51 306
DHSR 52% 100% 100% 36% 9% 21% 53% 11 33 198
DIRM X X X X X X X 0 0 0
DMA 33% 100% 100% 67% 33% 33% 61% 1 3 18
DMH 83% 100% 100% 96% 88% 96% 94% 8 24 144
DMH -Facilities 90% 100% 100% 62% 71% 71% 83% 7 21 126
DPH 90% 100% 100% 81% 81% 86% 90% 43 129 774
DSS 80% 100% 99% 94% 93% 92% 93% 28 84 504
DVR 69% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 16 48 288
EconOpp 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 19 57 342
Exec Mgmt X X X X X X X 0 0 0
OES X X X X X X X 0 0 0
Rural H 33% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 72% 2 6 36
DepartmentTotals 81% 100% 100% 87% 83% 86% 89% 153 459 2754
SFY 2008 - PBC Quality Rates
PBC Quality Rating Comparison
Quality Rating for all measures showed tremendous improvement.
Demand, Outcome, Service Quality and Efficiency measures were all under 95% for SFY08. SFY 09 all measures quality ratings were except Service Quality was equal to or greater than 94%. Total quality rating is at 94%.
Divisions with Total PBC Quality Rating above 95%• Division of Child Development• Division of Mental Health• Division of Public Health• Division of Social Services• Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
DHHS Contract Numbers/Dollar Values/% Reviewed/Compliance Rate
Divisions
Contracts in system
(as of 7/09) sfy 2009
Approx. $ Value of Contracts as of 7/09
sfy 2009 funding
% of Contracts Reviewed by
OPCS as of 7/09
Compliance Rate SFY
2009
DCD 45 173,125,458$ 51% 51%
DHSR 111 15,016,723$ 3% 96%
DIRM 64 37,518,311$ 0% 0%
DMA 90 292,987,831$ 3% 65%
DMH 61 35,114,898$ 33% 85%
DMH - Facilities 289 49,637,841$ 9% 56%
DAAS 12 1,882,167$ 17% 67%
DPH 650 93,819,480$ 11% 83%
DSB 20 492,699$ 0%
DSDHH 10 6,402,832$ 0%
DSS 445 68,808,392$ 9% 63%
DVR 129 22,391,047$ 1% 85%
OES 33 2,882,822$ 6% 50%
Rural Hlth 503 32,430,274$ 2% 57%
EconOpp 130 33,113,243$ 20% 3%
HR 1 50,000$ 0%
Prop & Constr 2 14,388$ 0%
ExecMgt 36 6,422,707$ 8% 40%
B&A 4 1,350,000$ 0%
Controller 1 147,604$ 0%
DD Council 44 1,485,683$ 0%MMIS 3 6,515,679$ 0%
SFY 2009 Contract Data
COE Meeting Schedule
DHHS COE Quarterly Meetings Scheduled SFY 2010
Adams 264 9:30 am – 11:30 am
• End of Fiscal Year 2009 Report – August 20, 2009• Quarter 1 Report and updates – November 12, 2009• Quarter 2 Report and updates – February 11, 2010• Quarter 3 Report and updates – May 13, 2010
Please send your Division’s COE meeting schedule to: [email protected]
General Contract Management and System Training
• OPCS Training Sessions SFY 2010• Training dates and times will be scheduled – this will be
posted on the web site: http://opcs.dhhs.state.nc.us/default.aspx
• Location: Hoey Building - Dix Campus 801 Ruggles Dr.
• Notification required 1 week in advance include topic of interest
• Departmental Contracts training provided by [email protected]
• DHHS Contract System training provided by [email protected]
Questions and Answers
Merged Systems Update• Volunteers needed in each division for User
Acceptance Testing and training (September)
• People that are familiar with entering contracts into the current system
• Attend required training session for the testing period (Sessions will be scheduled by DIRM. One 4 hour ? session)
• Commit to small amount of time each day to test and provide feedback.
Merged Systems Update• Merged Systems Preview is here!!!
• We are almost ready to head into user acceptance testing -- which leads to intensive training sessions – which will lead to the system roll-out and everyone will need to be familiar with this new system. (September – October)
• We are not accepting feedback as far as general system functionality, but will address any issues that relate to functions already in place that are not working as they should.
• We still have some identified items that we are currently still working on, but would like to have you take a peek into what you will be working with.
Merged Systems Update• Key features we would like you to be aware
of:• Separate Areas to start entering your RFP/Q/A
data before it is awarded into contract(s)
• Electronic Approval Process (for signature approvals)
• Contract Creation within the system. The contracts will be entered and maintained in the system – from start to finish
Merged Systems Update• The following slides will give you information you
need to be able to access the TEST SITE for the Merged System. You may go in and play around. Please be aware that we are still finishing up some changes BEFORE we enter into testing, but this will give you an opportunity to look at the new layout and information collected.
• Please pass this information on to your Contract Administrators. They will be key in starting the contracts IN THE SYSTEM rather than routing the paper documents like we have been doing in the past.
http://wwwdev01.dhhs.state.nc.us:9000/
Main Screen
Sign In Screen
UserName: contractuser1; contractuser2; contractuser3
Password: dmsi2008
Click the Contracts Tab and the buttons will appear