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)

/ Integrated Electronic Data Management and Inspection System (IEDMIS) Modernization Project
Date / April 26, 2017
Lead Agency / New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
Other Agencies

Executive Sponsor

/ JC Borrego, Deputy Cabinet Secretary
Agency Head / Butch Tongate, Cabinet Secretary
Agency CIO/IT Lead / Mary Montoya, CIO / Kamari Gupta, OCIO Manager
Project Manager / John Salazar, PMP, CSW Enterprises, LLC
2.  Project Abstract
(Provide a brief description and purpose for this project.)
The Environment Health Bureau (EHB) embarked on this software modernization project to acquire and implement an integrated electronic data management and inspection solution to increase efficiency and consistency of data collection, processing, and storage and to provide stakeholders the ability to do business with EHB from anywhere. The modernized software solution provides the following services:
•  Integrated database for the EHB food, liquid waste and swimming pool & spa programs
•  Workflow management
•  Electronic document/photo retention
•  Permit printing
•  Program reports
•  Invoicing/accounts receivables
During the November 2017 IEDMIS Executive Steering Committee meeting, the IEDMIS Project Executive Steering Committee approved a reduction in the project scope due to the following reasons:
·  vendor project resource allocation;
·  the large number of changes to the COTS application to fully meet the Bureau’s requirements;
·  allow time for the NMED agency to utilize the product during the software stabilization period;
·  and, allow the agency sufficient time to populate the system with Liquid Waste data that was not transferable from the legacy system.
The features below have been deferred and will be phased in later with budget and resource allocation permitting:
•  Electronic field inspection (mobile forms)
•  Online permit applications
•  Online public access to inspection results
•  Online public complaint system integrated into defined workflow
3a. Scope Verification

Requirements Review

/ Yes / No /

Explanation/Notes

Were the project objectives (expected outcomes) accomplished? / ü / Reduction in scope; project objectives accomplished for backend system deployment only
Were all Deliverables submitted and accepted? / ü / Reduction in scope; deliverables submitted and accepted for backend system deployment only
Did the IV&V vendor verify that all deliverables met the requirements? / ü / For backend system deployment only
Have all contracts been closed? / ü / Vendor contract (GL Solutions) active for hosting and support through 2023
Have all final payments been made (i.e., invoices paid) / ü / For backend system deployment only including retainage; PM services, and IV&V services
Have all project documents/records been appropriately stored for future reference? / ü
Has adequate knowledge transfer been completed? / ü / For backend system deployment only
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

/
IV&V Services / $18,413.14 / April 2016 – March 2017 / Implementation
Project Management Services / $52,968.60 / November 2016 – March 2017 / Implementation
Software Licensing / $94,612.50 / March 2017 / Implementation
Detailed Project Plan / $15,616.98 / February 2016 / Implementation
Requirements Definition & Software Prototype
Performance Measurement: Traceability to RFP and user adoption/satisfaction / $33,856.14 / March 2016 / Implementation
Configure and Customize Permit Application Process Software
Improve staff efficiencies, accuracy of data and services to constituents. / $12,728.30 / September 2016 / Implementation
Configure and Customize Permit Renewal Process Software
Improve staff efficiencies, accuracy of data and services to constituents. / $2,545.66 / September 2016 / Implementation
Configure and Customize Liquid Waste Certification Software
Improve staff efficiencies, accuracy of data and services to constituents. / $7,071.28 / September 2016 / Implementation
Configure and Customize Enforcement Software
Improve staff efficiencies, accuracy of data and services to constituents. / $20,777.08 / September 2016 / Implementation
Configure and Customize Inspection Software
Improve staff efficiencies, accuracy of data and services to constituents. / $25,602.19 / September 2016 / Implementation
Configure and Customize Other Software
Improve staff efficiencies, accuracy of data and services to constituents. / $10,273.32 / September 2016 / Implementation
User Acceptance Testing
Thoroughly test software products to identify errors in functionality and design. / $22,915.44 / October 2016 – January 2017 / Implementation
Training and Operations Documentation
Provide agency staff with reference documentation on use of software / $2,365.31 / January 2017 / Implementation
Production Rollout
Software products operate without major issues / $4,500.00 / February 2017 / Implementation
Payment of Project Retainage Amounts
Software products operate without major issues / $17,583.52 / March 2017 / Implementation
GL Suite System Maintenance Support and Hosting (2 quarterly payments) / $40,588.40 / Implementation
Mobile Forms Inspection software modules / $74,238.60 / Deferred
Constituent Services Portal Permitting Application Software Modules / $39,492.18 / Deferred
Constituent Services Portal Permitting Renewal Software Modules / $17,688.09 / Deferred
General Public Portal - Inspection Results Software Modules / $18,048.60 / Deferred
General Public Portal - Complaints Software Modules / $10,828.10 / Deferred
Financial Interfaces / $0.00 / Deferred
Project Contingency / $7,286.57 / Deferred
Total / $550,000.00
4a. Certification History /
Cert. Date / Cert. Amount / Funding Source(s) – Funding Total Amount
(Cite the specific laws, grants, etc. and total amount.) /
September 2015
(Initiation/
Planning) / $141,000.00 / Federal Funds-Section 6-3-23 (D) & 9-1-5 (C) NMSA 1978
September 2015
(Initiation/
Planning) / $150,000.00 / Laws 2014, 1st Session, Ch. 63, Sec 5 (65)
September 2015
(Initiation/
Planning) / $149,900.00 / Other State Funds-Laws 2015, Ch. 101 Sec. 9 D
April 27, 2016
Implementation / $109,100.00 / Other State Funds-Laws 2017, Section 4
Total / $550,000.00
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
RFP - INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC DATA MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SYSTEM (IEDMIS) (May 2015) / N/A / N/A
Project Management Services – Vendor (CSW Enterprises, LLC) / 16-667-5000-0005 / $52,968.60 / 100%
Software Solution - Vendor (GL Solutions)
(Contract Amount: $1,370,480.32)
(Contract Expenditures to Date: $338,048.17) / 16-667-5000-0004 / $1,370,480.32 / 100%*
*Backend System Deployment
IV&V Services – Vendor (Burger, Carroll & Associates, Inc.)
Note: Original Contract was for $18,414.14. A contract amendment in amount of $3,249.39 was executed to extend services to 3/31/2017. Grand total expensed on IV&V is $21,662.53 / 16 667 1500 0011 / $21,662.53 / 100%
5. Schedule and Budget
Planned Start Date / 10/1/2015 / Actual Start Date / 1/4/2016
Planned End Date / 4/30/2016 / Actual End Date / 3/31/2017
Planned Cost: (Budget) / $550,000.00 / Actual Cost: (Total) / $412,679.30
§  Professional Services
(IV&V, Project Management, Software implementation)
Ala Carte Software: deferred.
IV&V Services: increased to cover extended schedule. / $407,512.53
Backend software:$175,835.22
Ala Carte Software: $160,295.57
PM Services: $52,968.60
IV&V Services: $18,413.14
Grand Total: $407,512.53 / §  Professional Services / $250,466.35
Backend software: $175,835.22
PM Services: $52,968.60
IV&V Services: $21,662.53
Grand Total: $250,466.35
§  Hardware / §  Hardware
§  Software
(Software Licensing)
The Contract identified three licensing payments; however, the project budget only included two payments. / $94,612.50 / §  Software / $141,918.75
§  Network / §  Network
§  Hosting Services / $40,588.40
Note: Original Production Rollout Planned for October 2016 / §  Hosting Services / $20,294.20
§  Other (Contingency) / $7,286.57 / §  Other / $0.00
6a. Independent Verification & Validation

