myfloridamarketplace business case€¦ · governor, legislature, department of management...
TRANSCRIPT
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Business Case
Amended November 2010
Original Submission July 2010
MyFloridaMarketPlace
MyFloridaMarketPlace Business Case Submission
Amended November 2010
Section 1 – Executive Summary
Section 2 – Program Overview
Section 3 – DMS Cost Benefit Analysis and Recommendation
Exhibit 1 – Cost Benefit Analysis Detailed Worksheet………………………………19
Exhibit 2 – eProcurement Shadow System Comparison…………………………… 24
Exhibit 3 – Functionality Comparison………………………………………………. 32
Exhibit 4 – CEG Cost Benefit Analysis……………………………………………… 34
Section 4 – DMS Transition Plan
Section 5 – Procurement and Contract Management Process
Exhibit 1 – MyFloridaMarketPlace Timeline………………………………………. 6
Appendix 1 – OPPAGA/BPCI Report
Appendix 2 – Supplemental Materials
MyFloridaMarketPlace Facts …………………………………………………….… 2
MyFloridaMarketPlace Chronology…………………………..………………….… 5
Strategic and Tactical Plan………………………………………….......................... 19
Exhibit A – FY 2009 Accomplishments..………………………………………….... 27
Exhibit B – FY 2010 Accomplishments..………………………………………….... 30
Exhibit C – DMS Organization Structure..…………….………………………....... 36
Exhibit D - Accenture Organization Structure..…………………………………… 37
Exhibit E – MFMP System User Information.…………………………………...… 38
Exhibit F – Customer Satisfaction Survey Results…………………………….…... 44
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 1 of 4
Section 1
MyFloridaMarketPlace Business Case Submission
November 2010
Executive Summary
Summary of Recommendation:
The Department of Management Services (Department or DMS) recommends re-competing the
contract for the MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) services. This course of action is in accordance
with the recommendation contained in the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability (OPPAGA) report dated January 12, 2009. As to the reprocurement, it is the intent of
the Department to continue to follow the recommendations of the report with two minor exceptions:
(1) that DMS continues outsourcing of Disaster Recovery (DR) hosting services with the Service
Provider; and (2) that DMS continues the outsourcing of the Billing and Collections Services (BCS).
The analysis below provides the rationale for its recommendations.
Background:
Section 287.057(22), F.S., authorizes DMS to develop an eProcurement solution. Specifically, this
section states, “The department, in consultation with the Agency for Enterprise Information
Technology and the Comptroller, shall develop a program for online procurement of commodities
and contractual services. To enable the state to promote open competition and to leverage its buying
power, agencies shall participate in the online procurement program, and eligible users may
participate in the program…..” Chapter 287.057(22)(a), F.S., further provides: “[t]he department, in
consultation with the agency, may contract for equipment and services necessary to develop and
implement online procurement.” The statute also permits the use of a transaction fee to fund the cost
and operation of the online procurement system.
Based upon this authorization, DMS procured an online procurement program that later became
known as MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP). DMS executed the Web-based eProcurement contract
October 9, 2002. Based on recommendations in the OPPAGA BCPI report dated January 12, 2009,
and after an extensive renegotiation effort by both the Department and vendor, a second renewal of
25 months was executed, effective July 1, 2009. The current contract expiration date is December 8,
2012.
Agency Mission:
DMS provides a variety of centralized services to Florida’s state agencies, enabling them to focus on
their primary missions. These services include, but are not limited to: providing state group
insurance benefits to state employees, facility management services for state buildings, private prison
services to incarcerate prisoners, and retirement program services to state employee retirees. These
services also include establishing state term contracts and purchasing agreements for agencies and
eligible users to use and DMS providing centralized procurement services through the Division of
State Purchasing (SP) - these services include the MFMP online procurement system.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 2 of 4
Section 1
Stakeholders:
Currently, 32 state agencies use MFMP, including the Office of Legislative Services added in late
September 2008. The system, as of this writing, has more than140,000 vendors registered of which
more than 43,000 are certified business enterprises (CBEs) and has 15,000 users. The system is
interfaced with the State’s Vendor Bid System (VBS), where state agencies and some universities and
local governments issue notices of bid opportunities. MFMP is also interfaced with the state’s
financial system, the Florida Accounting and Information Resource Subsystem (FLAIR). Other
stakeholders include but are not limited to: state agencies, vendors, Department of Financial Services,
Governor, Legislature, Department of Management Services’ Office of Supplier Diversity (OSD),
State Purchasing (SP) and CIO. MFMP system utilization has grown since project inception,
demonstrating that the system is widely used and accepted by state agencies.
OPPAGA Report and Recommendations:
The 2008 General Appropriations Act directed the OPPAGA to conduct an independent study of the
state's eProcurement system, MyFloridaMarketPlace (see Appendix 1). To complete the study,
OPPAGA contracted with BCP International (BCPI), a company that provides advisory services in
information technology planning, integration and management and business transformation.
The five options for continued eProcurement services that OPPAGA directed to be considered are:
1. Continue contract with Accenture;
2. In-source all support of the MFMP system to state employees;
3. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider for the MFMP system;
4. In-source some of the support to state employees and solicit a competitive bid for a service
provider for the remaining support of the MFMP system; and
5. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider and a new system.
BCPI recommended a hybrid of post-contract alternative 1 (renegotiate current contract) and 4 (in-
source some functions and solicit a competitive bid as a long-term solution).
DMS Plan:
In accordance with OPPAGA’s recommendations, DMS completed option 1 and renegotiated and
renewed the contract with the current vendor, thereby achieving significant reductions in cost that
meet or exceed the OPPAGA/ BCP report recommendations.
DMS also plans to implement OPPAGA’s post contract option 4 with two minor revisions:
The recommendation to in-source the Disaster Recovery (DR) site hosting, and
The recommendation to in-source the Billing and Collection Services (BCS).
DMS investigated the recommendation to in-source the DR hosting. DMS’ conclusion was that any
in-source of DR hosting would be in the City of Tallahassee as this is where the state owned
resources centers are. DMS believes that placing production equipment and DR equipment in the
same city is not in the state’s best interest. The current DR hosting is in Suwannee, Georgia, which is
sufficiently removed from Tallahassee and should be impervious from any disaster event in
Tallahassee.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 3 of 4
Section 1
DMS also investigated the in-sourcing of the BCS staff. DMS conducted a full study of in-sourcing
of the BCS in 2006 (see Section 3). The results of that study are still pertinent today.
There are several substantive reasons for having the contractor retain responsibility for the billing and
collections operation. Pursuant to the authority in section 287.057(22), F.S., the contractor is paid
from fees after the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) is satisfied. Therefore, the Service Provider is
highly incented to do a diligent job of collecting fees. The OPPAGA report does provide that the
potential loss of revenue should be considered as part of an evaluation. DMS considered that factor,
and concluded that lost revenue collection would exceed any possible savings. Finally, with the state
now retaining any excess fees collected above the LBR and contract expenses, the state is incented to
enhance revenue collection as well as reduce cost.
Timeline:
DMS estimates that once the prospective Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) responses are received, the
Department will need approximately nine months for response evaluation, negotiations, and contract
execution. The procurement timeline DMS developed allows for nine months of transition services.
(Section 5).
Risk Mitigation Strategy:
Risk mitigation may consist of both real risks that require mitigation and perceived risks that may or
may not require mitigation. The recent contract renewal and renegotiation was successful in
mitigating several risks to the state. The risks mitigated include:
Termination language was updated with new provisions that are more favorable to the state;
Several performance measures were improved and strengthened to provide for better customer
service;
The Service Provider continues to assume the risk of contract payment from transaction fees,
however, provisions were also added requiring the Service Provider to negotiate in good faith
for service level reductions if there were to be a shortfall in revenue to cover the contract cost;
and
The Service Provider must provide Termination Assistance Services and Transition Planning
(See Section 4)
In proceeding with a competitive bid for a new contract to replace the current contract, DMS will
strive to continue to address and mitigate these risks. In addition, an approach to handle contract
non-performance by a vendor was developed. (See Section 5). DMS also plans to have contract
language that will address any potential shortfalls in revenue. With 10 years of history, revenue loss
through decreased revenue collection or possible redistribution of revenue is the more significant
remaining threat to the MFMP operation.
Finally, a Contingency Budget (CB) for system enhancements will be built into the new contract to
provide for continued improvement including customer driven changes.
Governance Concerns/ Strategy:
With the augmentation of the CB during the recent contract renewal and renegotiation, MFMP has a
sound governance structure and relies on its Change Review Board (CRB) to guide prioritization of
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 4 of 4
Section 1
system enhancements. The CRB is comprised of representatives from DMS and other agencies with
a stake in changes to the system.
There are two governance concerns that loom for the new contract. The first includes the Southwood
Shared Resource Center (SSRC) moving in the direction of being a full-service provider. At the end
of the current contract, the state takes possession of all equipment (hardware, software,
customizations) for the MFMP operation currently hosted at the SSRC. If the SSRC becomes a full-
service provider rather than providing a hosting solution it will present a governance issue in that
there would be split responsibility between a service provider and the state. Historically, split
responsibilities present governance challenges in that, when issues occur, it is a challenge to
determine who has responsibility. MFMP is already working with the DMS CIO and the SSRC to
develop clear lines of responsibility in the new contract. Specific contract language will be
developed to address the agency roles for the new ITN and will be addressed during contract
negotiations.
The second challenge in governance is the evolution of the partnership between DFS and DMS to
address system changes related to new laws. As DFS develops its systems for the Federal IRS 3
percent holdback, there will be impacts to DMS that are difficult to plan for at this time.
Cost Benefit Analysis:
It would cost the state an average estimated $17,860,000 annually to insource MFMP as compared to
an estimated $15,400,000, to continue the MFMP contract. This is an additional cost of $2,460,000
annually.
Conclusion:
Based on the data in this submission and based on the OPPAGA report, DMS submits this Business
Case with the recommendation that DMS proceed to re-compete the MFMP contract to obtain a
service provider to run the current operation.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 1 of 7
Section 2
MyFloridaMarketPlace Business Case Submission
November 2010
Program Overview
Background
MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) is the State of Florida's online exchange for buyers and
vendors. In operation for more than seven years, the system transformed how Florida purchases
goods and services. Before MFMP, purchasing and paying meant multiple phone calls and faxes
between vendors and customers. Buyers combed through 840 separate product catalogs that
featured more than 70,000 items, which were not easily searchable. Approval of purchases
within state agencies was done manually via paper being passed around an agency. Vendors
were mailed purchase orders and vendors mailed back invoices. Invoices were manually checked
and approved before payments were made. The process was time consuming, expensive and
prohibited productivity.
Today, MFMP is a source for centralized procurement activities, streamlining interactions
between vendors and state government entities, and providing the tools to support award-
winning procurement for the State of Florida. MFMP automates the state’s order, approval,
invoicing and payment approval process, making the procurement cycle more cost effective and
time efficient than a traditional paper based system. Additionally, there are electronic tools to
streamline the development and execution of solicitations. Key system features include online
certification of minority business enterprise, online catalog shopping, online quoting, commodity
receiving, and enterprise reporting.
Five modules comprise MFMP:
Buyer is the tool state agencies use to issue purchase orders (PO) to registered
vendors.
Analysis is an analytical reporting tool that combines PO/contract data, vendor
information, and payment records.
Sourcing is an electronic notification and bidding tool used by DMS for STC
development.
eQuote is an electronic notification and quoting tool.
Vendor Information Portal (VIP) is the system in which vendors register to do
business with the state.
MFMP provides vendors with the opportunity to register to do business with state agencies. In
October 2009, the MFMP vendor registration system was upgraded and re-introduced as the
Vendor Information Portal (VIP). VIP incorporated three systems and is now one easy-to-use
system. The old process included a 48-hour delay and required vendors to enter information into
multiple registration sites to receive electronic notifications. VIP streamlined the vendor
registration process, enabling vendors to obtain their registration, billing and Vendor
Performance Tracking (VPT) feedback through a single portal. In VIP, vendors can now elect
to receive bid notifications for formal and informal solicitations from three state-issued systems
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 2 of 7
Section 2
(MFMP eQuote, MFMP Sourcing, and the Vendor Bid System (VBS)). Before VIP,
approximately 7,000 vendors were receiving VBS notices for formal solicitations; after VIP was
implemented, more than 75,000 vendors began receiving formal solicitation notifications. In
addition, VIP interfaces with other state systems, including the Office of Supplier Diversity's
certification system. This integration facilitates the registration, review and certification process
to connect minority, women and service-disabled veteran business owners with business
development opportunities. VIP will also interface with the Department of Financial Services
W-9 Verification system as part of the IRS mandated 3 percent withholding project. Streamlining
the state registration process also enhanced the vendors' registration experience and reduced the
number of MFMP customer service desk tickets by 15%.
MFMP also provides enterprise reporting. In July 2010, Analysis 3.0 was launched. The new
Analysis 3.0 provides state-of-the-art reporting tools to agency customers and combines data
from three separate systems, including the state’s accounting system (FLAIR). While historically
customers used manual processes to assemble data, Analysis 3.0 provides customers with an
automated spend visibility solution with data that is refreshed nightly. For the first time, agencies
will be able to pull purchase order (PO) and invoice data from MFMP, encumbrance and
payment information from FLAIR, and registered vendor data from the Vendor Information
Portal (VIP); all from a single reporting tool. This saves agencies administrative time and effort
by reducing the time they spend manually compiling data from several systems. These upgraded
features also enhance the information available for state agencies and legislators to analyze
spending patterns and create strategic sourcing opportunities.
Currently 32 state cabinet and executive agencies use MFMP. As of October 2010, MFMP has
135,000+ vendors registered of which 45,000+ are certified business enterprises (CBEs) and has
15,000 agency customers (Appendix 2). The system is interfaced with the state’s Vendor Bid
System (VBS) through which state agencies and some universities and local governments issue
notices of bid opportunities and is also interfaced with the Florida Accounting and Information
Resource Subsystem (FLAIR).
The MFMP program is self-funded through a 1 percent fee paid by vendors selling to the state
funds the Division of State Purchasing operations, the Office of Supplier Diversity operations
and the MFMP system.
MFMP has received several awards, including: Excellence in IT Leadership Award from IT
Florida, Honorable Mention given by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing,
ComputerWorld Laureate, Leadership in Public Sector from IT Florida, and 2010 NASCIO
Finalist. The October 2010 Florida Government and Technology Conference featured MFMP
when the theme was “Exploring Technology Innovation and Security.” State CIO, David Taylor,
discussed the powerful reporting capability MFMP offers.
Authority
Section 287.057(22), F.S., authorizes DMS to develop an eProcurement solution. Specifically,
F.S. states, “[t]he department, in consultation with the Agency for Enterprise Information
Technology and the Comptroller, shall develop a program for online procurement of
commodities and contractual services. To enable the state to promote open competition and to
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 3 of 7
Section 2
leverage its buying power, agencies shall participate in the online procurement program, and
eligible users may participate in the program…..” This section goes on to say, “[t]he department,
in consultation with the agency, may contract for equipment and services necessary to develop
and implement online procurement.” The statute also permitted the use of a transaction fee to
fund the cost and operation of the online procurement system.
Based upon this authorization, DMS procured an online procurement program that later became
known as MFMP. DMS executed the Web-based eProcurement contract on October 9, 2002.
The contract was for a term of 61 months. Contract language provided for a renewal of three (3)
years or, alternately, an additional 61 months. A three-year renewal was exercised in 2005 that
provided coverage until November 7, 2010. Subsequently, based on recommendations in the
OPPAGA BCPI report dated January 12, 2009, a second renewal of 25 months was executed as
part of a renegotiation effective – this renewal was effective July 1, 2009. The expiration date of
the contract is now December 8, 2012.
The renegotiation of the above-mentioned renewal significantly exceeded the recommendations
outlined in the 2009 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability/BCP
International study (see Appendix 1). In sum, the renegotiation efforts yielded the following:
Reduction of overall annual cost from $18.7M to $14.8M beginning July 1, 2009 –
provides savings of $13.325M for the remaining term of the contract.
Addition of available enhancement effort hours at no additional cost.
Commitment from service provider to deliver major software and hardware upgrade
during extended contract term.
Improvement in three (3) monthly performance measures.
Significant reduction of existing contract termination penalty.
Improvement in transition provisions to support State planning for post contract
options.
Stakeholder Involvement, Communication and Training
The need to “do more with less” to meet customer expectations becomes more important than
ever, resulting in greater leveraging of technologies. Similarly, as stakeholder needs and new
and better customer service is realized, new technologies and customer expectations increase and
must be analyzed and implemented.
MFMP constantly creates and meets performance expectations, customer needs and
communicative opportunities by using tools such as surveys, customer service desk callback
samples, communication audits, change review board, and change requests to allow its customers
to voice concerns and recommend improvements to vendor customer service.
Specifically, MFMP routinely solicits and receives input from the customer roundtable (CRT)
and the change review board (CRB). The CRT consists of all the MFMP Purchasing and
Finance and Accounting liaisons from every state agency. The CRB membership consists of
volunteer liaisons from 13 of the 32 state agencies.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 4 of 7
Section 2
The CRB provides guidance to DMS MFMP operations by prioritizing change requests or
improvements to the MFMP systems. The CRB was also leveraged during the upgrade of Ariba
Buyer to the current Ariba version 8.2.2 (MFMP 2.0) and will be called on again for the Ariba
version 9r1 (MFMP 3.0) upgrade. Most importantly, MFMP leverages its CRB participation for
user acceptance testing of change requests, for CB monitoring, and overall guidance for system
enhancements.
The DMS MFMP team meets with customers regularly via quarterly CRT meetings, CRB
meetings, and process improvement workgroups. Additionally, the team also discusses the
program at the monthly Florida Association of State Agency Administrative Services Directors
meetings and the monthly agency Purchasing Directors meetings. DMS MFMP operations team
also enjoys representation in the National Institute for Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), Florida
Association of Public Purchasing Officers (FAPPO), and the National Association of State
Purchasing Officers (NASPO), and regularly participates in these associations and publishes
white papers and eProcurement studies to gauge stakeholder opinions.
