Project Portolfio Management Recommendation Report

2009

Joe Armenta | Jay Nath

CCSF-DT

5/26/2009

Project Portfolio Management Alternatives Results &

Recommendation Report

http://www.sfgov.org/site/dtis_inde%00%E5%A1%B9%EF%92%81%E1%B4%BB%E4%A1%BF%E2%B2%AF%E5%B6%82%E8%97%84%E6%8C%A7%00%00%EA%AE%A5

PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report May 26, 2009

Table of Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................3

Executive Summary................................................................................................................3

Recommendation Summary....................................................................................................3

Evaluation of Alternatives....................................................................................................3

Evaluation Methodology..........................................................................................................4

PPM Alternatives Descriptions.................................................................................................4

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................6

Appendix A..............................................................................................................................7

TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP...............................................................................................7

Appendix B............................................................................................................................12

SURVEY OF FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CRITERIA...............................................................12

Appendix C............................................................................................................................16

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION MATRIX....................................................................................16

Appendix D............................................................................................................................20

City Services Auditor Project Management Software Solution Evaluation Spring 2008......20

Appendix E............................................................................................................................27

VENDOR QUOTE INFORMATION..........................................................................................27


IntroductionThis is an evaluation with recommendations report for the Office of the CIO, which had indicated the need for a review of cost alternatives for a Project Portfolio Management (PPM) software application. A PPM application assists DT Management to view, analyze and collectively manage all current or proposed projects, or groups of projects, across the organization. Our objective is to identify suitable applications with the optimal Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), as well as the best functional fit with our business and technical requirements.

Executive SummaryDT’s Project Management Office (PMO) currently is using CA-Clarity for DT’s PPM application. It is the central repository of all projects for which DT is responsible, including COIT projects. This is what we call our “Book of Business”. However, the high-cost of the Clarity solution prompted DT to evaluate possible alternatives. To this end, Blair Adams, DT’s Chief Technology Officer, and Chair of the COIT Performance Subcommittee, undertook a project to accomplish this.

So as to establish a set of objective functional criteria by which to evaluate possible alternatives, a voluntary web survey was sent out to IT Managers across the City (Appendix B), and from the responses a weighted functional evaluation matrix score sheet was derived (Appendix C). Since it was important to consider all aspects of costs, a method to calculate Total Cost of Ownership was identified and adopted as well (Appendix A). Along the way, a number of candidate solutions were identified, and based on a research-driven selection process; four finalists were evaluated and ranked as follows:

1. Project.Net

2. NetSuite - OpenAir

3. MS - Project Server

4. CA - Clarity

Note that this report does not preclude a more formal RFI/RFP process in the future.

Recommendation SummaryBased on the weighted scores from our evaluation matrix (Appendix C), our recommendation is to test Project.Net, on a 90-day trial basis.


Evaluation of Alternatives

MS-Project Server CA-Clarity

NetSuite OpenAir Project. Net

501.47 567.13 697.73 736.20

Evaluation Methodology

We began by gathering the business needs of those in DT who are currently using Clarity (PMO, COIT Staff, and PMs), as well as those in DT who are seeking similar functionality (Contracts Section). From this a list of functional requirements was developed, and a voluntary web survey was sent out to IT Managers across the City (see Appendix B), which asked respondents to assign relative weights to each requirement. From the survey responses a weighted functional evaluation matrix score sheet was derived (see Appendix C).

Since it was important to consider all aspects of cost, a method to calculate Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) was identified and adopted as well (see Appendix A). We made every effort to obtain cost information that was as accurate as possible from vendors, as well as from DT’s relevant known internal costs. When direct vendor cost quotations could not be obtained in a timely manner, cost estimates were extrapolated from similar vendor sources. Costs were examined for two modes of service: 1) On-Demand/Software-As-A-Service (SaaS), which is remote hosting by the vendor; and, 2) On Premises/In-House hosting by DT.

After preliminary discussions with the alternate vendors, each one was then asked to demo their solution to PMO Director Joe Armenta and R&D Manager Jay Nath, and each performance was rated against our functional evaluation matrix score sheet. Since we are currently using Clarity, we were able to evaluate this ourselves. Finally, the Criteria Weights derived from the survey were applied, and the final weighted scores were calculated (Appendix C).

PPM Alternatives Descriptions

Microsoft Office Project Server

MS Project Server is an extended version of Microsoft Project, using Windows SharePoint Services and Web Access. MS Project Server stores project information in a central database.


The Project Center supports reports across an organization at the project level. A Project Administrator can control security defining users and access rights.

The project manager can communicate project plans and task assignments to team members via home pages in Web Access. Team members can communicate status and changes to keep the project manager up to date.

Resource workloads can be analyzed by project and by resource with the Resource Center, allowing organizations to forecast future resource requirements and make more efficient use of resources.

However, at this time Microsoft seems to be relying upon third-party vendors to provide true project portfolio capability (dashboards, aggregate views, etc.) Also, since Windows SharePoint seems to be a technical prerequisite for implementing Microsoft’s vision in this arena, the true cost of implementation has the potential to be much higher.

Computer Associates Clarity PPM

CA Clarity PPM supports core project and portfolio management functionality. This functionality provides the ability to unify PPM information and processes into a single system of record. For individual projects, and groups of projects (portfolios), Clarity can track resources, organizational structures, budget and financial information, issues, and individual resource-task timekeeping. A Project Administrator can control security defining users and access rights. Access to Clarity is via web browser.

