Closeout

Request for Project Closeout Certification Form

All Certified Projects Must Follow NM State Policies and Procurement Code

1.  Project Governance /

Project Name

Project Short Name(s)

/ CMIS Upgrade
Date / 4/23/2014
Lead Agency / NMCD
Other Agencies / N/A

Executive Sponsor

/ Aurora Sanchez, Deputy Secretary of Administration
Agency Head / Gregg Marcantel, Secretary
Agency CIO/IT Lead / Tim Oakeley
Project Manager / Lilly Martin
2.  Project Abstract
(Provide a brief description and purpose for this project.)
The NMCD’s goal was to complete the transition to the current CMIS two-tier client/server (Informix database and PowerBuilder front-end), to a three-tier web-enabled environment using Java and Informix. Ultimately the new three-tier environment will host seventeen (17) modules which have been identified by the Corrections Technology Association as all the modules that take an offender from intake through release into the community.
The migration from a client server application to a three-tier application supports the state government initiatives relating to reducing the cost of government operations and improving customer service. The ability to manage the application through a server, instead of pushing out updates to over a thousand computers will greatly reduce support and maintenance costs. The new CMIS solution is aligned with the NM IT Enterprise Architecture plan, as it relates to security and a services oriented architecture.
To date, the project approach has been one of development; however, due to the many dependencies among modules and business processes, implementing a single module of CMIS presents numerous challenges. Lessons learned from the two previous project cycles clearly indicate the Department’s need to change from a development strategy to an implementation strategy. In order to do so, additional resources are needed in the future to make this a reality.
3a. Scope Verification

Requirements Review

/ Yes / No /

Explanation/Notes

Were the project objectives (expected outcomes) accomplished? / x
Were all Deliverables submitted and accepted? / x
Did the IV&V vendor verify that all deliverables met the requirements? / x
Have all contracts been closed? / x
Have all final payments been made (i.e., invoices paid) / x
Have all project documents/records been appropriately stored for future reference? / x
Has adequate knowledge transfer been completed? / x / Contractor resources worked with state resources throughout the project and during several knowledge transfer meetings.
3b. Major Project Deliverables and Performance Measures Met
Major Project Deliverable and Performance Measure

(Include an explanation if deliverable or performance measure was not met.)

/ Budget /

Date

/

Project Phase

Deliverable Number 1a - Good Time Modularization / $ 121,469.82 / 2/15/14 / Phase I
Deliverable Number 1 - Good Time / $ 339,422.11 / 2/15/14 / Phase I
Deliverable Number 3a - Sentencing Modularization / $ 110,320.58 / 2/15/14 / Phase I
Deliverable Number 3 - Sentencing / $ 61,493.81 / 5/15/13 / Phase I
Deliverable Number 1b - Good Time User Acceptance Testing / $ 169,741.16 / 2/15/14 / Phase II
Deliverable Number 3b - Sentencing User Acceptance Testing / $ 13,414.06 / 2/15/14 / Phase II
Deliverable Number 3c - Sentencing - AOC Interface / $ 75,140.37 / 4/23/14 / Phase II
Deliverable Number 5a - Offender Management Plan(OMP) Modularization / $ 60,952.72 / 3/24/14 / Phase II
Deliverable Number 5b - Booking Modularization / $ 64,288.56 / 3/26/14 / Phase II
Deliverable Number 5c -Property Modularization / $ 58,859.70 / 4/23/14 / Phase II
4a. Certification History
Cert. Date / Cert. Amount / Funding Source(s) – Funding Total Amount
(Cite the specific laws, grants, etc. and total amount.)
3/28/2012 / $135,000 / Laws 2012, Chapter 19, Section 7, Item 17
6/20/2012 / $508,000 / Laws 2012, Chapter 19, Section 7, Item 17
4B. Approriation History
Fiscal Year / Amount / Funding Source and Appropriation language
FY12-14 / $135,000 / Laws 2012, Chapter 19, Section 7, Item 17
FY13-14 / $508,000 / Laws 2012, Chapter 19, Section 7, Item 17
FY13 / $474,000 / Laws 2012, Chapter 19, Section 4. APD- Due to the disparity between the amount the project was funded and the quotes received back from the vendors during RFP, the agency shifted funds from operating budget to assist with the project.
4b. RFP / Contract History
(List all RFP’s and contracts issued for the project.)
List RFP and Contract
(Purpose and/or Description) / Contract
Number / Compensation
Amount or NA / %
Complete
POD IV&V
Periodic Reviews
Project Management
Quality Management
Training
Requirements Management
Software Development
Systems and Acceptance Testing / 13-770-2500-0011 / $25,460.00 / 100
RKV RFP / 13-770-2500-0012 / $675,000.00
Amendment 1:
Contract amendment 1 was due to SPD entering the wrong contract number in SHARE on the original contract coming out of RFP, not due to anything NMCD changed. / 13-770-2500-0012 / $675,000.00
Amendment 2:
Deliverables Priced:
1a Good time Modularization;
1 Good Time;
3a Sentencing Modularization;
3 Sentencing
Deliverable 4: Active Directory is removed from the contract / 13-770-2500-0012 / $531,881.45
Amendment 3:
Phase I:
Deliverables Revised:
1a Good time Modularization
1 Good Time;
3a Sentencing Modularization;
3 Sentencing;
Phase II:
Deliverables 1b Good Time User Acceptance Testing
Deliverables 1b Good Time User Acceptance Testing
.
Deliverable 2a Release and Discharge
Total / 13-770-2500-0012 / $574,732.24
$145,683.68
$13,414.06
$121,079.88
$854,909.86
Amendment 4:
Deliverable 1 Good Time
Develop Code For Business Rule Engine including a Decision Point Table and Logical Data Model
Total / 13-770-2500-0012 / $67,900.00
$922,809.86
Amendment 5
Phase I
Deliverable 3 Sentencing Sub 7 removed from contract
Phase II
Deliverable 1b Good Time User Acceptance Testing revised
Deliverable 2a Release and Discharge removed from Contract
Deliverables 3c - AOC Interface
Deliverable 5 a OMP Modularization
Deliverable 5b Booking Modularization
Deliverable 5c Property Modularization
Final Total / 13-770-2500-0012 / -$9,925.00
$24,057.48
-$121,079.88
$75,140.37
$60,952.72
$64,288.56
$58,859.70
1,075,102.89 / 100
5. Schedule and Budget
Planned Start Date / 10/03/2012 / Actual Start Date / 12/14/2012
Planned End Date / 06/30/2014 / Actual End Date / 04/23/2014
Planned Cost: (Budget) / 1,117,000 / Actual Cost: (Total) / 1,098,099.79
§  Professional Services / 1,117,000 / §  Professional Services / 1,098,099.79
§  Hardware / N/A / §  Hardware / N/A
§  Software / N/A / §  Software / N/A
§  Network / N/A / §  Network / N/A
§  Other / N/A / §  Other / N/A
6a. Independent Verification & Validation