Within the past few years, the MFMP communications/training program has been expanded.
Interactive online learning, online recorded training tours, and in-person instructor-led classes
were introduced to aid adoption to MFMP. The addition of online learning enables agency
customers to participate in MFMP training at their leisure, in the comfort of their own office.
MFMP also recently expanded outreach to the vendor community by holding vendor learning
webinars directed to educate vendors on a variety of topics, including registering with MFMP
Vendor Information Portal and finding business opportunities.
This past fiscal year, MFMP also held two first-ever conference workshops for vendors and
buyers. Cross training sessions were available from MFMP system tips and tricks, to Florida
Purchasing 101 and Florida state term contract training.
Additionally, the team publishes a bi-monthly eNewsletter for agency buyers and vendors. While
most of this material is targeted to MFMP system users, some of the content (e.g., state term
contract information and purchasing tips) are shared with other eligible users (OEUs) who make
up more than 60 percent of state term contract spend each year.
To support transparency in government spending and program planning, MFMP also posts all
training and meeting materials online for both buyers and vendors online at the following web
link: http://dms.MyFlorida.com/buyertoolkit and http://dms.MyFlorida.com/vendortoolkit
Finally, process improvement and automation is dramatically on the rise. MFMP continually
compiles data from its stakeholders: annual surveys, call center transcripts, website feedback and
annual meetings/focus groups. MFMP leverages its stakeholders to make processes and
experiences more efficient and effective for our customers through our change management
process.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 5 of 7
Section 2
Customer Utilization
Over the term of the MFMP contract, customer adoption of the program has grown. Customers
simply need a computer and a Web browser to access MyFloridaMarketPlace. This provides
accessibility to buyers statewide and to any vendor that wishes to register with the State of
Florida.
MyFloridaMarketPlace has been released to all executive branch agencies (which was part of the
initial scope of the program) as well as to the Legislature, SSRC and to the State Courts divisions
in Florida. MFMP is also working with the Agency for Persons with Disability as the agency
prepares to cease using the Department of Children and Families shadow requisitioning system,
ARTS, and transitions to MFMP by Spring of 2011.
The program has continued to improve targeted efficiencies, including both reduced requisition
to purchase order cycle time and reduced invoice to check cycle time metrics. Overall system
usage has also grown from 38K transactions in FY04 to more than 452K transactions in FY09.
MFMP also provides a consistent way of looking at results for targeted metrics related to
procurement and invoice processing productivity. MFMP delivers a quarterly statewide Agency
Benchmarking Activity (ABA) report to all customer agencies to focus on increasing efficiency
and effectiveness in the day-to-day procurement and payment processes. Additionally, the ABA
provides the opportunity for agencies to learn from their peer agencies and measure effectiveness
for processes against established benchmarks. By focusing on agency cycle-times, they
significantly reduced over the system’s tenure by as much as 33 percent.
Customers continue to be satisfied with the MFMP program. Satisfaction is tracked through
annual customer satisfaction survey results. The 2010 MFMP Customer Satisfaction survey,
which was issued to more than 1,400 MFMP customers, demonstrated that overall satisfaction
has increased by 3 percent last year, has increased nearly 17 percent since 2006, and the current
satisfaction rating is 97 percent.
Year Purchasing F&A Overall
2006 84% 77% 80.5%
2007 89% 94% 91%
2008 94% 90% 93%
2009 93% 95% 94%
2010 97% 96% 97%
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 6 of 7
Section 2
Looking Forward
DMS understands the call to “do more with less” while still maintaining customer expectations.
Beginning in September 2010, work began on the MFMP 3.0 (Ariba 9r1) upgrade, which is
scheduled to launch in September 2011. During the upgrade effort, DMS will confirm current
customizations, perform rigorous system testing and deploy a new MFMP 3.0 training program.
The annual customer satisfaction survey is tool in which DMS polls customer upgrade
requirements. DMS asked customers, “What features of the system could be improved?”
Overwhelmingly, customers indicated that the wanted a more robust catalog and catalog search
capabilities. In addition, customers requested a reduction of pages (screens) when creating
invoices. DMS obtains more feedback on customer needs from the customer roundtable, change
review board and agency one-on-one meetings.
DMS is also in the process of enhancing the Sourcing tool, which is currently used by the
Division of State Purchasing for State Term Contract development. Sourcing 3.0 is slated to
launch in the spring of 2011 and will expand a solicitation tool into an overall project
management solution. The tool will provide a consistent template for solicitation development, a
content clause library, and make available a history of approvals and document submissions.
Sourcing will also offer a dashboard view of current project status displaying pending approvals
required and overdue items, and give vendors the ability to preview event information to
determine if it is in line with business that they would choose to bid on (i.e., vendors can then
make the decision join the event).
In addition to the upgrade, over the next year MFMP will focus on several strategic / tactical
goals. Annually, MFMP develops a strategic / tactical plan identifying goals for the coming
fiscal year (See Appendix 2). For a successful program of this magnitude, it is crucial to keep a
thumb on the pulse of the eProcurement marketplace. This plan shapes the team’s focus and is
aligned with the Division of State Purchasing’s strategic goals.
In FY 10/11, strategically, the team will focus on several goals, including:
Coordination with DFS for W-9 verification deployment - In line with federal
legislation, MFMP is working with DFS to implement a coordinated solution for
verifying vendor W9 information.
VBS / SPURSview updates - While VBS and SPURSview are widely used tools, the
technology is dated and not user-friendly. During FY 10, the team consolidated
customer feedback for proposed enhancements.
Enhanced MFMP public relations and marketing - This area includes increasing
awareness of MFMP activities and successes through various media and outreach
channels, including buyer and vendor training events.
Strengthen Revenue Collection - This area includes continued enforcement around
transaction fee reporting and payment requirements.
One eProcurement and payment system - The MFMP team continued to make
progress in this area during FY 10, including completing a detailed analysis and
comparison of the various shadow systems used by the Department of Children and
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 7 of 7
Section 2
Families, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services. To move forward with comprehensive use, there is a need to
minimize, if not eliminate, all shadow system use for requisitioning. Additionally,
the team will continue to work with agencies to increase invoicing adoption.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 1 of 39
Section 3
MyFloridaMarketPlace Business Case Submission
November 2010
MyFloridaMarketPlace Cost Benefit Analysis and Recommendation
The current contract with Accenture for the MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) system ends on
December 8, 2012. Before that date, the state must decide how to continue services for an online
procurement system. MFMP is an award-winning program and was most recently named as a
finalist for a National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) award. For
more than 20 years, NASCIO has honored outstanding information technology achievements in
the public sector and recognizes information technology initiatives that exemplify best practices,
support the public policy goals of state leaders, assist government officials to innovatively
execute their duties, provide cost-effective service to citizens, and help government operations
run more efficient and effective.
To reach a recommendation as to the best course of action for the State of Florida at the end of
the current eProcurement contract, DMS conducted market research and analysis of the findings.
Through that analysis, DMS considered several post contract options, identified by BCP
International (BCPI), and the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
As part of this options analysis, DMS reviewed the current eProcurement market across many
states, as well as several Florida procurement shadow systems. DMS also collected cost data,
and studied the comparable data to assist in analyzing the identified options.
When BCPI completed its 2009 OPPAGA report on MFMP, it identified five options for
proceeding with operations after the termination of the current eProcurement contract. DMS
agrees that the five options outlined in the report are the options to consider and conducted a
careful analysis of the costs, advantages, disadvantages, risk and mitigation strategies of each
option. The five options are:
1. Continue contract with current provider.
2. Insource all support of the MFMP system to state employees.
3. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider for the MFMP system.
4. Insource some of the support to state employees and solicit a competitive bid for a
service provider for the remaining support of the MFMP system.
5. Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider and a new system.
For reasons more fully outlined below, DMS agrees with the BCPI determination that options 2
and 5 are non-viable. BCPI recommended that the state pursue Option 1 in the short term and
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 2 of 39
Section 3
develop a strategy to pursue Option 4, a continuation of the contract with the current provider.
DMS followed the BCPI-recommended Option 1 to continue with the current contractor in the
short term, and renewed the contract with Accenture for three additional years. In addition to
extending the contract term, DMS achieved contract savings during negotiations, and additional
services, when the vendor agreed to absorb the cost of the Billing and Collections Services costs
and to augment the Contingency Budget, which provides for ongoing system improvements.
The new contract cost is fixed at $1,233,333.33 monthly or $14.8 million annually.
Based on this comprehensive research and analysis, DMS recommends a modified Option 3 to
maintain the Ariba platform and issue a competitive solicitation for a new service provider for
the continued operations of the MyFloridaMarketPlace system.
Market research shows that the Ariba application is considered one of the best eProcurement
Systems available for public use. Based on the current contract cost of $14.8 million annually,
DMS does not anticipate an increase in costs to maintain the current application in a new
contract.
In the Option 3 competitive solicitation, DMS plans to include a request for vendors to offer
eProcurement components to possibly add to the state‟s current eProcurement system, possibly
as an add alternate, that would enhance the eProcurement system services (e.g., travel, asset
management, contract management, others). Seeking add alternates enables the state to try new
technology while maintaining the existing familiar and customer-approved program. In addition
to these add alternates and enhancements to the current system, DMS proposes drafting the
Invitation To Negotiate to allow for competitive alternative solutions meaning further
investigation of Option 5 is possible during the solicitation.
Until a competitive solicitation is completed, DMS can only project costs for a new e-
Procurement contract based on the experience of other states using eProcurement contracts. They
range from $1 million per year for six years, to $70 million over the course of five years. DMS
expects overall costs to remain constant or to decrease after a competitive procurement.
DMS analysis of the five options is outlined in the following pages.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 3 of 39
Section 3
Option 1: Continue contract with current provider
Continuing with the current provider is not a viable option as the current contract does not have
any remaining renewals.
Advantages Disadvantages
The known entity would make costs
consistent
Not legally viable
The ongoing relationship between DMS
and the vendor would ensure that there is
no interruption in service.
No opportunity for competition
Continuation of the Ariba platform, in use
by the state for almost eight years, would
be possible.
DMS predicts that savings are possible
with a new contract through a solicitation,
which is likely not possible if contract is
continued.
Option 1 Cost Analysis
The current contract cost is fixed at $1,233,333.33 monthly or $14,800,000 annually. If the state
continued the contract, the current price represents the costs of this option.
Option 1 Determination
DMS recommends that this option be rejected because it is not viable. The current contract with
the vendor expires on December 8, 2012. Pursuant to section 287.058(g), F.S., there are no
further renewals left for the contract, and therefore, continuation of the contract is not an
available option.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 4 of 39
Section 3
Option 2: Insource all MFMP system support to state employees
Insourcing MFMP will require state employees to handle all functions related to the system
including maintaining the systems technology support and development, the customer service
desk, billing and collections team, and purchasing all hardware and software required.
Cost Analysis
The insource cost estimate includes a number of assumptions built in that must be considered.
They are:
1. The marketplace requires salary levels to be competitive for these highly technical skill
sets. The average hourly bill rate for an Ariba programmer ranges from $200-300 and
hour, depending on experience.
2. The cost estimates for technical resources must take into consideration that the state does
not have the ability to spread these resources over multiple projects or the ability to roll-
off resources when needed. The costs for technical resources must be accounted for as
full-time employees for the life of the project. A service provider has many clients with
similar needs, and its technical architecture staff would more efficiently be deployed over
several projects as it is likely that the vendor has multiple projects in development or
operating at the same time. However, if the state insourced, state resources would be
required full-time for the single project because the state will not have other similar
projects that these staff members could rotate between to share resources.
3. Ariba, the state‟s current program, is a leader in public sector eProcurement solutions.
The state will continue to use Hardware and Software from the existing system.
4. Hardware requires refreshing every fourth year and software licensing must be renewed
annually. BCPI estimates that hardware/software costs will be $4.6 million annually.
5. There will be a one-year ramp up period over which the contract will have to be
maintained while the state gradually transitions to complete insourcing, resulting in costs
for the state operation and contract cost. Year 1 costs reflect this assumption.
Based on the above assumptions and those contained in exhibit 2, the estimated summary of the
costs to insource the MFMP operations over the next 5 years is shown below.
Option 2 Cost Analysis
The costs of this option are estimated below:
Grand Total In-Sourcing
Costs
for MFMP
Year 1
2013
Year 2
2014
Year 3
2015
Year 4
2016
Year 5
2017 5-year Total
DMS Labor Total $ 8,093,250 $ 10,165,500 $ 9,308,250 $ 8,093,250 $ 10,165,500 $ 45,825,750
Software/Hardware Maintenance Total
$ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 23,000,000
Subcontractor Total $ - $ 2,088,000 $ 1,386,000 $ - $ 2,208,000 $ 5,682,000
Transition/Ramp Up Cost* $ 14,800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,800,000
Annual Grand Total Costs $ 27,493,250 $ 16,853,500 $ 15,294,250 $ 12,693,250 $ 16,973,500 $ 89,307,750
*Assumption for year 1 is that cost of recruitment, transition and ramp-up will equate to only the first year of
operating costs
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 5 of 39
Section 3
Along with developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the benefits and consequences
(Advantages and Disadvantages) of insourcing the MFMP Operations and summarized the
considerations in the table below:
Advantages Disadvantages
Agency user familiar and satisfied with the
existing system
Transition of services may result in an
interruption of services
State owns the “code-line” once the
contract is over
Ariba personnel are costly; experts in the
platform are normally paid from $200-300
an hour
Would allow state employees to develop
expertise
As software upgrades are included in the
price by vendor, the state may be missing
opportunity to get the best or most up to
date software available unless funds are
maintained to purchase the upgrades
Reduce dependencies on contractor State may have difficulty hiring and
retaining employees with the right skill set
Provides state employees with better career
opportunities
Required technical expertise does not exist
with current state employees
State employees are more familiar with
state business processes and requirements
Requires additional facilities to house
program office
Not the core competency of the current
state employees
The state does not have the ability to
spread these resources over multiple
projects as this is a completely unique
project
Option 2 Determination
After evaluating the costs and the advantages and disadvantages, DMS found, like BCPI, that
this option is not the most viable option for the state or MFMP. In its analysis DMS found, as
did BCPI in its report, that the state salary range is not aligned with the requirements of Ariba
developers who normally earn $200-$300 an hour. This pay discrepancy may make it difficult to
retain platform experts as state employees. In addition, this type of work is not the core
competency of the state.
Further, overall costs to insource the eProcurement program exceed yearly contract costs for
outsourcing to a vendor. In addition, as BCPI highlighted, customer confidence is a risk to be
mitigated as typically the state does not maintain this type of large scale IT project. During the
FY 09/10, MFMP Customer Satisfaction survey demonstrates that customer confidence and
satisfaction with the system is high with an overall satisfaction rate of 97 percent.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 6 of 39
Section 3
Option 3: Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider for the MFMP system
DMS explored a modification to this option: soliciting a competitive procurement for a new
service provider while maintaining the current Ariba platform. Ariba is a leader in current
software solutions. Market research indicates that organizations typically take five to 10 years to
fully adopt changes in the procurement function. MFMP has been in operation for almost eight
years and the most recent customer satisfaction survey demonstrates that customer satisfaction
with MFMP is high, with 97 percent of MFMP customers being very satisfied with the current
system. Continuing operations in Ariba after a competitive bid would ensure that the state
maintains this level of customer service satisfaction while obtaining the most competitive price
available in the current market.
Option 3 Cost Analysis
The cost estimate for a new service provider includes a number of assumptions built in that must
be considered. They are:
1. Sufficient time would be available to transition the eProcurement management services
to a new service provider under the terms of the existing eProcurement contract.
2. The new service provider will absorb transition costs while the existing provider
transitions the system.
3. All components of the existing operations will be maintained: Billing and Collections,
customer service desk support, technical architecture, etc.
4. Customer satisfaction and confidence in the system is important.
5. Ariba, the state‟s current program, is a leader in public sector eProcurement solutions.
Hardware and Software from the existing system will be used.
6. Change management, or how agencies react to a change, is a concern.
The current eProcurement contract for MFMP costs $14.8 million annually. This includes
consulting services, support desk overhead, and all hardware and software licensing. BCPI
projected that a new contract with the same level of service would cost $14 million annually. The
State of Virginia has a similar eProcurement Ariba program called eVa. and our market research
shows these estimates are in line with Virginia‟s operating costs. Virginia, like Florida, uses a
broad suite of services. The Virginia contract costs $70 million more than five years with a
service provider. Annually the costs are $14 million, equal to the BCPI prediction for Florida;
however the service provider in Virginia does not maintain the customer service desk, nor does it
maintain the Invoicing component for Virginia that MFMP does for Florida. In a new
competitive bid, DMS seeks to beat BCPI‟s estimated contract cost of $14 million during
negotiations.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 7 of 39
Section 3
DMS currently has the resources and bandwidth to conduct the solicitation at no additional cost
to the State of Florida. We estimate the following costs and potential benefits in the table below.
The forecasted cost for a new eProcurement contract is $70 million.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Operation
Costs (labor,
hardware and
software)
$14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $70,000,000
Transition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Along with the developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the benefits and consequences
(Advantages and Disadvantages) of re-soliciting the MFMP Operations and summarized the
considerations in the table below:
Advantages Disadvantages
Promotes open competition Potential for major disruption of services
and operations if a new vendor is selected
Opportunity for a different point of view Significant transition period required
Opportunity to adjust performance metric
terms
Awarded vendor potentially unfamiliar
with state purchasing, MFMP and
customized software
Minimizes state resources requirements
(staff, facilities, etc.)
Potential for an unknown vendor could
create risks.
Potential to improve system operations
Agency users are familiar with the system
Potential to reduce contract pricing
Potential to add new system features to the
existing platform
Current
Contract
Annual Costs
BCPI Projected
Annual Costs
Virginia Annual
Contract Costs
Cost to issue the
solicitation
Minimum Potential
Annual Savings
$14,800,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 Included in
state salaries
$800,000
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 8 of 39
Section 3
Option 3 Determination After reviewing the available market, DMS believes that maintaining the Ariba platform and
pursing a competitive solicitation is the most viable option and the best approach for the state‟s
customers. Pursuing this option would be the least impactful to state agencies that have been
using the system for many years. The current system is now considered the norm for doing
procurement business in Florida. In addition, the Ariba platform is a leader in eProcurement
solutions and the state will own this solution product at the term of the current contract.
