Information Technology Project Request

Information Technology Project Request

Special Project Report Executive Approval Transmittal

Department Name

Transportation

Project Title (maximum of 75 characters) Project Acronym

Integrated Financial Management System ERP Financial Infrastructure IFMS/E-FIS

FSR Project ID FSR Approval Date Department Priority Agency Priority

2660-416 01/11/2006 1 1

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

I am submitting the attached Special Project Report (SPR) in support of our request for the Office of the State Chief Information Officer’s approval to continue development and/or implementation of this project.

I certify that the SPR was prepared in accordance with the State Administrative Manual Sections 4945-4945.2 and that the proposed project changes are consistent with our information management strategy as expressed in our current Agency Information Management Strategy (AIMS).

I have reviewed and agree with the information in the attached Special Project Report.

Chief Information Officer Date Signed

Printed name: Ann Barsotti Chief Financial Officer Date Signed

Printed name: Cindy McKim Budget Officer Date Signed

Printed name: Norma Ortega Department Director Date Signed

Printed name: Will Kempton Agency Secretary Date Signed

Printed name: Dale Bonner

Department of Transportation

Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)

Special Project Report

January 2008

Table of Contents 2.0 IT Project Summary Package ..........................................................5

2.1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................5 2.2 Project Contacts ............................................................................................................8 2.3 Project Relevance to State and/or Department/Agency Plans......................................9 2.4 Budget Information......................................................................................................10 2.5 Vendor Project Budget ................................................................................................11 2.6 Risk Assessment Information......................................................................................12

3.0 Proposed Project Change..............................................................13 3.1 Project Background/Summary.....................................................................................13 3.2 Project Status..............................................................................................................14 3.3 Reason for Proposed Change.....................................................................................16

3.3.1 Reason For Schedule Change ................................................................................16 3.3.2 Reason For Change In Costs..................................................................................18

3.4 Proposed Project Change ...........................................................................................19 3.4.1 Change in Schedule ................................................................................................19 3.4.2 Change in Costs......................................................................................................20

3.5 Impact of Proposed Change on Project ......................................................................23 3.6 Feasible Alternatives Considered................................................................................23 3.7 Implementation Plan....................................................................................................23

4.0 Updated Project Management Plan...............................................24 4.1 Project Manager Qualifications ...................................................................................24 4.2 Project Management Methodology..............................................................................24 4.3 Project Organization....................................................................................................26 4.4 Project Priorities ..........................................................................................................30 4.5 Project Plan.................................................................................................................30

4.5.1 Project Scope ..........................................................................................................30 4.5.2 Project Assumptions................................................................................................30 4.5.3 Project Phasing .......................................................................................................31 4.5.4 Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................32 4.5.5 Project Schedule .....................................................................................................32

4.6 Project Monitoring .......................................................................................................33 4.7 Project Quality .............................................................................................................33 4.8 Change Management..................................................................................................33

4.9 Authorization Required................................................................................................33

5.0 Updated Risk Management Plan ...................................................34

6.0 Updated Economic Analysis Worksheets ....................................35

Department of Transportation Integrated Financial Management System SPR

2.0 IT Project Summary Package

2.1 Executive Summary 1 Submittal Date January 11, 2008

FSR SPR PSP Only Other:

2 Type of Document X

Project Number 2660-416

Estimated Project

Dates 3 Project Title Integrated Financial Management System Start End Project Acronym IFMS/E-FIS 12/1/05 04/01/10 4 Submitting Department Department of Transportation 5 Reporting Agency Business, Transportation and Housing 6 Project Objectives The objectives listed below have not changed since the FSR:

The primary objective of IFMS/E-FIS and the IFMS Strategic Plan is to have access to comprehensive information to better manage the Caltrans organization like a business. Caltrans intends to create and implement an integrated financial management solution that will:

1. Enable Caltrans to make the best investment decisions by providing all facets of cost of ownership information.

2. Enable Caltrans to manage the cost of doing business by providing timely and consistent cost management information.

3. Establish efficient financial management processes by modernizing the financial management systems.

4. Support Caltrans’ financial reporting requirements, decision-making needs, and other highly data-dependent objectives that require structured and coherent data.