Because Clarity has a limited innate project scheduling capability (CA offers its own open-source product Open Workbench for this), it supports the importing of project schedules from either MS-Project (with limitations), or CA Open Workbench (preferred).

Clarity also supports the attachment of external documents at the project and portfolio levels, through its collaboration feature.

In our experience with using Clarity, there have been some difficulties with configurability and ease-of-use.

NetSuite OpenAir Professional Services Automation (PSA)

NetSuite OpenAir is currently being piloted by the Controller’s Audit Division. The Controller initially looked at CA-Clarity, and some other candidate software offerings (see APPENDIX D), before selecting OpenAir for pilot. OpenAir is aimed at project-based businesses, providing automated time and expense tracking, billing, reporting, and basic project management and work breakdown structures.


While OpenAir provides most of the desired project portfolio functionality, some of the desired graphics capability; such as, Gantt charting at the portfolio level, etc. are still “in the works”, and are not yet available. Nevertheless, OpenAir provides strong resources tracking and analysis tools; is easily customizable; and has a robust reporting suite.

Project.net

Project.net is Commercial Open Source. Project.net is a web-based enterprise project management application that supports the management of portfolios of projects; i.e., groups of projects into various portfolios.

The application can prioritize and measure projects using scorecards, and can create business graphs of portfolio information such as status, budget variance, and completion time line. The graphics support project status color codes and arrows to indicate improvement.

More attractively from the individual Project Manager’s standpoint, the application also provides robust collaboration tools; such as, centralized discussion boards for all project participants, the ability to attach documents and links to other project objects, and the tracking of who has read each message. Project.Net is the only one of the four candidate products which could demonstrate this capability. The application can also import project plans from Microsoft Project.

ConclusionBesides the all-important cost considerations, we strongly believe that migrating to Project.Net or OpenAir for DT’s PPM solution will also provide the added benefits of enhanced

Project Portfolio management capabilities Resources tracking and analysis across projects Project collaboration tools for the PMs, and project team members Usability for PMs, and project team members.


Appendix A

TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

The following worksheets summarize the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for each of the PPM solutions which were evaluated. Each vendor submitted a TCO worksheet, except for current vendor CA/EnPointe. (See APPENDIX E, for additional information.) We made every effort to obtain cost information that was as accurate as possible from vendors, as well as from DT’s relevant known internal costs. When direct vendor cost quotations could not be obtained in a timely manner, cost estimates were extrapolated from similar vendor sources.

Costs were examined for two modes of service: 1) On-Demand/Software-As-A-Service (SaaS), which is remote hosting by the vendor; and, 2) On Premises/In-House hosting by DT.

Below is the summary table of TCO for the PPM applications evaluated, followed by the detailed worksheets for each one.

Cost Summary

On-Demand/Software As A Service (SaaS)

On Premises/In-House Hosting

PPM Application

TCO Per User (Three Years)

Annual Cost Per User

TCO Per User (Three Years)

Annual Cost Per User

MS-Project Server

$2,510 $837 $5,290 $1,763

CA-Clarity $8,616 $2,872 $10,980 $3,660

OpenAir $2,514 $838 Not Offered

Project.Net $1,142 $381 $2,321 $774


MS-Project Server

There were two additional factors here which proved difficult to estimate. The first was the fact that this vendor has third-party business partners providing the possible solutions, and the second was that most of them require MS Sharepoint to be in place. Both these factors have the potential to boost these estimates considerably. However this might be mitigated, by Enterprise Agreement pricing.

5/13/2009Year 1 = 2009 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP (TCO) WORKSHEET

On-Demand $53,500 $89,500 $125,500On-Premises $133,700 $199,100 $264,500

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Number of users (max.) 50 50 50Subscription fee per user per month $54 $54 $54

Hardware/InfrastructureServers $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 16,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 24,000$ 9.1%

Peripherals $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Network $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Hardware/Infrastructure Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 16,000$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 24,000$ 9.1%

CommunicationLocal Area Network -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Wide Area Network -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Remote Access -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Communication Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

SoftwareSubscription Fees 32,400$ 32,400$ 32,400$ 97,200$ 77.5% 32,400$ 32,400$ 32,400$ 97,200$ 36.7%

SQL Server 27,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 37,000$ 14.0%

Project Server 8,800$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 13,200$ 5.0%

Portfolio Server 8,800$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 13,200$ 5.0%

Portfolio CAL 2,200$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 6,600$ 2.5%

Other Software (Virtuozzo) 2,900$ 800$ 800$ 4,500$

Total Software Costs 32,400$ 32,400$ 32,400$ 97,200$ 77.5% 82,100$ 44,800$ 44,800$ 171,700$ 64.9%

ImplementationCustomization/integration ($175/hr) 14,000$ -$ -$ 14,000$ 11.2% 14,000$ -$ -$ 14,000$ 5.3%

Training ($175/hr) 3,500$ -$ -$ 3,500$ 2.8% 3,500$ -$ -$ 3,500$ 1.3%

Consulting - Tech Migration -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

HW Set-Up, Config & Testing -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% 1,500$ -$ -$ 1,500$ 0.6%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Implementation Costs 17,500$ -$ -$ 17,500$ 13.9% 19,000$ -$ -$ 19,000$ 7.2%

Management/MaintenanceHardware & software upgrades $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Hardware & software admin ($130/hr) $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 39,000$ 14.7%

Other $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Management Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 39,000$ 14.7%

SupportStaff training 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 8.6% 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 4.1%

Travel $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Support contracts $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Overhead labor $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Hosting Cost $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

App Customization $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Support Costs $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $10,800 8.6% 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 4.1%

Total Costs 53,500$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 125,500$ 133,700$ 65,400$ 65,400$ 264,500$

TCO/User (50 actual users) 1,070$ 720$ 720$ 2,510$ 2,674$ 1,308$ 1,308$ 5,290$ Annual Cost/User 837$ 1,763$

Year 2

On-Premises

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3

Cumulative Costs

Total ($)

MS Project Server On-Demand/Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Total ($)% of Total

CostYear 1

% of Total Cost


CA-Clarity

DT is currently using Clarity, and this pricing reflects the actual cost amounts based on 150 users, which is what CA is willing to quote over three years. However, only about 50 DT users actually use the application, hence the difference between the number of subscriptions per user per month, and the TCO per User.