DMS recommends a competitive solicitation for services after the contract expires. DMS
believes that the resulting contract will have additional savings off the current contract, which
would make this option even more attractive.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 9 of 39
Section 3
Option 4: Insource some of the support to state employees and solicit a competitive
bid for a service provider for the remaining support of the MFMP system
DMS investigated insourcing some of the support functions of the MFMP operation.
Specifically, DMS explored insourcing Disaster Recovery hosting and Billing and Collections
services as recommended by the BCPI report.
Option 4 Cost Analysis
The cost estimate for the insource of Disaster Recovery services and Billing and Collection
services includes a number of assumptions built in that must be considered. They are:
1. All state-owned resource centers are in Tallahassee.
2. New contract will contain similar funding language that requires the vendor to assume
the risk for collection of the transaction fees.
3. Sufficient time would be available to transition the Disaster Recovery hosting and Billing
and Collection services to the state under the terms of the existing eProcurement contract.
4. DMS will need to add four additional state employee resources to perform Billing and
Collection Services
5. Ariba, the state‟s current program, is a leader in public sector eProcurement solutions.
The state will continue to use Hardware and Software from the existing system.
DMS estimated the cost for insourcing the Disaster Recovery hosting by subtracting the hosting
costs for Disaster Recovery from the entire cost of the production environment. To calculate
savings, BCPI estimated that Disaster Recovery hosting should be approximately one-tenth of
entire production costs.
BCPI estimates that for the Disaster Recovery production environment, as part of the current
contract, costs the vendor approximately $65,000 annually. As of this date, hosting services
provided by the Southwood Shared Resource Center (SSRC) for the MFMP production
environment costs approximately $62,000 annually. Using this BCPI estimate, Disaster
Recovery hosting by the SSRC would cost about $6,200 annually. Thus, insourcing Disaster
Recovery hosting could save approximately $58,800 a year.
Labor Cost
including
benefits
Current production environment costs $65,000
Estimated insourced Disaster Recovery hosting
costs
$6,200
Potential savings $58,800
DMS also estimated the insourcing costs for Billing and Collection. BCPI estimated the current
contract costs for the contract vendor for Billing and Collection services are approximately
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 10 of 39
Section 3
$500,000 for one manager and three collection agents. DMS estimates that insourcing these four
positions would cost approximately $364,500 including benefits.
Annual FTE
Need
Individual
Salary
Labor Cost
including
benefits
Billing & Collections Lead 1.00 $ 75,000 $ 101,250
Billing & Collections Operations 3.00 $ 65,000 $ 263,250
Total Additional salary $364,500
Based on these projections, insourcing both Disaster Recovery services and Billing and
Collection services would save the state approximately $192,300 annually.
Using BCPI‟s estimate that a renegotiated eProcurement contract would average $14 million
annually, insourcing Disaster Recovery hosting and Billing and Collections services would
reduce estimated annual contract fee to $13,807,700.
The forecasted cost for a new eProcurement contract is $69,038,500. Assuming that DMS would
require a one-year transition before assuming full responsibility for Billing and Collections
services, the total cost of Option 4 is $69,538,500.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Operation
Costs (labor,
hardware and
software)
$13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $69,038,500
Transition
services
$500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000
Total $14,307,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $69,538,500
Along with the developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the Advantages and
Disadvantages of insourcing some components of the MFMP Operations and summarized the
considerations in the table below:
Advantages Disadvantages
Reduce dependencies on contractor Because the current contract provides that
the DMS LBR is paid before the contractor
receives payment, the state would lose the
incentive for the vendor to collect
transaction fees.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 11 of 39
Section 3
Disaster recovery services will be easier to
maintain locally
Production equipment and disaster
recovery equipment will be in the same city
Provides flexibility Requires additional state employees to
support MFMP
Reduces contractual costs Potential for unknown vendor creates risk
Opportunity to adjust contract and
performance issues
Requires additional facilities to house
program office
Agency users are familiar with the system Knowledge transfer required
Potential to improve system operations Transitions period required
Option 4 Determination
DMS recommends rejection of this option for several reasons. First, DMS does not believe that
insourcing these functions is in the best interest of the state. If the SSRC hosted Disaster
Recovery, then the hosting would take place in the same city where the production equipment is
located. Placing production equipment and Disaster Recovery equipment in the same city is not
in the state‟s best interest as it may cause substantial system interruption if a disaster occurred in
Tallahassee. Potential savings of less than $60,000 a year do not mitigate this risk. The current
Disaster Recovery hosting facility is in Suwannee, Georgia, which is sufficiently removed from
Tallahassee to reduce the risk to the system from a disaster event in Tallahassee.
Similarly, DMS believes that insourcing Billing and Collections is not in the best interest of the
state. The new eProcurement contract will contain, as does the current contract, compensation
language similar to the language in Modification No. 6:
The Revenue Share will be paid solely from the amount of the Transaction fees collected
by the Department. Prior to paying the Revenue Share, the Department is entitled to
deduct up to $678,192 per month from the amount of Transaction Fees collected in order
to funds its Legislative Budget Request for functions related to state purchasing. Service
Provider shall bear the entire risk if the revenue produced through the Transaction Fee is
less than the amount necessary to pay both the LBR and the Revenue Share.
Thus, the incentive for the service provider is high to ensure that the state collects revenue to
cover not only DMS State Purchasing costs but the contract costs as well. The service provider,
not the state, bears all the risk for increasing collections. The costs avoided through insourcing
this function do not outweigh the risk associated with the state assuming full collection
responsibility.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 12 of 39
Section 3
Option 5: Solicit a competitive bid for a new service provider and a new system
DMS researched the option of replacing the Ariba platform with another too, and analyzed this
option, by reviewing the current eProcurement market. The market includes a wide array of
solution types, from one-process applications to a variety of applications suites. Several of the
larger competitors in the procurement applications market have released significant updates to
their product lines. Ariba's 9r1 and Oracle have both released new versions of their software. As
part of a scheduled upgrade in September 2011, MFMP will adopt Ariba‟s 9r1 version, which
will mean the state has this updated technology.
Gartner, the leading IT advisory firm, recently rated 14 „best-of-breed‟ eProcurement systems
across several categories. The ranked eProcurement systems provide an array of functionality.
Gartner‟s research assessed the 11 most common capabilities clients require in eProcurement
systems. For each product that met the inclusion criteria, Gartner evaluated each of the 11
critical capabilities on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most positive rating.
The top solutions overall for both the private and public sector, according to the study, included
Ariba, Basware, BirchStreet Systems, Elcom, Periscope and Proactis. Gartner‟s findings are
below:
Critical Product
Capabilities
Ari
ba
Ba
swa
re
Bir
chS
treet
Sy
stem
s
Co
up
a
Elc
om
ePlu
s
Ket
era
Tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Per
fect
Co
mm
erce
Per
isco
pe
Pu
rch
asi
ng
Net
Pro
act
is
Pu
rid
iom
Sci
Qu
est
Ver
ian
Tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Fixed-Asset
Acquisition 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.5 3.5
Internal Store
Support 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Basic Purchasing
Functionality 4.5 4.5 4.8 3.5 4.7 4.3 3.5 3.8 5.0 3.8 5.0 4.0 3.2 4.5
Invoice Matching 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.8 4.2 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5
Catalog Support 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0
Specialized Casual
UI 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.7 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0
Supplier
Collaboration 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0
Public-Sector
Functionality 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
Extended
Configurability 4.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.8 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.5 3.0
Heterogeneous
Integration 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.8 3.0
Multisite Support 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 3.0
Average 3.6 3.7 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.5
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 13 of 39
Section 3
Gartner also evaluated 14 eProcurement systems currently in use only in the public sector.
Gartner reports that these software solutions enable public-sector organizations to transform
procurement processes. Vendors such as Ariba, BirchStreet Systems, Periscope and Proactis are
rated as the top excellent solutions for public sector.
Option 5 Cost Analysis The cost estimate for competitive solicitation of a new service provider and a new system
includes a number of assumptions built in that must be considered. They are:
1. The alternate system must be an enterprise Internet-based solution comprised of a
requisitioning, cataloging, receiving, and invoicing components or Florida will suffer a
regression in technology.
2. The state cannot risk a lapse in eProcurement services. There will be a 30-month
transition period over which the state will need to extend the current eProcurement
contract while it defines the requirements of the new system and the new service provider
develops it.
3. Customer confidence and understanding of the new program is critical.
4. Startup costs for training and system adoption are necessary.
Costs vary greatly and depend on the product and whether the state implements an entire product
line. Depending on the scale of the project and solution selected, prices can range from $1
million to $14 million annually. Florida‟s current solution is the most comprehensive public
sector eProcurement solution in the United States. The system handles requisitioning, as well as
invoicing, receiving, vendor registration, quick quoting, sourcing, vendor performance tracking
and other functions. Because of the comprehensive nature of Florida‟s system, there is not an
Use
Case Ari
ba
Ba
swa
re
Bir
chS
treet
Sy
stem
s
Co
up
a
Elc
om
ePlu
s
Ket
era
Tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Per
fect
Co
mm
erce
Per
isco
pe
Pu
rch
asi
ng
Net
Pro
act
is
Pu
rid
iom
Sci
Qu
est
Ver
ian
Tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Public
Sector
use Case
Rating
3.5 3.1 3.5 2.3 3.5 3.3 2.8 2.5 4.1 3.1 4.1 3.4 3.3 3.6
Overall
Rating 3.6 3.7 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.5
Product
Viability
Rating Ex
cell
ent
Ex
cell
ent
Ex
cell
ent
Ex
cell
ent
Go
od
Go
od
Fai
r
Go
od
Ex
cell
ent
Ex
cell
ent
Ex
cell
ent
Go
od
Ou
tsta
nd
ing
Go
od
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 14 of 39
Section 3
exact comparison to the MFMP program; however, Virginia is the closest system considering the
expansiveness of the suites. DMS explored what other states have as online procurement
systems and collected information regarding the programs including system costs where
available:
1. District of Columbia - The District of Columbia contracted with Unisys in 2003 for the
implementation of Ariba‟s Buyer, Analysis and Invoicing modules for $12 million. In
2010, the District contracted directly with Ariba to upgrade the Buyer and Analysis
modules and to implement the Sourcing and Contracts module.
2. California - The State of California‟s Department of General Services contracted with
BidSync in 2008 for a $7 million requisition solution that could incorporate other DGS
home grown applications. The BidSync application only tracks requisitions to purchase
orders. DGS has other systems to track solicitations and contract management. BidSync
implemented a solution called eProcurement in March 2009. eProcurement is a hosted
solution for six years at $1 million per year.
3. Texas - The State of Texas contracted with NIC (a subsidiary of Deloitte) in 2008 for $6
million to implement a sourcing and contract management solution called TXSmartBuy.
The program is now funded by a 1.5 percent administrative fee (percent of purchases
placed though the system) that is paid directly to the vendor for maintenance services.
4. Kansas – The State of Kansas contracted with Accenture in 2008 for $29 million to
implement the PeopleSoft application. Functionality included eProcurement, Purchasing,
Invoicing, Sourcing and Contract Management.
5. Mississippi - The State of Mississippi contracted with Cogsdale to implement an
eProcurement system WebProcure in December of 2006. Their system includes an online
vendor portal, solicitations posting, online bidding, order management processes and
electronic catalogs.
6. North Carolina - The State of North Carolina contracted with Accenture in 2000 for $32
million to implement the Ariba Buyer and eQuote solutions. The state is currently
evaluating solicitation responses for additional procurement solutions.
7. Georgia - In 2008 the State of Georgia contracted with Cherry Road to implement the
PeopleSoft Purchasing module for $8 million. They also contracted with SciQuest to
implement a catalog tool for $1 million per year.
8. Arizona - The State of Arizona signed a five-year contract with Periscope for $9 million
in 2009 to implement an eProcurement system BuySpeed. The first phase of the
application went live in July and phase two will go live in October 2010 to the remaining
state agencies. The solution includes vendor administration, online bid submissions and
evaluations, requisition, purchase order, electronic catalog ordering and receiving.
9. Virginia – The State of Virginia contract with CGI in 2000 for $14 million to implement
the Ariba Buyer application with selected agencies. Virginia has since renewed its
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 15 of 39
Section 3
contract with CGI for 5 years for $70 million for maintenance and to bring on additional
users.
DMS also reviewed other known Florida state agency eProcurement shadow systems/alternate
requisitioning systems to gather information for comparison to the statewide current system. The
features of each system regarding requisitioning, receiving, and invoicing were documented and
available cost information was collected.
1. PRS, the requisitioning system currently used by the Florida Department of Corrections
(DC) and the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), is housed on the DC Intranet and
developed and maintained by DC‟s internal IT department. The annual cost is estimated
at $356,940.
2. AIMS, an Internet based procure-to-pay system used by the Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services is an Oracle application which is maintained by Image API.
AIMS has a robust document management system. The estimated annual cost is
$630,000.
3. ARTS is housed on the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Intranet and is
developed and maintained by DCF‟s internal IT department. ARTS‟ main functions
include requisitioning, and PCard notification. Estimated annual cost is $214,663.
Find a full report of these agency eProcurement shadow systems/alternate requisitioning systems
in exhibits 2 and 3.
In addition to contract costs for a completely new system, there would be startup costs associated
with any transition. The existing contract for MFMP expires in December 2012; there is not
sufficient time under the current contract to issue a solicitation, award a contract, and have the
awarded service provider implement and train on a new eProcurement system. DMS would need
to extend the existing contract for a significant period of time. When the system was first built,
two agencies began using MFMP approximately 22 months after the original solicitation was
issued. One year later 12 agencies were using the system. Now more than seven years later, 32
agencies use MFMP. If a new system is built it is expected that it will be years before a large
number of agencies could be transitioned to a new system, just as the state experienced with
implementation of the current system.
Changing systems is not the only cost to consider when exploring this option. More than 15,000
customers currently use MFMP. Any transition to another system would require complete
retraining of these users. In addition to agency customers, vendors also use MFMP‟s Vendor
Information Portal; more than 140,000 vendors are registered to use the Vendor Information
Portal. In total, more than 155,000 people would require training on a new system, which would
require additional resources and money.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 16 of 39
Section 3
Approximately $50,000 would be required for re-training agency and vendor customers. An
estimated 100 in-person, instructor led classes would be held in five major Florida cities:
Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Tallahassee and Tampa. Additional courses could also be held
via WebEx technology.
In the event a new system is developed, the state will experience a learning curve.
Approximately, 10 percent of the workforce will require training on a new system. The state
would also lose administrative time as agency customers were retrained on the new system. It is
assumed that:
• more than 7,500 people would attend a class
• that class would take four hours
• the average hourly rate including benefits was $30
• administrative time lost would equal $900,000.
The forecasted costs for a new eProcurement system and a new provider includes the new system
operation costs and a 30-month transition window as the 32 agencies transition from the current
system to the new system. DMS calculated operation costs based on the average revenue share
the current service provider received during the first five years of the existing contract.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Operation
Costs (labor,
hardware and
software)
$13,200,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $66,000,000
Transition Cost $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $7,400,000 $0 $0 $37,000,000
Total $28,000,000 $28,000,000 $20,600,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $103,000,000
Along with the developing cost estimates, DMS also evaluated the benefits and consequences
(Advantages and Disadvantages) of transitioning to a new platform with a new service provider
and summarized the considerations in the table below:
Advantages Disadvantages
Increases open competition Forces state to completely restart the
program
Opportunity to adjust contract and
performance terms
Lost program momentum
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 17 of 39
Section 3
Provides vehicle for price negotiations Requires user retraining
Potential to improve system operations All cost to date for the current platform
would be considered sunk costs
Potential to obtain an even more powerful
public section eProcurement solution
Significant transition period required
Agency users possibly frustrated with
another change
Contract lead time required that may
increase costs of transition
A transition could cause a setback for
customer confidence
Option 5 Determination
Issuing a competitive solicitation for a new platform and service provider is the most costly and
riskiest of all five options. DMS State Purchasing has dedicated the past several years in
customer outreach/training. This effort has paid off and customer satisfaction with MFMP is at
97 percent. All this effort would be lost if the state transitioned to a new system. Currently more
than 15,000 state employees and more than 140,000 vendors use MFMP tools; these people
would need to be re-trained in the new system.
At the end of the current eProcurement contract, the state will own the hardware and software
including all Florida specific customizations that comprise MFMP. If the state elects Option 5,
all funds spent to date will be sunk costs. Additionally, moving to a new platform would require
the longest implementation time of all five options because the state would need to develop new
requirements and a new system before the procurement process could begin.
In the recommended competitive solution as part of Option 3, DMS would also request
alternative solutions in bids so that further investigation of Option 5 is possible.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 18 of 39
Section 3
DMS Recommendation
DMS recommends Option 3, modified slightly – pursuing a competitive solicitation for a new
service provider to manage the existing eProcurement Ariba platform. The table below
summarizes the five-year costs for all of the viable options:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Option 1 not viable not viable not viable not viable not viable not viable
Option 2 $27,493,250 $16,853,500 $15,294,250 $12,693,250 $16,973,500 $89,307,750
Option 3 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $70,000,000
Option 4 $14,307,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $13,807,700 $69,538,500
Option 5 $28,000,000 $28,000,000 $20,600,000 $13,200,000 $13,200,000 $103,000,000
As explained above, Option 1 (continue with current vendor) is not viable, and DMS agrees with
BCPI that Option 2 (complete insource of all MFMP functions) and Option 5 (bid for completely
new system) would not be in the best interests of or advantageous to the state given their high
costs.
An advantage to Option 3 (competitive solicitation for a new service provider) over the other
options is that it would be the least impactful to state agencies that have used the system for
many years. They now consider the current MFMP system the norm for doing procurement
business in Florida. In addition, the Ariba platform is a leader in eProcurement solutions and the
state will own this solution product at the term of the current contract.
