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


effective date


effective date


date

Other - Including


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


effective date


effective date


date

Other - Including


amendments

Division


effective date


effective date


date

Other - Including


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


effective date

% on or after

effective date

Other - Including


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)


date


effective date

% on or after

effective date

Other - Including


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



date


effective date

% on or after

effective date

Other - Including


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 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


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


Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

% In Compliance


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



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


Reviewed by OPCS

# C

om

pli

an

t

% In Compliance


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



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.


Division


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



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


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.


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


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:



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


Division


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:



OPCS Reviews Areas of Contracts or Amendments NOT in Compliance


Division


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



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

DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 20, 2009 Welcome Introductions Contract Compliance Reporting...

Documents

Transcript of DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 20, 2009 Welcome Introductions Contract Compliance Reporting...