Peripherals $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Network $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Hardware/Infrastructure Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 16,000$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 24,000$ 4.4%



Remote Access -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Communication Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

SoftwareCA License/Subscription Fees 90,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 270,000$ 62.7% 90,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 270,000$ 49.2%

Oracle Licenses 27,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 37,000$ 6.7%

Virtuozzo Server License 2,900$ 800$ 800$ 4,500$

Total Software Costs 90,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 270,000$ 62.7% 119,900$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 307,000$ 55.9%

ImplementationDevelopment/customization/integration -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Training -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

CA Consulting - Tech Migration ($300/hr) -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% 7,200$ -$ -$ 7,200$ 1.3%

HW Set-Up, Config & Testing ($130/hr) -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ 1.2%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Implementation Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% 13,700$ -$ -$ 13,700$ 2.5%



Other $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Total Management Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 39,000$ 7.1%

SupportStaff training $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 10,800$ 2.5% 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 2.0%

Travel $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%


Overhead labor $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

CA Hosting Cost $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

App Customization $150,000 $0 $0 150,000$ 34.8% 150,000$ -$ -$ 150,000$ 27.3%

Total Support Costs $153,600 $3,600 $3,600 $160,800 37.3% 153,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 160,800$ 29.3%

Total Costs 243,600$ 93,600$ 93,600$ 430,800$ 316,200$ 116,400$ 116,400$ 549,000$

TCO/User (50 actual users) 4,872$ 1,872$ 1,872$ 8,616$ 6,324$ 2,328$ 2,328$ 10,980$ Annual Cost/User 2,872$ 3,660$

CA-Clarity On-Demand/Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Total ($)% of Total

CostYear 1

% of Total Cost

Cumulative Costs

Total ($) Year 2

On-Premises



OpenAir

This vendor does not offer their software to be hosted in-house by the customer.


On-Demand $53,400 $88,500 $125,700On-Premises $0 $0 $0


Hardware/InfrastructureWintel Servers $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% N/A N/A N/A -$

Peripherals $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Network $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

… -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Hardware/Infrastructure Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

CommunicationLocal Area Network -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Wide Area Network -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Remote Access -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Communication Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

SoftwareLicense/Subscription Fees 30,000$ 31,500$ 33,600$ 95,100$ 75.7% -$ -$ -$ -$

DBMS Licenses -$ -$ -$ -$

Virtuozzo Server License - - - -$ Total Software Costs 30,000$ 31,500$ 33,600$ 95,100$ 75.7% -$ -$ -$ -$

ImplementationDevelopment/customization/integration 12,600$ -$ -$ 12,600$ 10.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Training 7,200$ -$ -$ 7,200$ 5.7% -$ -$ -$ -$

Consulting - Tech Migration ($x/hr) -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

DT HW Set-Up, Config & Testing ($130/hr) -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% - -$ -$ -$

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Implementation Costs 19,800$ -$ -$ 19,800$ 15.8% -$ -$ -$ -$

Management/MaintenanceHardware & software upgrades $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$

DT Hardware & software admin ($130/hr) $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% - - - -$

Other $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

… -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Management Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

SupportDT Staff training $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 10,800$ 8.6% -$ -$ -$ -$

Travel N/A N/A N/A -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Support contracts $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Overhead labor $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Add'l Hosting Costs $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Consulting - App Customization ($x/hr) $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Support Costs $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $10,800 8.6% -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Costs 53,400$ 35,100$ 37,200$ 125,700$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TCO/User (50 actual users) 1,068$ 702$ 744$ 2,514$ -$ ## -$ -$ Annual Cost/User 838$ -$

Year 2

On-Premises (Not offered by OpenAir)


Cumulative Costs

Total ($)

OpenAir On-Demand/Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Total ($)% of Total

CostYear 1% of Total Cost


Project.Net

Although this solution’s software source code is Commercial Open Source, there are still costs involved.





Peripherals $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Network $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Total Hardware/Infrastructure Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 16,000$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 24,000$ 20.7%



Remote Access -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Total Communication Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

SoftwareSubscription Fees 9,600$ 9,600$ 9,600$ 28,800$ 50.4% 6,250$ 6,250$ 6,250$ 18,750$ 16.2%

Oracle Licenses (Oracle XE) -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Other Software (Virtuozzo) 2,900$ 800$ 800$ 4,500$ Total Software Costs 9,600$ 9,600$ 9,600$ 28,800$ 50.4% 9,150$ 7,050$ 7,050$ 18,750$ 16.2%

ImplementationCustomization/integration ($175/hr) 14,000$ -$ -$ 14,000$ 24.5% 14,000$ -$ -$ 14,000$ 12.1%

Training ($175/hr) 3,500$ -$ -$ 3,500$ 6.1% 3,500$ -$ -$ 3,500$ 3.0%

Consulting - Tech Migration -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