Costs for Option 4 (insource some functions) are slightly less than Option 3; however, DMS
believes that Option 3 is the best approach for the state because the state would retain or gain
significant advantages with Option 3. Those advantages include:
• The state‟s vendor will have a strong incentive to provide Collections and Billing
Services.
• The state will greatly mitigate the risk for system interruption if a disaster occurred in
Tallahassee by having the Disaster Recovery hosting services done by a vendor in
another city. In the resulting contract of the competitive solicitation component of Option
3 for full services for MFMP, the state has the potential for additional savings off the
current contract. This cost-savings potential may bring Option 3 costs even to or less
than Option 4 costs.
Given these advantages of Option 3, DMS recommends it as the best course for the state as we
continue our work helping state agencies and vendors do business together.
Exhibit 1 - Labor Support Projections MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Annual FTE
Need
2013
Individual
Annual
Salary
2013 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2014
Individual
Annual
Salary
2014 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2015
Individual
Annual
Salary
2015 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2016
Individual
Annual
Salary
2016 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2017
Individual
Annual
Salary
2017 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
Program Management
Program Sponsor 0.25 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$ 100,000$ 33,750$
Program Director 1.00 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$ 90,000$ 121,500$
Program Manager 1.00 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$
Operatinos/PM Management 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$
Operations/PM Reporting 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$
Financial Administration 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$
Program Admin Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$
Legislative Coordination 0.10 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ 75,000$ 10,125$ Subtotal 6.35 644,625$ 644,625$ 644,625$ 644,625$ 644,625$
Application Management
Application Support Team Manager 1.00 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$
Application Operations Lead 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$
Ariba Technical Architect 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$
Application Release Lead 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$
Ariba Buyer Support (including Contracts &
Invoicing)
8.00 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$ 90,000$ 972,000$
Ariba Sourcing Support 2.00 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$
Ariba Analysis Support 2.00 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$ 90,000$ 243,000$
Ad hoc Reporting Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$
Integration Support / DFS Coordination 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$
Interface Support 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$
Vendor Registration Support (including Vendor
Performance Management)
2.00 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$ 70,000$ 189,000$
Vendor Fee Billing System Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$
eQuote Support 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$
Catalog Enablement Support 1.00 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$
eInvoicing Support 1.00 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$
Application Testing 3.00 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ 70,000$ 283,500$ Subtotal 29.00 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$ 3,145,500$
Technical Support
Technical Support Team Manager 1.00 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$ 85,000$ 114,750$
Environment Configuration Management / SRC
Coordination
1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$
Ariba Configuration Management 2.00 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$ 85,000$ 229,500$
Database Administrator 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$
System Administrator 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$
Security/Network Administrator 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$
Performance/Load Testing 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ Subtotal 8.00 857,250$ 857,250$ 857,250$ 857,250$ 857,250$
Section 3, Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1 - Labor Support Projections MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Annual FTE
Need
2013
Individual
Annual
Salary
2013 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2014
Individual
Annual
Salary
2014 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2015
Individual
Annual
Salary
2015 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2016
Individual
Annual
Salary
2016 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2017
Individual
Annual
Salary
2017 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
Buyer Stakeholder Management
Buyer Stakeholder Team Manager 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$
CSD Operations Lead 1.00 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$ 70,000$ 94,500$
CSD Administration/QA 1.00 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$ 65,000$ 87,750$
CSD Level 1 Agents for Buyer and Vendor
Inquiries
10.00 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$ 55,000$ 742,500$
CSD Level 2 Agents for Buyer and Vendor
Inquiries
5.00 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$ 60,000$ 405,000$
CSD Off-phone Support 3.00 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$ 55,000$ 222,750$
Training Material Management 1.00 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$ 60,000$ 81,000$
Training Delivery 1.00 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$
Communications 1.00 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$ 55,000$ 74,250$
Agency Liaisons/Outreach 2.00 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ Subtotal 26.00 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$ 2,025,000$
Vendor Stakeholder Management
Vendor Stakeholder Team Manager 1.00 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$ 80,000$ 108,000$
Billing & Collections Lead 1.00 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$ 75,000$ 101,250$
Billing & Collections Operations 3.00 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$ 65,000$ 263,250$
CSD Level 1 Agents for Billing Inquiries 4.00 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$ 55,000$ 297,000$
CSD Level 2 Agents for Buyer and Vendor
Inquiries
2.00 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$ 50,000$ 135,000$
Legal/Policy Billing Support 0.50 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$ 65,000$ 43,875$
Strategic Sourcing Support 5.00 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ 70,000$ 472,500$ Subtotal 16.50 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$ 1,420,875$
Total FTEs (Operations Only) 85.85
Total Labor Costs (Operations Only) 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$
Section 3, Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1 - Labor Support Projections MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Annual FTE
Need
2013
Individual
Annual
Salary
2013 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2014
Individual
Annual
Salary
2014 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2015
Individual
Annual
Salary
2015 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2016
Individual
Annual
Salary
2016 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2017
Individual
Annual
Salary
2017 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
Ariba Upgrade
Incremental DMS Personnel
Upgrade Manager 1.00 120,000$ 162,000$ 120,000$ 162,000$
Ariba Techncial Architect 1.00 115,000$ 155,250$ 115,000$ 155,250$
Ariba Buyer Developer 3.00 100,000$ 405,000$ 100,000$ 405,000$
Ariba Analysis Developer 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
Ariba Sourcing Developer 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
Testing Coordinator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
Environment Configuration 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$ 100,000$ 270,000$
Database Administrator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
System Administrator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
Conversion Coordinator 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
Conversion Support 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$
Training/Change Management Support 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ 100,000$ 135,000$ Subtotal 15.00 2,072,250$ 2,072,250$
Contractor Personnel Hourly Rate
Annual
Labor/
Expense Cost Hourly Rate
Annual
Labor/
Expense Cost
Ariba Techncial Manager 1.00 300$ 606,000$ 300$ 636,000$
Ariba Technical Architect 1.00 250$ 510,000$ 250$ 540,000$
Ariba Developer 2.00 225$ 462,000$ 225$ 492,000$
Performance Planning/Testing 1.00 250$ 510,000$ 250$ 540,000$ Subtotal 5.00 2,088,000$ 2,208,000$
Projected FLAIR Replacement Integration Implementation
Incremental DMS Personnel
Integration Implementation Manager 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$
Integration Technical Architect 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$
Integration Design 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$
Integration Development 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$
Integration Testing 2.00 100,000$ 270,000$
Performance Testing 1.00 100,000$ 135,000$ Subtotal 9.00 1,215,000$
Contractor Personnel Hourly Rate
Annual
Labor/
Expense Cost
Techncial Manager 1.00 250$ 510,000$
Technical Architect 1.00 225$ 462,000$
Integration Developers 2.00 200$ 414,000$ Subtotal 4.00 1,386,000$
Section 3, Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1 - Labor Support Projections MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Annual FTE
Need
2013
Individual
Annual
Salary
2013 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2014
Individual
Annual
Salary
2014 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2015
Individual
Annual
Salary
2015 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2016
Individual
Annual
Salary
2016 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
2017
Individual
Annual
Salary
2017 Total
Labor Cost
including
Benefits
Assumptions
Due to recent trends No annual COLA Adjustment included
Benefits Cost as Percentage of Salary 35%
Ariba Upgrades Every Three Years (includes hardware refresh) - 2011, 2014, 2017
FLAIR Replacement Occurs in 2015
Contractor Personnel Required for Both Ariba Upgrade and FLAIR Replacement Integration
Contractor Costs include Hourly Rates plus Expenses for 50% of resources @ $5K/month
Section 3, Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1 - Total Cost Estimate MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Estimated Total In-Sourcing Costs:
Ongoing Operations
Year 1
2013
Year 2
2014
Year 3
2015
Year 4
2016
Year 5
2017 5-year Total
DMS Labor Total 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 8,093,250$ 40,466,250$
Software/Hardware Maintenance Total 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 23,000,000$
Annual Total Costs 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 12,693,250$ 63,466,250$
Estimated Total In-Sourcing Costs:
Buyer Upgrade
Year 1
2013
Year 2
2014
Year 3
2015
Year 4
2016
Year 5
2017 5-year Total
DMS Labor Total -$ 2,072,250$ -$ -$ 2,072,250$ 4,144,500$
Subcontractor Total -$ 2,088,000$ -$ -$ 2,208,000$ 4,296,000$
Annual Total Costs -$ 4,160,250$ -$ -$ 4,280,250$ 8,440,500$
Estimated Total In-Sourcing Costs:
Projected FLAIR Replacement
Integration
Year 1
2013
Year 2
2014
Year 3
2015
Year 4
2016
Year 5
2017 5-year Total
DMS Labor Total -$ -$ 1,215,000$ -$ -$ 1,215,000$
Subcontractor Total -$ -$ 1,386,000$ -$ -$ 1,386,000$
Annual Total Costs -$ -$ 2,601,000$ -$ -$ 2,601,000$
Grand Total In-Sourcing Costs
for MFMP
Year 1
2013
Year 2
2014
Year 3
2015
Year 4
2016
Year 5
2017 5-year Total
DMS Labor Total 8,093,250$ 10,165,500$ 9,308,250$ 8,093,250$ 10,165,500$ 45,825,750$
Software/Hardware Maintenance Total 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,600,000$ 23,000,000$
Subcontractor Total -$ 2,088,000$ 1,386,000$ -$ 2,208,000$ 5,682,000$
Transition/Ramp Up Cost* 14,800,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,800,000$
Annual Grand Total Costs 27,493,250$ 16,853,500$ 15,294,250$ 12,693,250$ 16,973,500$ 89,307,750$
* Assumption is that cost of recruitment, transition and ramp-up will equate to the first year of operating costs
Do Not Distribute - Proprietary and Confididential Section 3, Exhibit 1
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 24 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2: eProcurement Shadow System Comparison
BACKGROUND
Section 287.057(22), Florida Statutes (F.S.), authorizes the Department of Management Services (DMS)
to develop an eProcurement solution, stating that “The department, in consultation with the Agency for
Enterprise Information Technology and the Comptroller, shall develop a program for online procurement
of commodities and contractual services. To enable the state to promote open competition and to leverage
its buying power, agencies shall participate in the online procurement program, and eligible users may
participate in the program…” Section 287.057(23) (a) goes on to say, “The department, in consultation
with the agency, may contract for equipment and services necessary to develop and implement online
procurement.” The statute also permitted the use of a transaction fee to fund the cost and operation of the
online procurement system.
Based upon this authorization, DMS procured an online procurement program now known as
MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP). Since its inception, 940,000 purchase orders have been issued and
more than 1,500,000 invoices have been processed. MFMP is used by 32 state entities including
executive, cabinet and judicial agencies and state commissions. While MFMP is an enterprise
eProcurement solution, some agencies use shadow eProcurement systems or alternative eProcurement
systems.
In early 2010, DMS Division of State Purchasing compiled a list of known agency eProcurement shadow
systems/alternate requisitioning systems and reviewed each system to determine if MFMP could meet the
agency‟s requisitioning needs. Three tools were identified: two agency shadow requisitioning systems and
one alternate agency requisitioning system.
Department of Children and Families‟ (DCF) Automated Requisition Tracking System (ARTS),
Department of Corrections‟ (DC) Purchase Requisition System (PRS), and
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services‟ (DOACS) Administrative and Image
Management System (AIMS).
The intent of the exercise was to gather information on alternate systems to understand these agencies‟
needs and determine potential gaps in MFMP. The features of each system regarding requisitioning,
receiving, and invoicing were documented and available cost information was collected.
A high-level overview of each system follows. A detailed comparison of all the tools can be found in
Exhibit 5.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 25 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
ARTS
ARTS is the requisitioning system used by DCF and the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD).
Currently, DCF handles the majority of the purchasing responsibilities for APD. In 2011, APD will
resume purchasing responsibilities and is working with DMS to transition exclusively to MFMP.
ARTS is housed on the DCF Intranet and is developed and maintained by DCF‟s internal IT department.
The main function of ARTS includes requisitioning, travel notification, and PCard approval.
PURCHASING PROCESS
The purchasing process begins with a requester‟s need for a commodity core service and a field requester
submitting a request to the purchasing office in the form of a requisition. ARTS identifies requisitions by
type: PCard, Blanket, Emergency, and Regular. While the requisition process in ARTS is similar to the
process in MFMP (without the automated workflow that MFMP offers), ARTS does not accommodate
attachments.
The purchasing office reviews the request (after obtaining supervisory approval) in ARTS to ensure
purchasing rules are followed and either approves or denies the requisition. Upon approval, E-mail
notifications are then generated alerting approvers an item is in their approval queue. The purchasing
office then creates and issues the purchase order through MyFloridaMarketPlace. If the order requires
encumbering, MFMP encumbers (reserves) the funds in FLAIR.
The receiving process in ARTS is also very similar to MFMP; however ARTS requires an approval flow
for receipts. Once goods or services are received in ARTS by the end user, Finance and Accounting
completes the receipt in MFMP based on the information in ARTS.
OBSTACLES TO TRANSITIONING TO MFMP
There are no known policies are rules that would prohibit DCF from transitioning to MFMP. As APD is
making the transition to MFMP, DMS believes that DCF could as well.
DCF Business Process:
•Requisition
•ReceiptARTS
•Purchase Order
•Receipt
MFMP InvoicingFLAIR
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 26 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
PRS
PRS, the requisitioning system currently used by the Department of Corrections (DC) and the Florida
Parole Commission (FPC), developed and maintained by DC‟s internal IT department and housed on the
DC Intranet. Users access PRS through a network ID. Each user role/permission (Requisitioner,
Purchasing, etc.) requires you to logout and uniquely log back in under the different role.
PURCHASING PROCESS
The purchasing process begins with a requester‟s need for a commodity or service and a field requester
submitting a request to the purchasing office in the form of a requisition. Additional details regarding
PRS Requisitions include:
Requires a contract manager for service requisitions
History shows date and time of most changes made, however it does not record text changes i.e.
line item description
Requester enters “Estimated Cost,” and once Purchasing obtains quotes the actual price can be
entered
Purchasing reviews the request in PRS to ensure that purchasing rules are followed and approves or
denies the requisition. The purchasing office then creates a requisition in MFMP, which, once approved,
generates a purchase order. PRS does not have invoicing or receiving components; DC completes these
activities in MFMP.
OBSTACLES TO TRANSITIONING TO MFMP
PRS utilizes the DC Intranet rather than the internet because most correctional institutions do not have
internet access within the walls of the institution. As MFMP is an Internet based application, MFMP
cannot meet DC‟s needs; however DMS offered, at no cost to DC, to make MFMP available on their
intranet. DC declined the offer.
DC’s Business Process:
RequisitionPRS• Purchase
Order
• Receipt
MFMP InvoicingMFMP
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 27 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
AIMS
AIMS, an Internet based procure-to-pay system used by DOACS since 2001, is an Oracle application and
continues to be maintained by Image API. AIMS is comprised of six modules:
Purchasing (requisitions, purchase orders, and receiving reports)
Bids (electronic bid records)
Research (system searches)
Leases (not currently used)
Invoicing (disbursements)
Travel (both authorization and payment)
This document focuses mainly on the purchasing and payment modules.
PURCHASING PROCESS
Access to AIMS is permission-based and is administered by DOACS purchasing office. There are
security features built into AIMS to allow for separation of duty (i.e., requesters and contract managers
cannot be the receiver for a particular order).
The purchasing process begins with a requester‟s need for a commodity or service and a field requester
submitting a request to the purchasing office in the form of an electronic requisition. While AIMS has
some drop-down choice fields, many are free text.
The purchasing office edits all fields and maintains the choice tables which dictate the choices available
to users in the drop-down boxes. There are several standard reports available to assist the purchasing
office, including a Processing Workload report.
Purchasing reviews the request to ensure that purchasing rules are followed and approves or denies the
requisition. Purchase order documents are auto-generated by AIMS; they are then printed, signed, and
transmitted to the vendor via fax or traditional mail.
AIMS has an extensive document management system; all documents associated to a requisition have a
scannable barcode so that if items are printed and altered they can easily be scanned and attached to the
appropriate transaction. Documents can also be e-mailed to non-AIMS users through the system. The
document management portion of AIMS is very comprehensive and well developed. Document
management may have been the main focus of the system.
Receipts (generated for all commodities) are completed by receivers and cannot be completed by the
requester or the contract manager. For services, the system creates a Contract Services Summary which is
similar to a Partial Payment Log.
INVOICING PROCESS
Invoices are generated in the system by fiscal representatives. They are input to AIMS and then routed to
Finance and Accounting for auditing and approval. AIMS enables the agency to audit invoices online.
AIMS does not pre-audit invoices and the system will not allow the invoice to contain items that were not
included on the order.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 28 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
Disbursements are sent to FLAIR via a batch process initiated by a user in the Finance and Accounting
Office. A unique feature AIMS offers is the ability to process Journal Transfers payments to state
agencies.
The Department of Financial Services has access to AIMS to review documents for audit purposes.
OBSTACLES TO TRANSITIONING TO MFMP
AIMS offers a robust document management system, which is currently not available in MFMP.
Additionally, DOACS has the option to not use MFMP for procurement.
Section 570.07(41), F.S., states “Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 287.057(22) that require all
agencies to use the online procurement system developed by the Department of Management Services,
the department may continue to use its own online system.”
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 29 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
COST COMPARISON
Cost data was collected on MFMP, ARTS, PRS and AIMS. Process efficiencies would result in
administrative cost avoidance if DC and DCF transitioned to MFMP. Additionally if DOACS, DC, and
DCF transitioned to MFMP, the cost of supporting the requisitioning, invoicing and receiving
components of their systems would be eliminated.
MFMP
The current cost of the MFMP contract is $14.8 million per fiscal year. Salary costs for the DMS MFMP
team total approximately $250,000 per fiscal year.
Currently 32 state agencies utilize MFMP, including the support, maintenance, and customer service desk
at no cost to the agencies. DMS pays for both the DMS MFMP team, the Division of State Purchasing
and the contract cost via the revenue generated from the 1 percent transaction fee.