(Include summary of the last IVV Report or Risk Management Summary Report.)

According to POD’s last IV&V report , the overall status of the project is GREEN in all areas. The NMCD IT management team is doing an excellent job of communicating with and managing the vendor.
The project status is GREEN for budget, scope, and schedule.
The project remains within budget and on schedule for vendor activities. In December, the project expended approximately $620K, mostly on vendors, and there was an estimated $496K left in the budget which was used to complete the rest of the deliverables. The project has DOIT-certified funding of $643K. The difference between the certified funding and the overall project budget of $1.1M is the funding provided by NMCD.
The project schedule reflects that the current tasks and activities center on UAT. This task has occurred on time. Other major project phases occurred on time as well. NMCD and the vendor have done an excellent job in managing the project schedule.
The RKV contract was to end on February 27, 2014. This was delayed due to holiday and vacation of resources. All contracted work, including amendments, was completed by April 2014. Any work remaining was accomplished by the NMCD applications development team. POD found that the vendor has done an excellent job of transferring to the NMCD IT staff the knowledge of new technologies used by the application.
The system testing session that POD observed was excellent. Three BAs, very familiar with the application and the testing goals, performed the testing. The system test plan was comprehensive, and the BAs followed it to the letter. The modules were deemed ready for UAT.
The UAT session that POD observed had a number of issues. Those issues were described in the Overall Status and Highest Risks sections of the report. The UAT document was clearly written and easy to understand and had expected outcomes—NMCD IT was well prepared for UAT. A number of issues were specific to the sessions that POD observed; that is, they didn’t occur in other UAT sessions. The major issues of concern [which were resolved] had to do with the bandwidth and the commit to the database. There were only seven people on the system, and response time of the application slowed to a crawl at some points. This problem occurred in system testing also. Given that NMCD has a huge statewide user base, this issue was researched and addressed by having the database and application server in the same zone and making application changes.
6b. Lessons Learned
Ø  The amount of money funded for the CMIS project historically has not been sufficient to implement the developed code to a production environment
Ø  The past focus on development on a module by module basis has not afforded the kind of movement for new functionality desperately needed by the agency
Ø  The NCOMS model, while theoretically sound, has not produced the desired results.
Ø  The expectation that the same number of resources can support existing systems and also move forward with development of new systems is unrealistic
Ø  The agency realizes that only fully implementing all functionality across all 17 CTA modules in one comprehensive OMS system will enable NMCD to achieve its goals.
7. Transition to Operations
Yes / No /

Explanation/Notes

Are there recurring maintenance/operational costs for the product/service? / x
Are there any recommended enhancements or updates? / x
Summary of agency plan to support project solution in production.
The initial approach of focusing on module development and the process of obtaining the funds in a piecemeal fashion was not sufficient to create a package that can be rolled out into production.
Summary of agency plans to fund the maintenance and Operations of this project.
N/A

Revision: 6/18/13

Page 1