HW Set-Up, Config & Testing -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% 1,500$ -$ -$ 1,500$ 1.3%

… -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Total Implementation Costs 17,500$ -$ -$ 17,500$ 30.6% 19,000$ -$ -$ 19,000$ 16.4%



Other $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

… -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Total Management Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 39,000$ 33.6%

SupportStaff training 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 18.9% 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 9.3%

Travel $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%


Overhead labor $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

Hosting Cost $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%

App Customization $0 $0 $0 -$ 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Total Support Costs $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $10,800 18.9% 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 10,800$ 9.3%

Total Costs 30,700$ 13,200$ 13,200$ 57,100$ 60,750$ 27,650$ 27,650$ 116,050$

TCO/User (50 actual users) 614$ 264$ 264$ 1,142$ 1,215$ 553$ 553$ 2,321$ Annual Cost/User 381$ 774$

Project.net On-Demand/Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Total ($)% of Total

CostYear 1

% of Total Cost

Cumulative Costs

Total ($) Year 2

On-Premises



Appendix B

SURVEY OF FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Other CCSF Departments were solicited for their input via Web Survey. Their responses and/or participation, was strictly voluntary. The survey asked respondents to weigh the relative importance of functional requirements for a PPM software application. The final weight for each criterion is the average of the responses received.

SURVEY RESULTS as of 4/8/2009

Completed (90% Questions answered) Survey Count

15

Response 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 AVG

Completed Survey? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Weight

Ability to view a list of projects for an organizational unit with basic information (start/end, budget, etc) and status indicator(s)

5 5 4 2 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4.40

Ability to view aggregate information (total budget, duration, total resources, etc) and status for an organizational unit

5 5 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4.07

Ability to prioritize projects at an organizational level

4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.47

Ability to provide project status (approved, deferred, rejected, completed, etc)

5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 4.53

Ability to view resource allocation across portfolio, projects or by resource

4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3.67

Ability to view portfolio and project schedule in a single view (Gantt, network, etc)

3 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 2 4.00

Ability to view progress indicators of projects

4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 2 3.93


Ability to generate reports of projects by (e.g.): time; status; organizational unit; budget amount; resource allocation; and metadata (custom data elements)

3 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 4.13

Ability to track production support activities, especially for resource capacity planning

5 4 3 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 3.73

Ability to record basic project information (description, budget code, project ID, etc)

4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 4.47

Ability to import MS Project file with essential information (tasks, interdependencies, resources, completion %age, dates)

3 3 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 3 3.60

Ability to export to MS Project file

2 3 3 4 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 3.07

Ability to link and/or upload and attach any type of file to a project

4 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 3 3 4 3.60

Ability to manage basic project management functions within application (adding/updating tasks, resources, etc)

4 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.40

Ability to create & link subprojects to projects

4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 3.73

Ability to use and create project templates

4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3.80

Ability to reserve resources (different than assigning)

3 4 4 3 3 1 5 5 3 3 3 4 2 3 3.07

Ability to establish milestones and phases

5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4.53

Ability to view all projects for a project manager with basic information (start/end, budget, etc) and status indicator(s)

4 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4.27

Ability to view milestones and 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3.73


tasks in a calendar view

Ability to upload and attach project artifact documents (e.g., contracts, etc.) to project, milestones, or tasks

2 5 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.53

Ability to generate reports of: open tasks, outstanding tasks, upcoming tasks, resource assignments, work completed, over-assigned resources, etc.

4 5 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 4 4.13

Ability to get email reminders of upcoming tasks

5 4 3 2 3 5 4 3 5 3 2 3 4 2 3 3.40

Ability to establish, and reset, baselines for schedules

3 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 4.00

Ability to track issues 5 5 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 5 4.20

Ability to track change requests 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4.13

Ability to enter running commentary /notes at the project level and at the task level

4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 3.40

Ability to define and execute task workflows, including date or task triggered email alerts to task owners

4 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3.53

Ability to update completion of your tasks, with actuals

4 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 4.33

Ability to view all your outstanding and upcoming tasks across various projects in a single view

4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 3 4.27

Ability to update your availability 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 5 5 4 3.87

Email alerts are sent to you when new tasks are assigned

5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 3.87

Ability to export all, or selected, data to a common and open file format

4 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3.93


Application is mature, and has been in use for at least five years

3 4 2 2 4 3 4 1 3 2 5 4 4 2.73

Permission/Security allows for isolation between organizational units, projects, and project artifacts

5 5 3 4 4 3 5 5 5 3 2 5 5 5 5 4.27

Ability to check-in & check-out document attachments

5 4 3 3 4 5 3 2 5 4 2 4 4 5 4 3.80

Ability to configure basic system functions using GUI

4 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 3.87

Application utilizes modern and open standards such as HTTP, FTP, xml, SOAP, and JMS to allow for enterprise application integration

5 5 3 4 4 3 4 5 3 3 2 4 5 4 4 3.87

Ability to host application on-site / in-house

3 1 4 5 4 3 1 5 4 2 2 1 4 4 3 3.07

System provides web-based user interface

5 5 3 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4.27

Relative level of timely Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery for system

5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4.07

Please add any comments, suggestions, or requirements we may have missed. Thanks!

The product(S) selected must add value for the PM... i.e., the PM has to want to use the tools in his/her daily job. It can't be simply another vehicle to report information about projects that use other products to actually manage and control.