ARTS
ARTS currently uses one full time employee (FTE) in the IT section to support the AIMS application,
costing an estimated $90,000 per fiscal year. This FTE is part of the DCF IT Helpdesk which supports
ARTS questions (along with other DCF systems).
It is unknown what hardware including servers that run ARTS and the cost to maintain that equipment;
however, that cost should be considered in the total cost of the ARTS system.
Presently, DCF staff creates a requisition in ARTS and approves it. Then the purchasing office re-enters
the requisition into MFMP and approving it to issue a purchase order (PO). The estimated cost of this
duplicated effort is below:
Staff Estimated
Administrative Cost
for FTE
Estimated time to
re-enter in MFMP
Estimated number
of PO‟s/Receipts
for DCF/APD in
FY 08/09
Total Estimated
Cost For
Duplicative Effort
Staff to create
Requisitions
$ 30.00/hour 15 min 9955 $74,662.50
Staff to Create
Receipts
$30.00/hour 5 min 20,000 $50,000
Administrative
Overhead Total
$124,662.50
Application
Support
$90,000
TOTAL $214,662.50
ARTS is paid for from the DCF budget.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 30 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
PRS
PRS uses one-half an FTE in the DC IT section to support the PRS application costing an estimated
$45,000 per fiscal year.
It is currently unknown what hardware, including servers, run PRS and the cost to maintain that
equipment; however, that cost should be considered in the total cost of the PRS system.
Presently, DC staff also creates a requisition in PRS and approves it, with the purchasing office re-
entering the requisition into MFMP and approving it to issue a PO. The estimated cost of this duplicated
effort is below:
Estimated
Administrative Cost for
FTE
Estimated time to re-
enter requisition in
MFMP
Estimated Number of
POs issued by DC in FY
09/10
Total Estimated Cost
$ 30.00/hour 15 min 41,592 $311,940
Application Support $45,000
Grand Total $356,940
PRS is paid for from the DC budget.
AIMS
As stated earlier, AIMS was developed and is partially maintained by a contracted vendor. In the last six
full fiscal years, DOACS has paid Image API more than $3.8 million.
FY 05 $707,448.65
FY 06 $726,473.04
FY 07 $967,308.78
FY 08 $614,025.36
FY 09 $412,503.66
FY 10 $434,708.76
FY 11 (as of August 2010) $29,059.98
TOTAL $3,891,528.23
NOTE: This is a summary of all spend between DOACS and Image API. It is possible that some of this
spend is not exclusively related to AIMS.
DOACS prints, signs, and then mails all purchase orders; it is estimated that this manual effort would cost
$3.11 per PO.
Paper for the PO ($15 per 500 sheets)(average PO uses 4 pieces of paper) $ 0.12
Envelopes ($25 per box of 500) $ 0.05
Postage $ 0.44
Administrative time in printing and mailing (average cost for FTE+30.00 per hour,
Average time to print and mail 5 minutes) $ 2.50
Total $ 3.11
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 31 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 2
DOACS issued 2,483 POs in FY 09/10; the administrative cost to deliver these POs was $7,722.13.
Currently it is unknown what hardware, including servers and other technical components, run AIMS and
the cost to maintain that equipment; however, that cost should be considered in the total cost of the AIMS
system.
AIMS is paid for from the DOACS budget.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 32 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3: Functionality Comparison
Area Function Feature M
F
M
P
A
R
T
S
P
R
S
A
I
M
S
General System
Management
Ability to change approval flows X X X
General Vendor
Management
Online Vendor Registration System X
General Vendor
Management
Imports vendor load from FLAIR or agency maintained vendor
list
X X
General Transparency Purchase Orders are posted on publicly viewable site (i.e.
SPURSView)
X
General Audit History System actions recorded and easily viewable for each transaction X X
General Accessibility Internet based application available 24/7 X X
General Field Population Drop-down boxes and pre-populated fields X X X
General Field Population Free form data entry X X X X
General Attachments System supports attachments X X X
General Notifications System generated email notifications X X X X
Invoicing Electronic
Invoicing
Accepts electronic invoices from vendors X
Invoicing Reconciliation Automatic matching of PO, Invoice, and Receipt (if applicable) X
Invoicing Payment Type Ability to complete Journal Transfer (interagency) payments X
Invoicing Integration with
FLAIR
Disbursement information systematically sent to FLAIR for
payment upon approval
X X
Invoicing Payment
Tracking
PO Balance tracks all payments for a PO X X
Receiving Commodities Receipts generated for all commodities X X
Receiving Centralized
Receiving
Central Receiver functionality by Ship To address X
Reporting Ad-Hoc
Reporting
Ad-Hoc Analytical Reporting Tool X
Reporting Operational
Reporting
Operational Reports provided via a Secure Website X X
Reporting Transactional
Data
System Searches X X X
Requisitioning Requisitioning General and P-card Requisitions X X X X
Requisitioning Approval Flow Automated Approval Flow X X
Requisitioning Approval Flow Agency directed Approval Flow X X X X
Requisitioning Integration with
FLAIR
Encumbrance Integration with FLAIR X X
Requisitioning Items Line Item and Punch-out Catalogs X
Requisitioning Items Ability to mark items with a Recycled Indicator X X
Requisitioning Documentation Ability to identify a contract manager for services X X
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 33 of 39
Section 3, Exhibit 3
Area Function Feature M
F
M
P
A
R
T
S
P
R
S
A
I
M
S
Requisitioning Purchase Order
Generation
System Generated Purchase Order X X X
Requisitioning Purchase Order
Generation
Purchase Order automatically delivered to vendor X
Requisitioning Modifying
Requisitions
Change Requisitions X X X X
Requisitioning Modifying
Requisitions
Cancelling Requisitions X X X X
System
Administration
User
Permissions
User permissions can be restricted by divided standardized roles
and/or groups
X X X X
System
Administration
Approval
Authority
Delegating approval authority from one user to another during
extended leave
X
Technical
Support
HelpDesk Technical assistance provided via a full-time helpdesk X X
Exhibit 4 - CEG Cost Benefit Analysis MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Tangible Changes
Division/Office: Division of State Purchasing Project: eProcurement
Program(s) Title: MyFloridaMarketPlace Project Sponsor: Linda South
Tangible Changes in Program Operations resulting from Project Implementation
Program Operational Cost Elements FY FY FY FY FY
Changes in Program Operational Costs (Negative Values = Decreased Costs) 2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 TOTAL
A. Personnel -- Operational Costs $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $15,250,000 $76,250,000
A-1.a. State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,250,000
A-1.b. State FTEs (# FTEs) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
A-2.a. OPS FTEs (Salaries) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
A-2.b. OPS FTEs (# FTEs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
A-3.a. Staff Augmentation (Contract Cost) $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $14,800,000 $74,000,000
A-3.b. Staff Augmentation (# of Contract FTEs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
B. Plant & Facility -- Operational Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
C. External Service Provider -- Operational Costs $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000
C-1. Contractor Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
C-2. Maintenance & Support Services $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000
C-3. Network / Hosting Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
C-4. Data Communications Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
C-5. Other Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
D. Data Processing -- Operational Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
D-1. Hardware $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
D-2. Software $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
D-3. Other Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
E. Others -- Operational Costs $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $6,815,000 $34,075,000
E-1. Training $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
E-2. Travel $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000
E-3. Other Specify DMS LBR $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $34,000,000
Subtotal of Operational Costs ( Rows A through E) $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $22,125,000 $110,625,000
F. Revenues / External Contribution / Fiscal Offsets $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250
F-1. Revenues Specify Funding from the 1% transaction fee $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250
F-2. Federal Participation Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
F-3. Grants Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Changes in Program Operational Costs (Sum of Rows A through E minus Row F) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($2,100,450) ($10,502,250)
($2,100,450) ($4,200,900) ($6,301,350) ($8,401,800) ($10,502,250)
Character of Program Cost Change Estimate
Choose Type Level of Uncertainty - Enter % (+/-)
Detailed/Rigorous*
Not to Exceed**
Order of Magnitude***
Negative Values indicate decreased Costs (i.e., Tangible Benefits). Positive values indicate increased operational costs outside of those specified in the ProjectCosts spreadsheet. FY Totals are carried forward to the
InvesmentSummary sheet for investment summary calculations
Cumulative Change
Section 3, Exhibit 4
Exhibit 4 - CEG Cost Benefit Analysis MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Division/Office: Division of State Purchasing Division of State Purchasing Project: eProcurement 0
Program(s) Title: MyFloridaMarketPlace MyFloridaMarketPlace Project Sponsor: Linda South
Project Cost Elements Project Cost Table Character of Project Costs Estimate
(Project Planning,Development & Implementation Only - FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL Choose Type Level of Uncertainty - Enter % (+/-)
No Operational Costs) 2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Detailed/Rigorous
State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Not to Exceed
OPS FTEs (Salaries) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Order of Magnitude
Staff Augmentation (Contract Cost) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Consultant Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hardware $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Software $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Network Infrastructure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Training $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Project Costs (*) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cumulative Project Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Project Costs are carried forward to the InvestmentSummary form
Section 3, Exhibit 4
Exhibit 4 - CEG Cost Benefit Analysis MFMP Business Case
November 2010
Project Investment Summary 0
Agency: Division of State Purchasing Project: eProcurement
Program(s) Title: MyFloridaMarketPlace Project Sponsor: Linda South
Investment Summary
FY FY FY FY FY
2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Cost of Capital (as published by State CFO) 4.24% 4.36% 4.22% 4.19% 4.39%
Cost Benefit Analysis
I $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $10,502,250
II Total Project Cost (ProjectCosts Form) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
III Return on Investment (Row I minus Row II) $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $2,100,450 $10,502,250
IV Payback Period (years) N/A Payback Period is the time required to recover the investment costs of the project.
V Breakeven Fiscal Year 2011-12 Fiscal Year during which the project's investment costs are recovered.
VI Net Present Value (NPV) $9,275,935 NPV is the present-day value of the project's benefits less costs over the project's lifecycle.
VII Internal Rate of Return (IRR) NO IRR IRR is the project's rate of return.
Proposed Funding Sources for Project Costs by Fiscal Year
FY FY FY FY FY
2011-12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
VIII $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
IX Trust Fund Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
X Federal Match Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
XII Grants Specify $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
XII Other Specify 1 % Transaction Fee $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250
$24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $24,225,450 $121,127,250Project Funding Totals
General Revenue
TOTAL
TOTAL
Prospective Source(s) of Project Funding
Investment Summary
Net Savings Resulting from the Project
(TangibleChanges Form)
Return on Investment Analysis
Section 3, Exhibit 4
Section 4
MyFloridaMarketPlace Transition Plan
Fiscal Years 2010 - 2012
Prepared by: Shireen Sackreiter Title: Project Manager Organization: Accenture
MFMP Transition Plan DRAFT v1.3 Page 2 of 51
Table of Contents
1. Document Change Control .................................................................................................................... 4
2. Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 5
a) Agency Information .......................................................................................................................... 5
b) Current Vendor Information ............................................................................................................. 5
c) New Vendor Information .................................................................................................................. 5
d) Transition Plan Objectives ................................................................................................................ 6
Phase 1: Shadowing .................................................................................................................................. 7
Phase 2: On-the-Job-Transition (OJT) ...................................................................................................... 7
Phase 3: Pre-Acceptance ........................................................................................................................... 8
Phase 4: Acceptance ................................................................................................................................. 8
e) Outstanding Issues ............................................................................................................................ 8
4. Transition Team Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 10
5. Systems Support Resources .......................................................................................................... 11
a) Facilities........................................................................................................................................... 11
b) Hardware ........................................................................................................................................ 12
c) Software .......................................................................................................................................... 13
d) Documentation ............................................................................................................................... 13
e) Budget ............................................................................................................................................. 14
6. Transition Planning .......................................................................................................................... 16
a) Performance Measures and Reporting ..................................................................................... 16
b) Governance and Management Approach ................................................................................ 18
c) Problem Resolution ...................................................................................................................... 19
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 3 of 51
d) Documentation Strategies ........................................................................................................... 19
e) Transition Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 21
1. Training .............................................................................................................................................. 23
a) Required Skill Levels ................................................................................................................... 23
2. Transition Project Deliverables and Associated Tasks .............................................................. 24
Appendix A: Lessons Learned Record ................................................................................................. 30
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 4 of 51
1. Document Change Control
The following is the document control for the revisions to this document:
Version
Number
Date of Issue Author(s) Brief Description of Change
1.1 Walt Bikowitz Initial draft of transition plan
1.2 Shireen Sackreiter Second draft of transition plan
1.3 Shireen Sackreiter
Rachael Lieblick
Third draft of transition plan
2. Definitions
The following are definitions of terms, abbreviations and acronyms used in this document:
Term Definition
MFMP MyFloridaMarketPlace
DMS Department of Management Services
DFS Department of Financial Services
SIRS System Investigative Requests
PM Performance Metrics
SSRC State Shared Resource Center
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 5 of 51
3. Overview
a) Agency Information
Identify the Agency, Sub-Agency, Bureau/Division Name, and Site Location
Agency Information
Department of Management Services
Division of State Purchasing
4050 Esplanade Way
Suite 360 C
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
Project Site Information
2002 Old St. Augustine Blvd
Suite E-45
Tallahassee, FL 32301
b) Current Vendor Information
Identity the vendor and the vendor point of contacts
Accenture
Buffie D. Rodri, Director
Shireen S. Sackreiter, Program Manager
c) New Vendor Information
Identity the vendor and the vendor point of contacts
Selected Vendor
Points of Contact TBD
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 6 of 51
d) Transition Plan Objectives and Relevance to MFMP Project
Charter
Briefly describe the objectives of this plan, e.g., scheduling the transition current vendor to new vendor, identifying staffing and operation and maintenance needs.
DMS and Accenture signed Contract Modification No. 6 on July 15, 2009, which
requires the vendor, Accenture, to deliver a transition plan. The modification states,
“In January 2010, the Parties will begin meetings to develop a high-level plan and
timeline for the successful transition of the System and the Services upon the
termination or expiration of this Contract (the “Transition Plan”). The Parties will
work together to document the Transition Plan by July 1, 2010 and to regularly update
and refine it thereafter.” The first version of this plan was developed in Spring of 2010
and has continued to evolve as new business needs and priorities are identified or
existing ones changed.
This transition plan is in line with the MFMP Project Charter which includes the
following Guiding Principles:
1. Provide consistent and effective service to State agency users and vendors through
implementation of Performance Measures, which comprehensively address system
and customer support.
2. Support increased and consistent utilization of MyFloridaMarketPlace, enabling the
State to leverage a complete repository of State agency purchasing patterns for
aggregation of demand and streamlining of processing.
3. Support the State as a world class purchasing organization, focusing on
optimization of the price paid and quality received from commodities and services
procured.
MFMP customers have come to expect consistent operational excellence (attributable
to existing service provider maintaining over 99% compliance with the established
performance metrics). Change Management will play an important role in helping to
manage the transition for agency customers and State vendors, and it is important to
provide consistent and effective services to MFMP customers during the transition
timeframe. With that in mind, the phases within this plan have been organized so that
tasks can be smoothly transitioned to the new service provider in a reasonable
timeframe with minimal, if any, negative impact to MFMP’s end customers. The
MFMP team will adhere to these Guiding Principles throughout transition, with a focus
on transitioning the operational processes that support the existing performance
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 7 of 51
metrics.
The objectives of the transition plan are to define and document processes and
approach for transition of operations, applications and hardware, and create a schedule
with prioritized order of transfer for each of the transition areas that will result in
uninterrupted support for the users of MFMP. The transition will be performed through
a combination of knowledge transfer phases: Shadowing, On-the-Job Transition (OJT),
Pre-Acceptance, and Acceptance. Each transition phase will transfer increasing levels
of responsibility and ownership of specified resources to the new Service Provider at
the completion of the scheduled knowledge transfer modules.
The goal of the transition is to provide a complete and thorough exchange of
knowledge required to support and maintain the MFMP applications, including the
extensive customizations that have been implemented. The transition to the new
Service Provider will involve several knowledge transfer phases in addition to the
current production support tasks. These four distinct transition phases will provide a
governance model to support the knowledge transfer.
The following will provide details for each transition phase along with the level of
knowledge transfer attained by completion of each transition phase.
Phase 1: Shadowing
The new Service Provider Transition Team Members will shadow Accenture personnel
to gain insight on daily tasks performed by the Accenture Team. This transition phase
will require the new Service Provider Transition Team Members to pair with an
Accenture team member and observe the day to day tasks completed by that team
member. This will allow for the new Service Provider Transition Team Members to
become knowledgeable on live production and support tasks. In addition to observing
current tasks of production support, the new Service Provider Transition Team
Members will review appropriate documents to enhance their knowledge base (Design
Documents, Business Rules, etc.). Accenture will facilitate workshops with the new
vendor during this phase to transition knowledge in areas that benefit a deeper
understanding prior to transitioning. The workshops will include the following: 1)
overviews of existing procedures, processes and tools used to support transition topic;
2) demonstrations of existing applications, tools, etc.; 3) review of existing pertinent
documentation related to transition topic. This shadowing phase will also include a
comprehensive communication and change management plan to ensure in the operation
of MFMP remains consistent and to help guide expectations across the various
stakeholder groups.
Phase 2: On-the-Job-Transition (OJT)
The OJT phase of knowledge transfer will ease new Service Provider resources into
participating and performing live production support to a specific application or
functionality. New Service Provider resources rely on Accenture to continue resolving
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 8 of 51
issues and any decisions that arise during the OJT transition timeframe. The initial
stages of OJT (2-4 weeks per application / functionality) will consist of the new Service
Provider working with Accenture to further understand an entire issue and all the
details supporting the resolution. The second stage of OJT (2-4 weeks per application /
functionality) will afford the new Service Provider resources the opportunities to
perform daily tasks with the assistance of Accenture support teams.
Phase 3: Pre-Acceptance
The Pre-Acceptance transition phase shifts production support and quality assurance
tasks to the new Service Provider Transition Team Members. New Service Provider
personnel will be the primary point of contact for production support tasks. During this
phase Accenture support teams will validate execution of tasks, alleviating any issues
that could occur with production and quality assurance daily activities. The Accenture
support teams will also participate in issue resolution solely in a support role.