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

Burger, Carroll & Associates provided the New Mexico Environment Department with the Project Closeout Report on March 31, 2017. The following paragraph includes excerpts from the BCA Closeout Report:
“The Project achieved a Green Go Live status this month as a result of the Agency’s diligent and successful efforts over the past 90 days to improve vendor management and communication, due diligence in continuing the User Acceptance Test (UAT) as long as needed to ensure a functionally reliable and stable system, and its having reached a successful production environment.”
“Overall the project was well structured with a commitment from NMED leadership as demonstrated through participation in the steering committee. The status meetings were regularly scheduled and were brief and concise with emphasis on design approval.”
“As a result of the extraordinary efforts of NMED staff, most notably Johnathan Gerhardt, Food Program Manager and Chair of the Project’s Steering Committee, the system has been successfully implemented statewide. Newly identified bugs are still being resolved under the terms of the ongoing Service Agreement. Had it not been for Mr. Gerhardt’s individual effort it is questionable as to whether the system would be in production at this time.”
“The system as implemented has delivered a significant enhancement in the efficiency and integrity of Environmental Health Bureau (EHB) regulation of food service and processing establishments, liquid waste systems, and swimming pools and spas state-wide for the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).”
6b. Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned Summary:
Category / Issue / Problem / Impact / Recommendation
Procurement Management / Contract reviews and approval. / RFP award , project management services and IV&V services took more time than anticipated. / Vendor resources were impacted due to project delays. / Streamline contract review processes
Procurement Management / Insufficient project budget for project management and IV&V services / Due to the Agency’s limited budget, PM services were budgeted for 12 hours per week and IV&V services were budgeted for 6 months. / Inadequate project management and IV&V services impacted project. / Have adequate budget for PM & IV&V Services and engage earlier in project
Procurement Management / Software Implementation Selection Process / PM and IV&V were not involved in the Software Vendor RFP Selection Process / Not all business requirements were defined in the RFP. / Assistance with the RFP requirements could have been provided by consultants, PM or IV&V to ensure a better vendor selection process
Category / Issue / Problem / Impact / Recommendation
Scope Management / Scope Creep / Implementation Vendor stated their COTS product only required configuration modifications to meet NMED requirements / Some parts of the Vendor soultion were configurable; however, other parts required custom development because the Vendor product did not exist. / During the RFP Evaluation Process, perform adequate research on Vendor proposed products and past performance implementing services.
Schedule Management / Schedule slippage / The Implementation Vendor provided a schedule that they were not able to follow. / Vendor was implementing software products for other clients at the same time causing resource allocation issues. / Ensure that Vendor has adequate resources to commit to the project.
Quality Management / Vendor quality assurance testing not adequality performed / Vendor did not perform quality assurance testing of software before releasing modules to the Agency / The agency wasted time performing User Acceptance Testing on products that were not ready. / The Agency should have obtained proof that the Implementation Vendor had performed QA testing on the software before initiating UAT events.
7. Transition to Operations
Yes / No /

Explanation/Notes

Are there recurring maintenance/operational costs for the product/service? / ü / $81,176.80 per year for hosting/support.
Are there any recommended enhancements or updates? / ü / An amendment for enhancements to the backend system will be executed in the 1st quarter of FY18 with the Agency using funding from first year project hosting savings due to schedule delays.
Summary of agency plan to support project solution in production.
The GL Suite software product is hosted and maintained by GL Solutions, the software solutions vendor, via a Software as a Service (SaaS) model in Bend Oregon. NMED OIT will manage creation of user accounts, and Bureau staff will manage roles/permissions within the application pending a vendor security enhancement.
Summary of agency plans to fund the maintenance and Operations of this project.
In the future, NMED will pay for hosting and maintenance services from the agency’s operating budget.

Revision: 6/18/13

Page 6