Appendix C

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION MATRIX

The following matrix computes the weighted score for each of the PPM solutions which were evaluated. Raw scores were determined by Joe Armenta and Jay Nath.

Project Portfolio Management Applications Evaluation

MS-Project Server

CA-Clarity

NetSuite OpenAir

Project. Net

MS-Project Server

CA-Clarity

NetSuite OpenAir

Project. Net

CRITERIA

Criteria Weight (1-9) Raw Score 1 (poor) - 5 (excellent) Weighted Score

Total Cost of Ownership

Relatively Inexpensive TCO

3.00 2 1 3 4 6.00 3.00 9.00 12.00

Management Requirements Ability to view a list of projects for an organizational unit with basic information (start/end, budget, etc) and status indicator(s) 4.40 4 5 5 5 17.60 22.00 22.00 22.00

Ability to view aggregate information (total budget, duration, total resources, etc) and status for an organizational unit 4.07 3 3 4 4 12.20 12.20 16.27 16.27

Ability to prioritize projects at an organizational level 4.47 3 4 4 5 13.40 17.87 17.87 22.33

Ability to provide project status (approved, deferred, rejected, completed, etc) 4.53 4 4 5 5 18.13 18.13 22.67 22.67

Ability to view resource allocation across portfolio, projects or by resource 3.67 3 3 4 4 11.00 11.00 14.67 14.67

Ability to view portfolio and project schedule in a single view (Gantt, network, etc) 4.00 4 3 2 3 16.00 12.00 8.00 12.00

Ability to view progress indicators of projects 3.93 2 4 5 5 7.87 15.73 19.67 19.67


Ability to generate reports of projects by (e.g.): time; status; organizational unit; budget amount; resource allocation; and metadata (custom data elements)

4.13 2 3 4 2 8.27 12.40 16.53 8.27

Ability to track production support activities, especially for resource capacity planning 3.73 3 4 4 4 11.20 14.93 14.93 14.93

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Project Management Requirements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ability to record basic project information (description, budget code, project ID, etc) 4.47 3 5 5 5 13.40 22.33 22.33 22.33

Ability to import MS Project file with essential information (tasks, interdependencies, resources, completion %age, dates) 3.60 5 1 4 5 18.00 3.60 14.40 18.00

Ability to export to MS Project file 3.07 5 1 4 5 15.33 3.07 12.27 15.33

Ability to link and/or upload and attach any type of file to a project 3.60 4 3 5 5 14.40 10.80 18.00 18.00

Ability to manage basic project management functions within application (adding/updating tasks, resources, etc.) 4.40 5 3 5 5 22.00 13.20 22.00 22.00

Ability to create & link subprojects to projects 3.73 4 3 4 4 14.93 11.20 14.93 14.93

Ability to use and create project templates 3.80 4 4 5 5 15.20 15.20 19.00 19.00

Ability to reserve resources (different than assigning) 3.07 2 2 5 4 6.13 6.13 15.33 12.27

Ability to establish milestones and phases 4.53 5 4 5 5 22.67 18.13 22.67 22.67

Ability to view all projects for a project manager with basic information (start/end, budget, etc) and status indicator(s) 4.27 4 5 4 4 17.07 21.33 17.07 17.07

Ability to view milestones and tasks in a calendar view 3.73 3 3 3 5 11.20 11.20 11.20 18.67

Ability to upload and attach project artifact documents (e.g., contracts, etc.) to project, milestones, or tasks 3.53 3 3 5 5 10.60 10.60 17.67 17.67


Ability to generate reports of: open tasks, outstanding tasks, upcoming tasks, resource assignments, work completed, over-assigned resources, etc. 4.13 4 5 5 0.00 16.53 20.67 20.67

Ability to get email reminders of upcoming tasks 3.40 1 4 4 2 3.40 13.60 13.60 6.80

Ability to establish, and reset, baselines for schedules 4.00 5 4 4 5 20.00 16.00 16.00 20.00

Ability to track issues 4.20 2 4 5 5 8.40 16.80 21.00 21.00

Ability to track change requests 4.13 2 2 2 5 8.27 8.27 8.27 20.67Ability to enter running commentary /notes at the project level and at the task level 3.40 1 1 4 5 3.40 3.40 13.60 17.00

Ability to define and execute task workflows, including date or task triggered email alerts to task owners 3.53 1 5 3 3 3.53 17.67 10.60 10.60

(Add'l Requirement from Survey Response) The product(S) selected must add value for the PM... i.e., the PM has to want to use the tools in his/her daily job. It can't be simply another vehicle to report information about projects that use other products to actually manage and control. 5.00 4 1 3 4 20.00 5.00 15.00 20.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Project Team Member Requirements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ability to update completion of your tasks, with actuals 4.33 3 3 4 5 13.00 13.00 17.33 21.67

Ability to view all your outstanding and upcoming tasks across various projects in a single view 4.27 3 3 5 5 12.80 12.80 21.33 21.33

Ability to update your availability 3.87 2 3 5 5 7.73 11.60 19.33 19.33

Email alerts are sent to you when new tasks are assigned 3.87 1 5 5 5 3.87 19.33 19.33 19.33

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Technical Requirements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Ability to export all, or selected, data to a common and open file format 3.93 3 4 4 4 11.80 15.73 15.73 15.73

Application is mature, and has been in use for at least five years 2.73 2 5 5 5 5.47 13.67 13.67 13.67

Permission/Security allows for isolation between organizational units, projects, and project artifacts 4.27 2 5 5 5 8.53 21.33 21.33 21.33