Phase 4: Acceptance
Acceptance is the final knowledge transfer phase. During Acceptance, new Service
Provider Transition Team Members will assume full responsibility for all production
support tasks. Decision making and issue resolution will be resolved wholly by the
State. Accenture support teams will remain in a support role for coaching on an as
needed basis.
To support a smooth and successful transition, DMS will identify and provide key
personnel to bring new service provider up to speed at the onset of the new contract.
This team should also work with Accenture and the new Service Provider to develop
the comprehensive communication and change management program to help set
stakeholder expectations.
e) Outstanding Issues
State any project planning issues or problems relevant to transition planning which are known as of this plan revision.
At this time there is one potential activity that may occur, which is not within the
control of DMS, but will have an impact on operations and any transition activities.
DFS has an enterprise initiative that will require system enhancements for MFMP,
although the timing of this event is not currently known. DFS is planning to replace
it’s Statewide Accounting and Information system, known as FLAIR. The integration
that exists between FLAIR and MFMP is significant and the most complex
enhancement at MFMP. Should that event occur during transition activities it will
have impacts to timeline and resources.
In addition, although we do not forsee any of these items impacting project transition
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 9 of 51
activities we actively record and manage risk items per our risk management process,
see section 6(c) Problem Resolution for additional information.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 10 of 51
4. Transition Team Roles and Responsibilities
Identify the roles and responsibilities associated with the transition. Roles to identify include the primary vendor point of contact, Agency Transition Manager, Regional Transition Manager, key technical staff, customer or help desk support, and any others who have been assigned to support the transition.
When the new vendor identifies resources that will be responsible for these task, DMS
and Accenture will collaborate to assign the appropriate resources. Without the exact
schedule or available resources from the new provider defining a detailed approach is
impossible. This transition work plan will evolve overtime as more of the variables are
defined.
Transition Role Who Responsibilities
Transition Team Leader Rachael Lieblick (DMS)
Shireen Sackreiter (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Responsible for execution of
transition and reporting to senior
management
Project Leader Rachael Lieblick (DMS)
Buffie Rodri (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Responsible for overall transition
and program delivery
Stakeholder
Management
Amy Zeigler (DMS)
Eric Swanson (DMS)
Anne Rabon (DMS)
Kim Koegel (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Training, communication, and
agency/vendor liaison coordination
Database Administrator John Baynon (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Database administration and
maintenance
Systems and
Networking
Ken Sain (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Networking at all physical
locations
Production Support Brian Cliburn (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Batch, Interface, and Enhancement
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 11 of 51
Provider) Development
Desktop Support Ed Gendusa (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Local desktop maintenance &
support applications
Help Desk Kim Koegel (ACN)
Amy Zeigler (DMS)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Tier 1 and Tier 2
Platform Support Ed Fody (ACN)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Hardware maintenance and
application configuration
Project Development Mike Jackman (ACN)
Rachael Lieblick (DMS)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Issue Resolution and New
Application Development
Billing & Collections Ron Leggett (ACN)
Eric Swanson (DMS)
TBD (New Service
Provider)
Revenue compliance
Appropriate personnel will be involved as needed for each activity.
5. Systems Support Resources
a) Facilities
Describe the facilities where the transition will take place. This description may include office space, wiring closets, computing equipment, safety and security requirements, special power needs, room construction, etc.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 12 of 51
The transition will occur at the existing project facility location, , the disaster recovery
center (housed in Atlanta), and any facilities maintained by the new Service Provider. The
project facility requires a secure keyfob for entry into the site, which includes a reception
area, open floor plan with 5 offices and 2 conference rooms, a central break room, phone
closet, and a locked server room. This is the main workspace for the project team.
The disaster recovery center is a secured facility which requires multiple security clearance
measures to enter. While this would not be the main point of transition, it would require a
walk through and on-site transition of security access. The SSRC houses the production
equipment for all the applications and is the site of work performed on the hardware, which
requires State of Florida Level 2 Background clearance for entry.
The project facility requires a secure keyfob for entry into the site, which includes a
reception area, open floor plan with 3 offices and a conference room, a central break room,
phone closet, and a locked server room. This is the main workspace for the project team.
The open workspace contains 50 cubed workstations and 5 offices, which may
accommodate up to 12 individuals. This space is already equipped with network drops to
house 62 people, but may require additional drops for additional resources during the
transition period.
b) Hardware
Describe the hardware and how the transition will take place. This description may include office space, wiring closets, computing equipment, safety and security requirements, special power needs, room construction, etc.
Office and Hardware Space
The transition will require adequate space to house the project team. In addition to
workspace, the project site will need adequate and properly equipped facilities to house
between 10 and 15 servers utilized to support application development hardware, testing
hardware, and production hardware related to helpdesk activities. The project site server
room will also need to house 15 application development workstations running on
uninterruptible power supplies. This space should be adequately cooled, secured from the
remaining project space, and have adequate and redundant power to support the required
computing hardware.
Production Hosting Facility
The project will require approximately 2 to 4 cabinets (approximately 160 RU’s of space) in
a dedicated data center facility. The facility should have appropriate security, redundant
power, redundant cooling, redundant internet connectivity, staffing, and computing services
(such as security and network support services) to support a production application to the
State’s requirements, as well as to support non-production environments such as the training
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 13 of 51
and production-mirror environments. The facility should provide industry standard support,
response times, and 24/7 access needed to support enterprise level applications.
Disaster Recovery Hosting Facility
The project will require approximately 2 to 3 cabinets (approximately 120 RU’s of space) in
a dedicated data center facility. The facility should have appropriate security, redundant
power, redundant cooling, redundant internet connectivity, staffing, and computing services
(such as security and network support services) to support a production application to the
State’s requirements. In addition, the facility should be no less than 250 miles away from
the primary facility in order to provide adequate geographic disparity for Disaster Recovery
purposes. A bandwidth-appropriate connection must be established between the Production
Hosting Facility and the Disaster Recovery Hosting Facility to facilitate the data-syncing
processes needed to support the backup procedures.
c) Software
Describe the software currently used to support the operations with an explanation of how the software transition will occur.
There are currently over 15 software products used in the operations and support of the
MFMP program. These products support 9 applications that comprise the MFMP solution.
These products include the primary Ariba software solutions, as well as database, web,
application, call center, customer tracking, and issue tracking software programs.
Accenture has aligned each of these software products to have a license conclusion or
purchase order end date coinciding with the end of the contract term, December 2012. The
new Service Provider will have the flexibility to transition existing licenses and terms or
purchase new software applications upon consummation of the contract.
d) Documentation
Describe the documentation storage and access processes used to support transition activities.
Project specific paper documentation is stored locally at the project site in locked cabinets.
Key project document materials, such as project deliverables, contract modifications, etc.
have been scanned and are available electronically via on-site document storage. Team
specific materials, such as SIR/Change Request designs, Unit/System/Regression testing
results, job aids, vendor collection materials, etc., are also stored within project servers that
are only accessible on-site or via the project site virtual private network.
Project specific procedural documentation from the various MyFloridaMarketPlace teams
(PMO, Stakeholder Management, Application Management, and Technical Architecture
Management) is stored electronically at the project site location.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 14 of 51
e) Budget
Provide an overview of the budget that will support maintenance and operations (e.g. dollars per year, budget source, etc.). Identify where budget information related to maintenance and operations activities may be found.
Currently, MyFloridaMarketPlace is supported by a 1% transaction fee that is paid by
vendors doing business with the State of Florida. The transaction fee applies to every
purchase and contract for commodities and services unless exempt by rule. The transaction
fee first supports the DMS Division of State Purchasing, and the Office of Supplier
Diversity. The fee also partially supports purchasing related systems supported by DMS IT
Services. These costs are known as the DMS State Purchasing Legislative Budget Request
(LBR), which the Legislature annually authorizes. LBR expenses average about $7.2 to $8
million annually.
After payment of LBR expenses the fee is used to pay for the Accenture contract, which
currently is about $14.8 million annually. The Legislature also annually authorizes use of
the fees to make payments to Accenture.
The Billing and Collection Services (BCS) under the MFMP contract is responsible for
collecting the revenue from the fees. Revenue generation has average between $24 million
and $25 million annually. For fiscal year 2010, it is estimated that revenue will exceed
expenses by about $2.5 to $3 million. Any excess revenues will remain in the Operating
Trust fund until such time as the State Legislature determines what to do with the fees.
Currently, projected fees are sufficient to cover all contract costs.
As outlined in Section VI of Contract Modification No. 6, effective 7/1/2009, Accenture
will provide reasonable transition assistance services. Transition services rendered before
the end of the contract date by Accenture will be covered without additional compensation.
As part of the Transition Assistance and as designated by the Department, Service Provider
shall (i) cooperate with the Department and/or the New Provider in connection with the
transfer of the System and the Services to the Department or such New Provider, (ii) notify
and explain to the Department and/or the New Provider the then current procedures and
operations Service Provider follows to provide the Services and operate the System, (iii)
provide to the Department and/or the New Provider a list of equipment, proprietary software
and software licenses then used to operate the System and provide the Services, (iv) return
Department-owned materials being utilized by Service Provider to the Department and/or
New Provider, (v) transfer to the Department and/or New Provider all property subject to
transfer in Sections 6, and 8.5.3, including any documentation available to use the same, (vi)
answer questions related to the transition and migration of the System or the Services on an
as-needed basis, and (vii) to the extent reasonable, provide such other services, functions or
responsibilities that are inherent or necessary to the transition of services substantially
similar to the Services or to the proper performance of the System, provided that such
services, functions or responsibilities shall be limited to those that can be delivered with the
current Service Provider team staffing (including subcontractors if required). The new
Service Provider will be expected to cover transition expenses for their team as well as the
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 15 of 51
establishment of new facilities, infrastructure, hardware hosting sites, etc. The Accenture
team will maintain responsibility for current facilities and infrastructure locations until the
conclusion of the contract.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 16 of 51
6. Transition Planning
a) Performance Measures and Reporting
Identify key performance measures for maintenance activities and for product or service performance. Include information on how measures will be captured and reported.
MyFloridaMarketPlace has a comprehensive set of 25 monthly performance measures as
defined in Contract Modification No. 4, dated October 18, 2005. These performance
measures cover software application availability, application average response time,
business function performance, application services support, customer support, reporting
and compliance. Performance metric compliance has been over 99% since inception. . The
measures are captured and reported in a monthly report and the intention is for the new
provider to continue providing the monthly report and maintaining the associated
documentation. The new Service Provider will be responsible for producing the monthly
Performance Metrics Report during the Pre-Acceptance phase and for achieving the
monthly performance metrics during the Acceptance phase.
The following is the list of 25 performance measures Accenture is held accountable for
achieving and measuring on a monthly basis:
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 17 of 51
Software Application Availability Success Criteria
1 General availability >= 99% (= NA / TRA*100)
2Severity Level 1 - System Outage response
time during Business Hours >= 99% w/i 30 min
3Severity Level 1 - System Outage resolution
time
>= 95% w/i 4 hours
(240 minutes)
100% w/i 8 hours
(480 minutes)
4Severity Level 2 - System Outage response
time during Business Hours >= 99% w/i 90 min
5Severity Level 2 - System Outage resolution
time
>= 75% w/i 1 BD
(1,440 minutes)
Software Application Average Response Time
6Average response time during Business
Hours100%
Create Requisition Script <= 60 seconds
Invoice Reconciliation Script <= 54 seconds
Business Function Performance
7 Purchase order issuance >= 95% w/i 1 BD
8 Invoices matched >= 95% w/i 3 BD
9 FLAIR encumbrance and payment transactions >= 90% w/i 48 hours
100% w/i 5 BD
10 Payment posting from FLAIR >= 95% w/i 24 hours
100% w/i 5 BD
Software Application Services Support
11Category 1 - Critical system issues resolution
time 100% w/i 7 BD
12Category 2 - High system issue resolution
time>= 50% w/i 1 month
100% w/i 2 months
13Category 3 - Medium system issue resolution
time >= 50% w/i 2 months
100% w/i 4 months
14Category 4 - Low system issue resolution
time>= 50% w/i 3 months
100% w/i 6 months
15 Category 5 - Operational data updates 100%
Monthly >= 80% @ month end
100% by 10th of next month
Quarterly >= 80% @ quarter end
100% by 10th of next month
Customer Service
16 Call to answer time >= 90% w/i 90 seconds
17 E-mail response time >= 95% w/i 1 BD
18 Voice mail response time >= 95% w/i 1 BD
19 Customer service desk ticket resolution >=99% w/i 3 BD
20 Catalog enablement 100% w/i 5 BD
21 Catalog refresh 100% w/i 5 BD
22 Catalog satisfaction survey (Quarterly)>=80% Satisfactory or Highly
Satisfactory
23 Enhancement Delivery (As applicable)>=80% scored on returned
surveys
Distribution Date Compliance>= 15 and < 30 calendar days
after implementation
Reporting
24 Reporting100% of up to 8
reports/month
Compliance
25 Performance Measurements Report Delivered100% delivered by 15th day
of next month
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 18 of 51
b) Governance and Management Approach
Identify new or reference existing methodologies for establishing maintenance priorities and other change management strategies.
The Governance structure is a simple one that consists of internal chain of command
reporting and external input from various customer groups (see Appendix A) For DMS, the
MFMP program director reports to the Director of State Purchasing who in turn reports
directly to the DMS Secretary. The MFMP Program Director and Operations Manager are
very experienced and given great latitude and decision making authority in all aspects of
theMFMP operation.
In addition to this internal chain of command, MFMP solicits and receives input from new
Service Provider Customer Roundtable and from new Service Provider Change Review
Board (CRB). The CRB in particular provides guidance to DMS MFMP operations by
prioritizing change requests or improvements to the system.
The structure and process has worked very successfully. The CRB has not only been
instrumental in defining and prioritizing enhancements it was especially successful during
the upgrade of Ariba Buyer to the current Ariba version 8.2.2 (MFMP 2.0). The CRB is
being utilized again for the upgrade of Ariba Buyer to Ariba 9R1 (MFMP 3.0).
The CRB membership consists of volunteer liaisons from 13 of the 32 state agencies that
use the MFMP system for their day to day purchasing and other related activities. The CRB
members do not have a term limit at this time, and currently meet on an as needed basis,
usually 2 to 3 times per year. The CRB assists DMS by prioritizing change requests or
system enhancements to the MFMP system, reviewing designs and testing and approval of
enhancements.
DMS also has enhanced training activities at regular Customer Roundtable meetings,
Purchasing Director meetings, Change Review Board meetings, System Administrator
meetings and Florida Association of State Agency Administrative Services Directors
(FASAASD) meetings. Beginning with the Ariba upgrade in April 2, 2007 and continuing
with the retirement of SPURS (June 1, 2009), the launch of the Vendor Information Portal
(October 26, 2009) and the planned enhancements to the Vendor Bid System, DMS State
Purchasing Operations has had several key successes due to improved goal setting and the
employment of strategic planning principles and execution of those principles. A key aspect
of these planning activities unlike the initial implementation of the MFMP system is
involvement of the customer agencies via various workgroups established for each
initiative.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 19 of 51
c) Problem Resolution and Risk Management Approach
Specify the procedure for identifying, tracking, and resolving problems with the transition. Describe how stakeholder/customers will be involved in or informed about issues that may arise during transition. Describe key stakeholders and methods for communication where known.
As more fully described below, DMS anticipates using established forums and
communication channels for handling problem identification, communication, and
resolutions. MFMP has a comprehensive Risk Management Plan (Appendix C) in place to proactively
reduce exposure to events that threaten accomplishment of the program’s objectives. The
regular review or known and/or potential project risks is done so that the management team
can:
Incorporate approaches into the Project Plan that minimize or avoid identified risks
Develop proactive, contingent risk response actions
Rapidly implement risk responses based on timely identification of risk occurrence
The MFMP team currently maintains issues, action items, and project risks in an on-line
application known as RISC, which tracks the incident through closure. These items are
accessible to key stakeholders for both the Vendor and DMS. Regular reviews of open RISC
items are completed and all activities to resolve the item are documented. Risk
documentation (in the RISC tool) includes capturing key information such as:
Type of Risk
Description of the Risk
Mitigation Strategy for the Risk
Project Phase the Risk will affect
Who the Risk is Assigned to
As part of the transition process, the MFMP team will conduct sessions with the new service
provider around any existing documented risks and can provide perspective on key historical
risks that have been overcome / mitigated.
d) Documentation Strategies
Describe documentation that will be routinely revised or produced such as reports; user, usage, problem and change information; product/service documentation. Include details on where documentation is stored and how it is accessed.
During the course of the MFMP program, a sharepoint site was established that has joint
access for DMS and Accenture personnel. This site is used to store and share information for
easy access and retrieval by all authorized team members. During the transition this site will
continue to be used for the storage of pertinent documentation, in conjunction with the DMS
shared network drive (only accessible to DMS personnel).
There are several documents and reports that are provided as contractual deliverables or
operational reports, which will continue to be updated and produced throughout the
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 20 of 51
transition. This includes, but is not limited to, a Disaster Recovery Plan, Environment
Configuration Diagrams, Weekly Project Status, Risks, Action Items, Issue Logs, Monthly
Operational Metrics, Monthly Performance Metrics, Weekly CSD Survey Results, Annual
Customer Satisfaction Survey, MFMP Strategic and Tactical Plan, Operations Plan,
Organization Charts, Enhancement Designs, Migration Documentation etc.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 21 of 51
e) Transition Schedule
Develop a detailed schedule for transition. Address transition through the implementation, maintenance, and support phases of the transition. Note critical time dependencies for the transition outlined in this document.
As mentioned earlier a detailed transition schedule will be developed and delivered in
accordance with Contract Modification No. 6 by July 1, 2010. The contract provides for a 12
month transition period. The timeline will be based on utilizing the full 12 month allocation.
It is estimated that transition services will take a minimum of 9 months:
The new Service Provider will be responsible for providing appropriate resources as outlined
in Section 4 of the transition plan in accordance with the timeline above.
Each phase will include key tasks as outlined in the following workplan:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Phase 1
Shadowing
Phase 2
On-the-Job Transition
Phase 3
Pre-Acceptance
Phase 4
Acceptance
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012
MFMP Transition Plan v1.2 June 17, 2010 Page 22 of 51
Phase / Tasks Start Finish
Phase I: Shadowing 1/2/2012 3/30/2012
Identify resource pairing assignments (between Accenture and new Service Provider) 1/2/2012 1/6/2012
Observe day to day tasks / Review existing operational documentation for tasks 1/9/2012 3/30/2012
Facilitate Knowledge Transition workshops & provide supporting documentation 1/16/2012 3/30/2012
Develop Change Management and Communication Plan (Related to Transition Activities) 2/1/2012 2/29/2012
Phase II: On-The-Job Transition 3/1/2012 8/31/2012
Complete team and functional/ technical assignments for new Service Provider resources 4/2/2012 4/6/2012
Shadow tasks and complete daily operational tasks (Accenture as Primary on all tasks) 4/2/2012 6/15/2012
Shadow tasks and complete daily operational tasks (Accenture as Primary, but increasing tasks done by new Service Provider) 6/18/2012 8/31/2012
Shadow key annual processing tasks (i.e. year-end processing), including coordination with DFS and full participation year-end execution 3/1/2012 7/13/2012
Phase III: Pre-Acceptance 9/3/2012 10/31/2012
Complete daily operational tasks (New Service Provider as Primary, Accenture continuing to support and validate) 9/3/2012 10/31/2012
Validate completion of daily operational tasks / Review End of Day Reports to identify concerns 9/3/2012 10/31/2012
Transition property and licenses 9/3/2012 10/31/2012
Conduct regular checkpoints at team lead level to discuss knowledge gaps / lessons learned / suggested improvements 9/3/2012 10/31/2012
Phase IV: Acceptance 11/1/2012 12/7/2012
Return any department owned materials 11/30/2012 11/30/2012
Complete daily operational tasks (New Service Provider as Primary, Accenture available to address questions in a support role) 11/1/2012 12/7/2012
Conduct regular checkpoints at project manager level to discuss any remaining knowledge gaps or need for Accenture support 11/1/2012 12/7/2012
MFMP Transition Plan DRAFT v1.3 Page 23 of 51
1. Training
a) Required Skill Levels
Estimate the necessary skill levels to support the MyFloridaMarketPlace application, in terms of the following
knowledge areas: business, application software and system software.
Skill: Level of Expertise: Availability Required: Degree of Applicability:
[Description of skill] [Examples: Trainee,
Intern, moderate, expert
or explain what is
necessary]
[Indicate where the skill
must be available: On
the transition team; in
Information Technology
(IT), user area, etc.]
[Rate the applicability of the skill to
the project, using a scale of 1-5,
with 1=light and 5=heavy]
Ariba Configuration Expert IT 5
Java Expert IT 5
Springsource Expert IT 5
iWay Expert IT 5
Tibco Integration Expert IT 5
Crystal Reports Moderate IT 3
Unix Expert IT 5
Oracle Expert IT 5
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 24 of 51
SQL Server Expert IT 4
SQL Expert IT 5
WebLogic Expert IT 4
Networking Expert IT 5
Systems
Administration
Expert IT 5
Verizon WebCenter
Management
Expert CSD 5
Pivotal Ticket Tracking Expert Project Wide 5
Microsoft Office Tools Moderate Project Wide 4
Ariba Functional
Knowledge of Buyer,
Sourcing, Analysis
Expert User 5
Content Enablement Expert User 4
2. Transition Project Deliverables and Associated Tasks
List the tasks that must be accomplished during the transition process. Some tasks will be repeated for each deliverable—be sure
to include each task for each deliverable. This list of tasks can then be given to the project manager to be included in the MS
Project schedule. The following table suggests tasks, roles for who is responsible for each task, and a general timeframe for
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 25 of 51
when the task is due. You should replace the role names with actual names, and the general time with a specific due date, and
change the text formatting back to regular text. You will probably also have additional tasks to add to the list.
The transition deliverables and tasks include the following:
Deliverable: Task Who's Responsible? When Is It Due?
Conduct transition plan
meetings
Coordinate transition
planning meeting
Technical Project Manager <Due Date>
Disaster Recovery Plan Conduct disaster recovery
testing and document
results
Platform Support, Database
Administrator, Systems &
Network Administrator,
Production Support
Annual
Environment Configuration
Diagrams
Document environment
diagrams
Platform Support Annual
Weekly Project Status Status on completed
activities, upcoming goals,
action items, issues, reports,
odu’s, and system
availability
Transition Team leader Weekly
Project Risks Project risks across all risk
areas documented and
reviewed at PMO meetings
Transition Team Leader Bi-weekly
Action Items Action items across project Transition Team Leader Bi-weekly
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 26 of 51
areas
Issue Logs Identified Project Issues Transition Team Leader Bi-weekly
Operational Metrics Report of key operational
statistics
Transition Team Leader Monthly
Performance Metrics Report of 25 contractually
obligation performance
metrics
Transition Team Leader Monthly
Annual Customer
Satisfaction Survey
Survey to customer user
base across all functional
areas of application
Help Desk Annual
Operations Plan Contractual deliverable that
contains processes, tools
and steps for completing
key operational tasks across
all project areas.
Transition Team Leader Annual
Organization Charts Organizational charts of
current team and proposed
team structure
Transition Team Leader Project Planning
Project Management
Meetings
Bi-weekly project meetings
with project executives
Transition Team Leader,
Project Leader
Bi-weekly
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 27 of 51
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 28 of 51
Appendix A: Organization Charts
Rachael Lieblick
Chief of State Purchasing Operations
Revised 09/01/09
TBD
Operations Manager
Anne Rabon
Finance and Accounting
Process Specialist
Eric Swanson
Vendor Manager
Kasey Bickley
Purchasing Process
Specialist
Amy Smyth
Communications and
Process Specialist
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 29 of 51
Project Partner
Stakeholder Team
Program M anagem ent
Accenture P roprie tary and C onfidentia l
A pplication Support
Technical In frastructure
Production SupportTechnical In frastructure
Support
B uyer S takeholder Support Vendor S takeholder Support
s
Program A dm inistrative
Support
Q A Partner
A ccenture M FM P Project Team
A pplication D evelopm ent
Strateg ic Sourcing
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 30 of 51
Appendix B: Lessons Learned Record
Project Name: MyFloridaMarketPlace Organization: Department of Management Services Department: State Purchasing Product/Process: Transition Plan
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Focus Area
Low ----------------------
High
Successes Shortcomings
Recommended
Solutions 1 2 3 4 5
Project Planning X
Strategic and Tactical
Plan
Cannot account for
unknown enterprise
changes
None at this time.
Resource Management X
Addition of DMS
MFMP project staff to
focus on training &
communication
NA None at this time.
Risk Management X
Institution of risk
review NA None at this time.
Change Control X Construction of NA None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 31 of 51
Change Review
Board
Procurement X
Strategic Sourcing &
Additional Training
Initiatives, ABA
Shortage of DMS State
Purchasing Resources
to continue strategic
sourcing activities
None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 32 of 51
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Focus Area
Low ----------------------
High Successes Shortcomings
Recommended
Solutions
Budget Management X
Re-negotiated
contract with lower
cap and State
collecting excess
funds
Dependent on
legislature; exemption
and grandfather
contracts with lack of
enforcement authority
make it incredibly
difficult
None at this time.
Quality Control X
Multiple QA process
and controls in place NA None at this time.
Project Status Reports X
Weekly reports and
bi-weekly PMO
meetings
NA None at this time.
Vendor Selection X NA None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 33 of 51
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
Focus Area
Low ----------------------
High Successes Shortcomings
Recommended
Solutions
1 2 3 4 5
Business Requirements X Multiple hosting center moves successfully
NA None at this time.
Design Specifications X Designs approved by CRB and/or DMS members
NA None at this time.
Test Planning X Rigorous testing schedule
NA None at this time.
Development X
All related performance metrics met; no code backouts for several years
NA None at this time.
Testing X
System, regression and performance testing conducted for releases
NA None at this time.
Rollout/Implementation X Successful upgrade of all applications
NA None at this time.
Training X Training provided for all major
Initial ―train the trainer‖ approach was
None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 34 of 51
releases not sufficient; lack of process standardization makes training significant challenge
Documentation X Key deliverables provided
NA None at this time.
Vendor Management X
Vendor met 99% or more of all performance metrics
NA None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 35 of 51
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Focus Area
Low ---------------------- High
Successes Shortcomings Recommended
Solutions 1 2 3 4 5
Project Communication X
Multiple
communication
channels (web,
email, meetings,
eNewsletter
WebEx)
NA None at this time.
Team Experience X
Several
experienced team
members on both
vendor and DMS
team
NA None at this time.
Project Sponsor Interactions
X Regular meetings
with sponsors
Historical challenges
with frequent changes
in leadership and lack
of governance structure
None at this time.
Customer Interactions X
Survey for all
resolved issues,
meetings,
postings, trainings
NA None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 36 of 51
Management Interactions X
Regular meetings
and ―open door‖
policy
NA None at this time.
Management Support X
Current
administration
support
Enhanced governance
by State None at this time.
Quality of Meetings X
Overall meetings
are productive,
some discussions
require multiple
meetings
Need key personnel
involved early in any
initiative, usually out of
control (lack of
governance)
None at this time.
Vendor Interactions X
Vendor ―Fireside
Chats‖, training
materials, release
of new VIP
system, increased
punchout and
eInvoicing
adoption
NA None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 37 of 51
OVERALL PROJECT SUMMARY
Focus Area
Low ----------------------
High Successes Shortcomings
Recommended
Solutions
1 2 3 4 5
Customer Satisfaction X
97% customer
satisfaction rating NA None at this time.
Technical Success X
Monitoring tools
enable proactive
technical mgt;
multiple data center
moves
Deep, niche technical
skills required None at this time.
Quality Product X
Product is market
leader and has
enabled
benchmarking and
data analysis
NA None at this time.
Product/Service Acceptance
X
FLAIR
reconciliation;
retirement of
SPURS
Lack of governance
resulted in
unnecessary shadow
systems and
duplication in FLAIR
None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 38 of 51
Project On Time X
Vendor has met all
major deadlines;
performance
metrics around
timely service
delivery
NA None at this time.
Project Within Budget X
Project funded by
existing 1%
transaction fee
Exemptions and
dependence on
legislature impact
State‘s ability to collect
excess funding; early
on resulted in
contractual disputes
None at this time.
Project Objectives Met X
Project is viewed as
successful by
stakeholders
NA None at this time.
Business Objectives Met X
32 agencies use
MFMP, without
mandates (includes
legislature)
Enterprise wide system
requires governance
and mandates for use
None at this time.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 39 of 51
MFMP Transition Plan DRAFT v1.3 Page 40 of 51
Appendix C: Risk Management Process
Risk Management
This document identifies the Risk Management process being implemented by the MyFloridaMarketPlace procurement engagement. This process provides the ability to predict, capture, monitor, avoid, manage and resolve risks that may adversely affect the project. Our risk management process provides a systematic approach for identifying and assessing risks; determining cost-effective risk reduction actions; and, monitoring and reporting the progress of risk reducing actions. The risk management process outlined in this document was formulated from the tools and techniques outlined in Accenture‘s Quality and Process Improvement (QPI) program. This program is based on the software development framework specified in Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. This deliverable was created using our QPI templates and tailored to fulfill the needs of MyFloridaMarketPlace. Risk Management is the recognition, assessment and control of uncertainties that may result in schedule delays, cost overruns, performance problems, adverse environmental impacts or other undesired consequences. Risk Tracking is the actual process by which identified risks are captured, monitored and controlled.
Risk Management Process
The overall goal of the Risk Management process is to reduce the project‘s exposure to events that threaten the success of the project and its objectives. This can be attained by incorporating approaches that minimize or avoid identified risks, developing proactive, contingent risk actions, and rapidly implementing risk actions based on timely identification of risk occurrence. In order to successfully implement the Risk Management process, it is important to understand the difference between Risks and Issues.
Distinguishing between Risks and Issues
An Issue refers to a problem involving a significant choice between two or more alternatives for an event that is happening now. A Risk describes a situation that could occur, and that could potentially have a significant impact on the project.
Risk Management Process
There are five phases are associated with Risk Management:
o Planning
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 41 of 51
Risk management planning involves focusing attention on project risks, and identifying and documenting the major risks which may impact the project in adverse ways.
o Assessment Risks are documented into characteristic categories (e.g. – technical, operational, etc) and are quantified on a numerical scale according to likelihood, impact, and exposure rating.
o Analysis Appropriate actions are identified, developed, and documented to minimize the realization of each risk. These actions are also characterized by type (e.g. avoidance, acceptance, transfer, etc).
o Response Once a risk has been identified within the project, a specific set of procedures will be in place to reduce the overall exposure of the risk. The risk response will identify, record and minimize the overall exposure to risks.
o Escalation Events may occur which increase the probability a risk will occur or increase the impact of a risk. The risk response procedures include the capability to escalate a risk as appropriate.
Risk Management Planning
Risk management planning involves identifying and documenting project risks. The process focuses on determining the risks most likely to have the most severe consequences and those that produce the greatest benefit in risk reduction. This activity includes a recognition of the sources of project risks as well as the approaches for risk identification and documentation. The risk management process is an iterative cycle that begins during the initial Project Planning phase and continues throughout the lifecycle of the project as new risks are identified.
Sources of Risk
o New risks previously missed or unforeseen requirements o New risks arising from an approved change request, cost, schedule, or scope
may be amended, impacting the critical path o New risks arising from major issues progressed from the team/project levels o Further risks arising from current risks whose action requires investigation o Further risks arising from the outcome or consequence of a separate risk
occurrence o Risks identified from the third party monitor during their objective reviews of
the project. o Risks identified from the Client Quality Management Assessment (CQMA).
The CQMA is a formal review of a client engagement by an experienced Accenture team who is external and objective to the engagement.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 42 of 51
Identification of Risks
Risks will be identified throughout the life cycle of project. Risk identification is the responsibility of all project team members, while the project management team will manage the documented risks. There are several key types of questions that must be asked when identifying and assessing a risk:
Requirements o Are the requirements technically feasible? o Are the requirements subject to significant change based on external
development? o Will the requirements meet functionality, performance, maintenance,
support, feasibility, mission, needs, and cost constraints of the system or project?
o Do the requirements satisfy client needs, expectations, and constraints; and perform as intended in the operational environment?
Capabilities o Will sufficiently skilled and capable personnel be available? o Are State management and all State resources committed to making the
needed resources available? o Are the end user groups willing and able to adapt to change? o Are there external dependencies, including legislative changes, contractor
supply and delivery, procurement, etc.
Reliability o Are the expected techniques and technologies to be used new and
untested or “tried and true?” o Is there a track record of similar projects? o Are there functionally complex data models? o Is there functionally complex processing functionality?
Time Frame o Do the project milestones depend on other internal initiatives? o Do the project milestones depend on outside events? o Are the budget/schedule estimates realistic? o Is delivery on the critical path?
Documentation of Risks
The risks identified are documented into specifically defined, tangible risk items, for which an action may be well defined and measurable. This ensures that all analyses and reporting of risks maintain an outcome-focus so that progress towards high-level objectives can be compared.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 43 of 51
Identifying vague or non-specific risks results in actions that are ambiguous, intangible, unclearly defined, and difficult to implement adequately. Additionally, it is important not to attempt to document all possible risks and outcomes, as this can often introduce improbable scenarios. Avoid scenarios that:
o Relate to project milestones dependent on outside events o Create unnecessary concern and confusion o Shift the focus away from real or probable risks o Dilute the pool of risks, leading to diminishing returns on effort o Reduce credibility for the risk management process
Risk documentation is more concerned with identifying the areas where the consequences of the risk are most severe, and where corrective actions will produce the largest benefits in risk reduction.
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment process consists of three independent, but interrelated steps that establish the foundation for the overall risk analysis process. All documented risks will be categorized, assessed and quantified based on where the impact will occur, the perceived level of impact to the project, and the probability that the risk will occur.
The two major variables used in assessing a risk are 1) probability of the risk occurring and 2) the impact or consequence if that risk occurs. These two variables are combined to assess the risk as shown below.
3
2
1
5 – Very High
4 – High
3 – Medium
2 – Low
1 – Very Low
Very Low
0 – 20%
Low
21 – 40%
Medium
41 – 60%
High
61 – 80%
Very High
81 – 100%
Probability
Impact
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 44 of 51
Categorization of Risks
Risks are classified into one of seven different categories. These categories identify the areas of the project from an internal and external perspective. A risk may affect one or more areas of the project. Although a risk spans across multiple areas, it should be categorized where the major impact is likely to occur. Cost and Schedule risks are generally inter-related to Technological, Operational and External risks. These seven categories are:
Cost
Cost-based risks outline the non-achievement of the business model projections, including the legislative budget request (LBR). Typical cost risks include change in State or Agency level leadership, economic changes, legislative changes, and hardware/software increases.
Schedule
Schedule-based risks focus on the non-achievement of the project's key milestones within the specified time frame. Typical schedule-based risks arise from scope additions or resource unavailability.
Technological
Technology-based risks consider the application specifications and expectations. Typical risks include new/non-standard platform technology, integration problems with existing systems, migrations, performance expectations, environment complexity, conversion of bad data, and system operability.
Scope
Scope-based risks consider the impacts on the project when actions are taken that are not within the realm of the project‘s scope or that may result in the increase of the project‘s scope.
Sponsorship
Sponsorship-based risks include loss or change in sponsor goals or support that impact the project. This could include changes in program leadership or legislative support.
Operational
Operational-based risks focus on the organizational and business operational re-engineering changes arising from the systems development. Typical risks consider both the transitional and the long-term effects of the system's introduction, including the organizational and behavioral change required, the
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 45 of 51
human and physical resource planning, and communication required to facilitate a smooth transition.
External
External-based risks consider the external factors largely outside of the control of Project Management, which can directly/indirectly, affect the successful delivery of the project. Examples of external risks would be the replacement of the State‘s FLAIR system, and the People First initiative.