Ability to check-in & check-out document attachments 3.80 2 3 5 5 7.60 11.40 19.00 19.00

Ability to configure basic system functions using GUI 3.87 2 4 4 2 7.73 15.47 15.47 7.73

Application utilizes modern and open standards such as HTTP, FTP, xml, SOAP, and JMS to allow for enterprise application integration 3.87 2 1 3 2 7.73 3.87 11.60 7.73

Ability to host application on-site / in-house 3.07 4 4 1 4 12.27 12.27 3.07 12.27

System provides web-based user interface 4.27 4 4 4 5 17.07 17.07 17.07 21.33

Relative level of timely Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery for system 4.07 4 4 4 4 16.27 16.27 16.27 16.27

TOTALS 127 144 178 188 501.47 567.13 697.73 736.20


Appendix D

City Services Auditor Project Management Software Solution Evaluation Spring 2008

Software Name Pros Cons

MS Project Server Overall-

“Industry Standard” for Project management

Familiar Microsoft user interface/functionality (e.g. able to use “right-click” menus and drop down menus at top of screen)

Individual Project Management-

Attractive & user-friendly interface: sets standard for entering project tasks/subtasks and setting relationships, dependencies, and milestones on the project level.

Excellent gantt views-nice drag & drop functionality.

Overall-

Implementation may require outside expertise (up to 6 months, full time) and extensive customization.

Requires reliance on internal IT support – may require continued consultant support for installations, upgrades, and troubleshooting.

Customized reporting may require the export/import of data from outside data sources.

Requires implementation and coordination of other software (i.e. portfolio server, sharepoint, etc.)

Not evaluated because trial is not available:

Time Capture/Time sheets

Reporting

Enterprise level project/portfolio planning



@task Overall-

Can be hosted by vendor-does not require internal IT support.

Faster implementation than with MS Project (it is a stand-alone software).

Has robust individual project management and portfolio managing capabilities.

Portfolio Planning-

Good ‘capacity’ planner – can view availability of resource pools and assignments.

Nice ability to ‘group’ projects by priority for viewing.

Good gantt views of project progress, phase status.

Good high level view of projects and alignment with business need.

Individual Project Management -

Clunky interface, via web applet. It is functional however-similar to MS Project, though more difficult to use and not laid out as well.

Overall-

Difficult to navigate through website – Applets are slow to load and clunky.

Seems to require lots of customization and support hours from @task.

Built-in reports insufficient/not relevant to our needs.

Custom data can only be added for projects and resources, but not for actual ‘time’ (may not work for CSA’s payroll needs).

Time Capture-

Cannot enter payroll categories for projects (dealbreaker??)--May require integration with a separate timesheet program.

Timesheets are generated for any period designated by user-may lack sufficient controls for our purposes.

Reporting-

Customized reports are not intuitive – difficult to use and lacks documentation.

Out of box reports generally do not meet our needs.

Can’t include individual schedules in payroll report

Employee Calendar Views-

Cannot set employee calendars for irregular schedules (i.e. flex schedules)- may require customization or work arounds.



Unanet Overall-

Good interface and simple to use.

Can be hosted by vendor or on-site.

Reasonably priced (one time fee of $4,500 + annual fee of $18/user license)

Time Capture-

Attractive/easy to use timesheet interface.

Allows for allocation of project hours/costs to departments.

Can select payroll codes and activity codes for hours.

Can select specific project tasks in timesheet.

Flexible Reporting and report Creation.

Resource Assignment-

Can assign projects to a ‘role’ for planning and then assign to staff.

Good view of resource availability and booking percentage (calendar view).


Interfaces with Microsoft project to import/export task list.

Can import tasks from Excel.

Reporting-

Reports appear to address our payroll needs, and are flexible enough for good custom report generation.

Interfaces with Crystal Reports (on-site hosted version)

Overall-

May require connecting to MS Project in order to provide adequate functionality for individual project management and portfolio management.

Portfolio Planning-

Can’t view project portfolio in Gantt view.

No good system to prioritize projects.

Individual Project Planning-

Clunky gantt interface for project task/subtask entry-may need to interface with MS Project.

Reporting-

Can’t include individual schedules in payroll report.

Employee Calendar Views-

Cannot set employee calendars for irregular schedules (i.e. flex schedules)- may require customization or work arounds.



Daptiv Overall-

Good interface and intuitive.

Uses Java-doesn’t require slow/clunky web applets to load.

Is hosted by vendor.

Good user support with this software (included in licensing).

Portfolio Planning-

Meet’s CSA’s requirements for prioritizing projects and for management views.

Nice gantt views of project portfolio.

Nice ability to view resource availability and “what-if scenarios”.

Time Capture-

Good user interface.

Can charge time to projects without charging to individual tasks.

Allows for allocation of projects hours/costs to departments-through project properties. However, this is clunky.


Can assign projects to a ‘role’ for planning and then assign to staff.

Good view of resource availability.

Can first assign projects to a resource ‘type’ (soft assignments) before making actual assignments.


Task view sheet similar to Microsoft Project – very attractive interface. It can also be used in assigning auditors to tasks and for setting dependencies.

Reporting-

Report generation appears very robust and flexible enough to meet our needs.

Interfaces with Crystal Reports or Cognos for advanced report creation

Overall-

Relatively expensive ($7,000 annual configuration fee + $40/user annual license fee).

Time Capture-

Cannot select payroll codes and activity codes for hours-cannot add these fields.

o Options are adding tasks to projects called ‘overtime’ or adding non-project work category to track overtime hours.

o May require use of another timesheet program (TEC??)

Cannot generate future timesheets.



Replicon

Web Resource

Web Timesheet

Overall-

Web Timesheet has robust time entry and reporting capabilities—it is the ONLY timesheet software that will allow for allocating of project hours to multiple funding sources without customization/work arounds.

Reasonable cost ($6,000 for licenses plus $2,000/year for support)

IF we use, will need to integrate with a project/portfolio management solution (i.e. Daptive or Microsoft Project).

Time Capture-

User-friendly and highly customizable timesheet interface. You can add any number of attributes (i.e. columns, such as ‘category’ or ‘activity’).

Per sales, you can charge time to projects (without charging to tasks).

Allows for allocation of project hours/costs to departments without customization.

Reporting-

Reporting on time/hours is robust- will meet payroll needs.

Quarterly billing report needs (based on allocation of hours) will be met.

Nicely customizable reports for project hours and staff hours-similar quality and features to current Crystal Reports.

Overall-

Web Resource does not allow for portfolio planning and has very elementary project scheduling/assigning features- rule out for CSA

This is primarily a payroll/time capture oriented program and will require integration with other software solution to meet CSA’s needs.

Portfolio Planning-

Inadequate


Inadequate

Individual Project Management –

Inadequate



TeamMate

TeamSchedule

TeamTec

Overall-

Continued use would avoid resource costs associated with implementation of a new system (i.e., need for development, training, etc.).

Good Time Capture program – meets payroll needs.

Nicely integrates with Crystal Reports and other ‘home-grown’ databases.

Because of access to database and integration with CSA tables, can meet some ‘peculiar’ needs, such as calendars on timesheets for payroll.

Time Capture-

Meets all CSA’s needs except being able to allocate project hours to multiple departments/funding sources. This need may be addressed by using “homegrown” table.

If TeamSchedule is used properly, allows for projects to be displayed as assigned.

Reporting-

Flexible reporting with the use of Crystal Reports-meets most user and management needs.

Calendar Views

Simple user views of assigned projects.

Overall-

TeamSchedule does not allow for projects to be scheduled in more than one ‘plan’- must either create a ‘new’ project or roll over the plan.

Is hosted in-house. Requires upgrades and maintenance by IT.

Questionable software stability.

Portfolio Planning-

Inadequate ability to prioritize, view, and schedule projects. May be better addressed in new release or with the use of TeamRisk.

Cannot assign projects to a staff ‘type’ (soft assignment) and cannot view availability of staff pool prior to assignment.


Cannot assign staff to holiday hours since it will allow for charging to a code not compatible with CSA payroll needs.

Clumsy/inadequate assignment functionality.

Clumsy gantt views, slow functionality, requires constant refreshing of screen.


Projects can be assigned to users, however, cannot be broken down into tasks – CSA needs to decide if there is a need to track project hours and to make assignments based on task.



Tenrox Overall-

Reasonably priced ($30/user, plus $18,000 for first year ‘quickstart’ installation package) – includes hosting.

Full-featured work-flow system – may allow for integration of CSA policies/procedures (e.g. training approvals, leave requests…) into software system.

Notification emails work with Lotus Notes.

Can track biweekly schedules (per sales – need to verify)

Allows for “split-billings”-not thoroughly investigated

Portfolio Planning-

Can prioritize, sort, group and view portfolio—meets CSA needs.


Can do ‘soft’ assignments to staff and view availability--interface (grids) a little clumsy (not as nice as Daptiv).


Projects can be assigned to users, however, cannot be broken down into tasks – CSA needs to decide if there is a need to track project hours and to make assignments based on task.

Time Capture-

Assigned projects appear on timesheet AND/OR can select projects from menu.

Dashboard view of hours indicates overtime hours based on rules and employee schedule set-up. This MAY be adequate and MAY be an alternate to having employee select hour ‘type’.

Good views to see completed, approved, unapproved timesheets.

Overall-

Payroll report may not be adequate for CSA.

Custom report creation through the use of pivot tables may be inadequate for CSA needs.

Tracking of staff availability for assignments is confusing/cumbersome (grid method).

Heavy reliance on dashboard views. Reports are not as useful.

Rude/aggressive salesmen

Time Capture-

Cannot select ‘category’ attributes for hours – overtime must be automatically calculated by system in dashboard view – may not meet CSA’s requirements.

May not be able to automatically calculate overtime since two-week schedules MAY not be supported in current version—may have work around according to salesman.

Cannot select ‘activity’—however, if this is explicity in the task title, it should not be a concern.

Reporting-

Built-in reports don’t meet CSA requirements.

Custom reporting relies on pivot-tables-not adequate for presentation.

May not be able to use Crystal Reports to generate required CSA reports-investigating use of VPN connection and crystal.


No calendar view of project assignments-only a worklist view of assigned projects.


Appendix E

VENDOR QUOTE INFORMATION

The following is additional correspondence from vendors, which was submitted in addition to the TCO Worksheets.

*******************************************

From: Jeff Jennings <[email protected]> [mailto:Jeff Jennings <[email protected]>] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:43 PM To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Cc: Jeff Jennings <[email protected]> Subject: Completed docs.

Jay,

Here is pricing to accompany the enclosed completed questionnaires:

Pricing = Project Pro $ 650.00 x 50 comes w CAL "For Project Server so no additional cost for current 50 Project managers. They may already own these since they are using it now." Project Server $4400.00 x 2 Portfolio Server $4400.00 x 2 Portfolio CAL $220.00 x 10

Two servers to support redundancy. Project CAL's for resources or executives are additional $120.00 each only. Provides full access to PWA.