Assessment of Risks
The assessment process begins once a risk is categorized. This process is used
to determine the most appropriate course of action to mitigate the risk. This may
be an obvious set of actions that annul or limit the risk from occurring, or
alternatively it may be an intuitive 'best guess' of the available actions that may
mitigate the risk.
Quantification of Risks
The quantification of a risk involves three separate processes that assign a level of impact to the risk, determine the probability that the risk will occur, and identify the relative influence that can be exerted on the probability of the risk occurring. There are five thresholds established for measuring the impact, probability and exposure ratings.
Impact
This is an estimate of the adverse effect the risk, if realized, will have on the program. Risks should be assessed using the Risk Impact Rating Scale:
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 46 of 51
Table 1. Risk Impact Rating Scale
Risk Impact Rating Scale
Value Rating Definition
5 Very High Threatens success of the project
4 High Significantly disrupts the successful delivery of project objectives, major deliverables, SLAs, releases, and benefits
3 Medium Significantly disrupts the project schedule, cost, and products over the medium and long terms
2 Low Progress disrupted with moderate extensions to schedule and cost, across short and medium terms
1 Very Low Exposure slight
Probability
This is an assessment of the likelihood that a risk will occur. The assessment is based on a percentage probability of an occurrence of the risk, given the actions identified, and other factors or risks on which it is dependant. Probability should be assessed using the Risk Probability Rating Scale:
Table 2. Risk Probability Rating Scale
Risk Probability Rating Scale
Value % Definition
81 — 100 Very High Occurrence
61 — 80 High Occurrence
41 — 60 Medium Occurrence
21 — 40 Low Occurrence
20 — 0 Very Low Occurrence
Exposure Rating
This indicates the relative influence, which can be exerted on the probability of the risk occurring. The Level of Control introduces a ‗modifier‘ that quantifies the level of control that can be exerted over implementing that action. Exposure should be assessed using the Risk Exposure Rating Scale:
Table 3. Risk Exposure Rating Scale
Risk Exposure Rating Scale
Value Definition
5 Very High Exposure
4 High Exposure
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 47 of 51
3 Medium Exposure
2 Low Exposure
1 Very Low Exposure
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is the final step in the identification, categorization, and quantification cycle. It is primarily concerned with developing specific, discrete, and measurable actions to mitigate a risk. This is not necessarily limited to the development of only one action per risk; two or more actions may be defined particularly if the action to that risk is contingent on the outcome of a prior event. Additionally, the combination of two or more interdependent risks is evaluated. The quantification or summation of individual risks, which are linked, may produce a different risk profile than the individual risks independently produced, and should be recognized by area management during the quantification process. Analysis of Risk Actions
The initial step in the risk mitigation process is risk analysis. At this stage, we develop specific, discrete, and measurable responses for each identified risk. The first risks we analyze are those that may occur earliest in the system development life cycle, regardless of the probability, and those we identify as ―high impact.‖ This reduces all short-term exposure to risk, in order to alleviate the long-term effect those risks might pose if left for later in the process. Overall, program risk action analysis covers several characteristic actions:
Avoidance
Avoidance- applying a solution that eliminates the risk before it can occur. Implementing an established technical solution in lieu of an untried, complex technology is an example of risk avoidance. It is important to consider that risk avoidance solutions may limit the ability to achieve high-level project objectives by constraining desirable solutions.
Control
Control-based actions occur at all points throughout the development lifecycle and are typically the most common action. Actions or products that become part of the Workplan or overall approach will be identified, monitored and reported as part of the regular progress reporting of the project.
Acceptance
Acceptance-based actions involve factors that may directly affect the success of the project, but are outside of the control of the Project Management and
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 48 of 51
can therefore only be ‗accepted‘. Acceptance of risks as an action may be based on the cost-ineffectiveness of any available solution. For example, an acceptance action could address a legislative or legal risk, over which minimal control could be leveraged.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 49 of 51
Transfer
Transfer-based actions target the party best placed to analyze and implement the action to mitigate the risk, based on their expertise, experience, and suitability. Typical transfer actions could include sub-contracting to specialist suppliers who are able to reduce the overall risk exposure. Investigation
Investigation-based actions are employed when we cannot identify a specific mitigation technique for a given risk, so we launch an investigation. This includes research to more clearly define the risk or risk level.
Risk Response and Escalation
Risk responses may be proposed by one or all of the following areas:
1. Development 2. Testing 3. Service Desk 4. Client, Accenture or Third Party Management
Risk responses and actions will be recorded in the risk tracking tool. Risk responses and actions will be monitored regularly. In the event a risk requires escalation or is realized, the risk status will be changed contingent on project management approval.
If a risk response is approved, appropriate staff will be assigned to implement
actions. If disapproved, the identified risk action will be deferred. See the Risk
Response flow below:
Risk DetectedValidate New
Entries
Yes
Assign Person or
Team to Resolv e
Rejected or
Def erred
Periodic
Rev iew(Assess Validity)
Yes
Rev iew
Resolution
Resolved
Close Issue
Not Resolved
Rejected
No
Document Risk
(Create Issue)
Resolv e or prov ide an interim
recommendation to the Program
Management Team (Resolv e)
No
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 50 of 51
Risk Tracking and Reporting
Risk Tracking and Reporting is the actual process by which identified
risks are captured, monitored and controlled. All project level risks are
documented to provide the MyFloridaMarketPlace management team
with visibility to risks and the ongoing progress to mitigate them.
Handling of Risks
All risks are maintained in the Risk Tracking Document with actions that could be taken to avoid or mitigate the risks are recorded. Actions are based on the exposure rating of the risk. The exposure rating is a numerical value described below:
Exposure Rating Type of Mitigation
4 or 5 Actions that must be immediately incorporated into the appropriate plan.
2 or 3 Actions that must be documented as contingent risk actions to be incorporated in the appropriate plan in the event of risk occurrence.
1 None. By definition, such risks cannot be avoided or mitigated.
MFMP Transition Plan v1.1 February 26, 2010 Page 51 of 51
Calculating Risk Exposure
Risk exposure attempts to numerically scale each risk according to its overall level of
exposure, as shown in the mathematical expression below:
Risk Exposure = Probability x Impact
It follows that risks with a high probability and high impact are those risks that indicate a high level of exposure. Similarly, those risks with a low probability and low impact offer the lowest levels of exposure.
Consider five separate and independent risks. These risks are identified in the following table as Risks A to E. This table illustrates the calculation process used to determine the overall level of exposure of each risk. The exposure is shown in a decimal format.
Risk Probability Impact Exposure
Risk A 50% 5 2.5
Risk B 40% 2 0.8
Risk C 20% 5 1.0
Risk D 60% 4 2.4
Risk E 20% 3 0.6
Risks B and C have equivalent low levels of risk exposure, as shown in the Exposure column. Risk B has a lower probability of occurring but a significantly higher risk impact. This calculation enables a relative comparison between two risks with similar probability and/or impact. The value in quantifying each risk according to the above formula is that Project Management can focus on those risks with the highest relative exposure.
Risk Tracking Tool
Project risks will be tracked using an automated tracking tool. This document will define the type of risk, capture the status of the risk, the probability of the risk occurring, the impact on the project if the risk occurs, and identified risk actions. The spreadsheet will also calculate the project‘s exposure rating for each risk identified.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 1 of 6
Section 5
MyFloridaMarketPlace Business Case Submission
November 2010
Procurement and Contract Management Process
General Plan of Approach for Reprocurement:
The OPPAGA/ BCPI report (the full report is contained in section 2 of the business case)
recommends re-procuring the contract for the current MFMP operation as the most viable of the
available options. DMS is satisfied with the current operation, and agrees with the OPPAGA
report recommendation. DMS plans to procure the services using an Invitation to Negotiate
(ITN) because of the project’s magnitude (in excess of $10 million annually) and the complexity
of the project which is reflected in the scope of services.
All current contract requirements will be reviewed to ensure that the operations still requires
these activities. Any unnecessary activities will be removed for potential cost savings or
replaced for value-add activities. The current contract goals are to allow all State purchasing
permitted under law to be transacted through the eProcurement System and to encourage
widespread use of the eProcurement System.
Currently the eProcurement contract contains 25 Performance Metrics which are divided among
the following areas: system availability, system response time, business function performance,
software issue resolution, customer service, and reporting are the areas that are currently
measured. All existing metrics will be maintained in the new contract and considered for
strengthening.
In consideration for the services provided under this contract, the state will pay the awarded
contractor via a monthly fixed price amount. The Department will fund this contract through the
Transaction Fee, established by the Department in accordance with Chapter 287, Florida
Statutes. Any excess transaction fees will be maintained by the State. This approach was
successfully implemented in Modification 6 of the current eProcurement contract.
Software upgrade(s) will be included, at no additional cost to the department. The new contract,
similar to the existing contact, will include provisions that upon any termination or expiration,
the titles and perpetual software licenses required for continual operation of the eProcurement
system will be transferred or be perpetually licensed to the Department.
An additional recommendation of the OPPAGA study was to replenish the contingency fund
(fund used to make modifications to the eProcurement system). The Department would lke to
implement the recommendation of the consultant that approximately 2% of the collected
transaction fees be set aside for system enhancements.
The procurement team used to manage the eProcurement ITN will consist of existing DMS
personnel supplemented with additional resources from other stakeholders (e.g. Agency for
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 2 of 6
Section 5
Enterprise Information Technology). The team will be involved in the development of the ITN
and the negotiation of the new contract.
DMS estimates that once the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) responses are received, that the
agency will need approximately nine months for completion of the ITN documents, response
evaluation, negotiations, and contract execution. In addition to nine months for completion of
the procurement process, the timeline developed includes an additional nine months for
transition, if necessary, to a new vendor (See exhibit 1).
Summary Statement of Work for the proposed ITN
The vendor selected as the Service Provider (“Service Provider”) shall provide for the
ongoing and continued operation of the MFMP system as described more fully in the
ITN. The Service Provider shall, at a minimum, provide all technical services described,
meet all performance measures, provide reports requested by the Department under the
Contract, attend meetings with the Department) assigned to the operation as well as
provide for ongoing continuous improvement of the system deliverables to the State of
Florida. The Service Provider shall also, within the scope of the Contract, provide
additional services as needs change.
The Service Provider shall provide transition services to the State of Florida, as required,
between the Effective Date and the Contract Start date. The Service Provider shall
include the cost of any such transition services in their bid proposal a part of their
monthly fee for the services in this ITN and resulting Contract. Payments to the Service
Provider will commence at the end of the first month (or portion thereof) of operation
after the Contract start date. The Service Provider shall be ready to be fully operational
at the Contract Start date.
At a minimum, the Respondent/ Service Provider shall provide:
a) Program Management for the Service Provider
b) Technical Architecture Operations & Support
c) Application Management
d) Disaster Recovery
e) Customer Service Desk Operations
f) Billing and Collections Services
g) Business Operations and Support of Department’s Training Efforts
Service Provider will provide implementation and deployment to any other users (new
State agencies) as allowed by State law and as directed by the Department.
During the first 60 days of the Contract Start date, the Service Provider will publish a
"Detailed Operations Plan" specifying the activities, processes and procedures for the
operations in conformance with the Statement of Work of this ITN and resulting
Contract.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 3 of 6
Section 5
As the eProcurement System is successfully transitioned (should transition between the
current Service Provider and a new Service Provider be required), an Operational
Acceptance Form will be completed and signed by the current Service Provider, the new
Service Provider and the Department clearly acknowledging that the item(s) transitioned
have been reviewed, tested if necessary and are in good working order.
In addition, the Service Provider will work with the Office of Supplier Diversity to
encourage, measure, and report CBE participation in the eProcurement System.
.
DMS MFMP Contract Administration:
Throughout the term of the MFMP contract, DMS has maintained a team of professionals
dedicated to the administration of the contract. The team manages the contract on a day to day
basis and the MFMP operations. As a result, Project management has been significantly
improved on both the technical front and the DMS front.
The OPPAGA/BCPI report dated January 12, 2009 stated, “Based on our interviews and resume
reviews, we determined that the DMS MFMP support team members exhibit a high maturity
level and perform their assigned roles very well.” BCPI further reported the MFMP program
management is effective. The MFMP Program Team implemented many of the practices that the
Project Management Institute identifies as required for effective program management, such as
identifying a strategic plan and associated goals,
focusing on improving communication with stakeholders,
limiting approval of system change requests,
showing diligence in contract management, and
offering continuous user training.
Contingency Plan for Contractor Non-Performance
The State’s contract with Accenture established termination approach covering three areas:
1. Termination by Mutual Consent: The contract can be terminated at any time with
written mutual consent from both the State of Florida and the Service Provider
2. Termination for Cause: The state has the right to terminate the contract with the
Service Provider for cause following an Event of Default (further defined in the
contract) by providing seven (7) days written notice. Events of Default include
payment and/or performance failures.
3. Termination for Convenience: The state and the Service Provider have the right to
terminate for convenience with 90 days written notice prior to 12:01 am Eastern
standard time on November 9, 2010.
As outlined below, the new contract will maintain provisions addressing termination for cause in
the event of non-performance by the Contractor. In addition to remedies in the Contract, a
default remedy for non-performance by a Contractor is also available in rule 60A-1.006, F.A.C.
As a last resort, and upon a finding of default, the Department could attempt to contract with the
next eligible awardee under the original solicitation.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 4 of 6
Section 5
Additionally, the Department will include provisions in the new contract for liquidated damages
in the event the service provider does not meet measured expectations. The provisions should
provide incentive for a Contractor to cure any problems with performance before an event of
default occurs.
Remedies for Default and Obligations upon Termination for the State of Florida:
1. Terminate this Contract by providing the service provider with seven (7) days written
notice of the effective date of termination.
2. Seek Equitable Relief and/or Institute legal proceedings against the service provider
to collect payment of any money owed including, but not limited to re-procurement
costs, system replacement costs, and liquidated damages. Will also initiate
proceedings to have Service Provider placed on the Suspended Vendor list.
3. The Service Provider’s name will be removed from State Purchasing vendor mailing
list(s).
4. Once placed on the Suspended Vendor list, State agencies will be advised not to do
business with the Service Provider without written approval from State Purchasing
until the State receives reimbursement for all re-procurement costs.
5. Upon prior notice to the Service Provider, after the expiration of any cure periods,
perform any term, condition, or covenant that has been breached by the Service
Provider at the reasonable expense of the Service Provider.
General Termination Rights
1. All right, title and interest in MFMP will be transferred to the State.
2. Transfer all licenses obtained from subcontractors and suppliers for all intellectual
property, technology, and software developed, acquired, or utilized for the system to
the State.
3. The Service Provider will license to the State the non-exclusive perpetual use of all
intellectual property, technology, and software developed, acquired, or utilized for the
system.
4. The Service Provider will transfer all right, title, and interest in the hardware,
equipment leases, and real property leases used for MFMP and are necessary for the
State to continue to operate and maintain the system.
5. All rights, titles, interests and licenses transferred to the State must be used for the
exclusive benefit of the State of Florida.
6. Service Provider must provide termination assistance services, detailed below.
Termination Assistance Services
The Service Provider is responsible for providing the below termination assistance services for
up to twelve (12) months following the termination of the contract:
1. Service Provider must cooperate fully with the State of Florida and any new service
provider.
2. All processes and procedures performed by the Service Provider to operate the system
must be explained.
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 5 of 6
Section 5
3. Provide a list of equipment, proprietary software and software licenses used to
operate the system and provide services.
4. Return all State-owned materials being used by the Service Provider.
5. Transfer all property referred to in the General Termination Rights and the
documentation to use the equipment.
6. Answer questions related to the migration and transition of services and the system.
7. Termination Assistance Services rendered prior to the termination date of the contract
will be at no additional cost to the State. Services rendered after termination of the
contract will be at a reasonable rate, established in writing and paid solely from the 1
percent transaction fee.
Liquidated Damages:
Liquidated damages will be assessed for non-performance.
Should the Service Provider fail to achieve Initial Operational Acceptance by the transition
timeframe, as a result of factors directly within Service Provider’s control, then the Service
Provider shall pay DMS $20,000 for each calendar day after such date until Initial Operational
Acceptance is achieved.
In addition, should the Service Provider fail to achieve the Performance Metrics required as a
result of factors directly within Service Provider’s control, then the Service Provider shall pay
DMS liquidated damages for each Performance Metric not achieved above five (5) in a 12 month
period:
a. Performance Metric Failures 6 through 10: $2,500 for each failure
b. Performance Metric Failures 11 through 15: $3,000 for each failure
c. Performance Metric Failures 16 and 17: $3,500 for each failure
d. Performance Metric Failures 18 or more, the Department may proceed to
Termination of Contract under Section 10.5.1
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Page 6 of 6
Section 5, Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1: MyFloridaMarketPlace Timeline
3/1/2010 1/1/2013
4/1/2010 7/1/2010 10/1/2010 1/1/2011 4/1/2011 7/1/2011 10/1/2011 1/1/2012 4/1/2012 7/1/2012 10/1/2012
Department of Management Services
MyFloridaMarketPlace Timeline
4/1/2010
Begin drafting ITN
12/8/2012
Accenture contract renewal
expires7/1/2010
Complete draft
of ITN
12/23/2010
Governor and Legislature approve
MFMP Business Case
* At-risk date
11/1/2010
Submit the MFMP Business Case
to the Florida Legislature
3/1/2011
ITN proposal
responses due
1/15/2011
Release Procurement ITN
6/1/2011
Obtain funding authorization
from Governor and Legislature
* At-risk date
9/1/2011
Complete evaluation of ITN proposal
responses and select Service Provider
2/1/2012
Complete negotiation
of new contract
3/2/2012
Execute replacement contract
4/1/2011
Estimate procurement costs and submit
to Governor and Legislature for authorization
to fund new contract
4/1/2012
Place freeze on all system
enhancements and code
changes
5/1/2012
Begin transitional activities in
preparation for contract end of
12/8/12 * At-risk date
* At-risk date: If not approved by the dates in this timeline, transition
services could be affected. All transition activities completed before
the contract end date (12/8/12) will be absorbed by the current
contractor.