Please note this qualification from our partner: "On the TCO spreadsheet, one of the differences is that if SF chooses SaaS, they just need to buy the Project Pro licenses, but if they choose on-premise, they also need to buy Project Server, Portfolio Server, SQL Server, and Windows Server (in the SaaS model SPLA licensing for those products is built into their per-user-per-month fees). I have put in some estimates of license costs for those products (and SA costs for years 2 and 3), but it would be much better if you would fill out those parts of the TCO spreadsheet before sending it back to the client."

Thanks for the extra time. Let me know if you have questions...

Jeff


From: McConnell, Mac Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:38 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: En Pointe Quote to CCSF DT for First Year of 3-Year CA Clarity Subscription Agreement

Hello Ollie, Here is the quote for the first year of the three-year CA Clarity SAAS subscription agreement which has been negotiated with Michele Oushakoff. This quote replaces the existing licensing quote for the previous agreement's second-year (also attached for your reference), and represents a much lower cost and extended period of license coverage.

Additionally, I am working with Michelle and the CA services group to create two phased SOWs and quotes for additional assistance in upgrading the CCSF instance configuration and functionality, as well as mentoring/training for DT IT staff. CA's scope of work for these services won't be finished until mid-June, and I will be sending those documents at that time.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the attached quote.

Thank you.

Regards,

Mac McConnell | 650 996-7269

CCSF Technology Store Account Executive

En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc. | enpointe.com

1 California St., Ste 2800 San Francisco , CA 94111

FAX: 415 765 7121

and, see our dedicated CCSF website at sanfrancisco.enpointe.com

En Pointe Customer Service (800) 800-4214 x 5777 Hours: 5:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (PST)

http://sanfrancisco.enpointe.com/

http://www.enpointe.com/


# Index Code:

Sub-object:

Requisition #:

Mac McConnell

Item No. Quantity

Extended Amount

1 1 92,783.51$

2 0 -$

3 0 -$

4 0 -$

5 0 -$

6 0 -$

7 0 -$

8 0 -$

9 0 -$

10 0 -$

$92,783.51

Calif. Recycle Fee

$ -

$1,762.89

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS/REQUIREMENTS (if necessary):This is a quote for the first year, 2009-10, of a three-year subscription commitment with ComputerEn Pointe Technologies

Subtotal of Following Pages

$0.00

Quote Subtotal

$92,783.51

-$

If there is more than one page:

-$

-$

Jon Walton

415 554-5728

VENDOR USEDEPARTMENT USE

6/30/2009

Department Name & #:

Ordered By:

Dept. Contact Phone #:

5/24/2009

DELIVER TO:DELIVERY/BILLING INFORMATION

Other Approval: (Signature & Date )

DT Approval: (Signature & Date )

COIT Project/Folio#:

BILL TO ADDRESS:

En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc.1 California St., Ste. 2800

SF5249DT

Quote Date:

Quote #:

Quote Expiration Date:

Quoted By:

Vendor Phone #

Vendor Signature:

Vendor ID# / Contract#

(650) 996-7269

58893/95253 and 6

Department Approval: (Signature & Date )

VENDOR INFORMATION:

VENDOR REMITTANCE ADDRESS:

CCSF-DTIS / Accounts PayableOne South Van NessSan Francisco, CA 94103Attn: Olie B'Lanton

San Franciso, CA 94111

-$

Price Per Unit

$0.00Admin Fee is for informational purposes - DO NOT ADD TO QUOTE. Calculate 1.9% FEE (before sales tax):

GRAND TOTAL OF QUOTE: $92,783.51

Associates. Each Year will be the same cost, and the price of this quote is based on an

-$

-$

PO Box 514429Los Angeles, CA 90051-4429 understanding that years 2 and 3 of this agreement will be purchased, in FY 2011 and FY 2012.

Part Number

PPMSSS9901st Year Annual Subscription CA Clarity SAAS Model. Includes all infrastucture, maintenance and support. Non taxable

The three-year total cost for this subscription agreement will be $278,350.53.

92,783.51$

Description - include manufacturer/brand names

-$

Total of this page:

-$

-$

Sales Tax (8.5%)


-----"Grant McGrail" <[email protected]> wrote: -----

To: "'Joe Armenta'" <[email protected]> From: "Grant McGrail" <[email protected]> Date: 05/07/2009 12:32AM Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Follow-Up Demonstration of OpenAir

Joe, Jay – Thanks for your patience. I’ve confirmed that we will not be offering the on-premise as an option moving forward. Growing as a SaaS company, well over 99% of our clients are leveraging that technology at this point. While we are committed to supporting those clients who purchased on-premise models years ago, our firm feels that it is in the best interest of our clients and shareholders to wholeheartedly commit to Software-as-a-Service.

I hope you find the attached helpful.

Jay – I’d also be happy to align another demonstration, analogous to the one I gave Joe last week, at your convenience.

Kindest regards,

Grant

www.twitter.com/openairPSA

From: Tim Hok <[email protected]> [mailto:Tim Hok <[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:19 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Project.net - TCO document

Hello Jay,

Here is the TCO document. We can make alterations after you have had a chance to review the numbers.

Best Regards, Tim

Tim Hok VP, Business Development http://www.project.net 617 621-0060 x123

http://www.project.net/

http://www.twitter.com/openairPSA

Project Portolfio Management Recommendation Report

Documents

Transcript of Project Portolfio Management Recommendation Report