5. Achieve financial management and tracking capabilities not currently available to Caltrans 6. Provide a seamless, streamlined interface for existing legacy systems and other Caltrans

infrastructure components. 7. Enable Caltrans to realize major efficiency and data accuracy gains by consolidating

redundant legacy systems into a new, enterprise-wide solution.

IMFS/E-FIS Final Project Number 2660-416 January 11, 2008 Page: 5


7 Major Milestones Actual/Planned Delivery Date 1 Receive FSR Approval January 11, 2006 2 Define Business & Technical Requirements September 20, 2006 3 Release Integration Partner RFP December 21, 2006 4 Award Contract April, 2008 5 Complete System Design April, 2009 6 Complete System Development August, 2009 7 Complete Testing October, 2009 8 Complete Data Conversion November, 2009 9 Complete Training December, 2009 10 Complete IFMS/E-FIS Production Cutover December, 2009 11 Complete IFMS/E-FIS Production Acceptance Period April, 2010 12 Complete Post Implementation Evaluation May, 2011

8 Key Deliverables Actual/Planned Delivery Date 1 Approved FSR January 11, 2006 2 Completed Requirements Document September 25, 2006 3 Integration Partner RFP December 21, 2006 4 Executed Contract April, 2008 5 System Design Documentation April, 2009 6 System Configuration and Software Documentation August, 2009 7 User Acceptance Test Results Report October, 2009 8 Production Verification Test Results Report November, 2009 9 Training Evaluation Report December, 2009 10 Production Readiness Assessment Report December, 2009 11 Final Acceptance Report April, 2010 12 Post Implementation Evaluation Report (PIER) May, 2011




9 Proposed Solution

The proposed IFMS/E-FIS solution calls for:

• Establishing the base infrastructure to support the ERP, data warehouse and other related applications.

• Procuring and customizing the General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, and Reporting functionality of a COTS ERP product, including workflow processes, configurable business rules and validations, and standard reports.

• Installing a COTS Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) infrastructure to support interfaces among legacy, existing, and future systems.

• Establishing a COTS data warehouse, including data extraction, transformation and load (ETL) tools, and creating the required data feeds for pertinent financial and related information.

• Implementing COTS business intelligence and reporting tool(s) that will provide managerial and operational reporting and data analysis functionality.


2.2 Project Contacts

Project # 2660-416 Doc. Type SPR Executive Contacts First Name Last Name Area Code Phone # Ext. Area Code Fax # E-mail Agency Secretary Dale Bonner 916 323-5400 916 323-5440 [email protected]

Dept. Director Will Kempton 916 654-5267 916 654-6608 [email protected] Budget Officer Norma Ortega 916 654-6841 916 653-2004 [email protected] CIO Ann Barsotti 916 654-3910 916 654-2949 [email protected] Project Sponsor Cindy McKim 916 654-3986 916 654-6608 [email protected] Direct Contacts Primary Contact Clark Paulsen 916 227-9000 916 227-9176 [email protected] Project Manager Kathy Booher 916 227-0575 916 227-9176 [email protected] IT Project Manager Ardeana Ota 916 227-9279 916 227-9176 [email protected]

Document Preparer Kathy Booher 916 227-0575 916 227-9176 [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]


2.3 Project Relevance to State and/or Department/Agency Plans What is the date of your current Operational Recovery

Plan (ORP)? Date October

2006 Project # 2660-416

What is the date of your current AIMS? Date August 2007

Doc. Type SPR

Doc. AIMS For the proposed project, provide the page reference in your current AIMS? Page # 36

Yes No Is the project reportable to control agencies? X If YES, CHECK all that apply: X The project involves a budget action. A new system development or acquisition that is specifically required by legislative mandate or is subject

to special legislative review as specified in budget control language or other legislation.

The project involves the acquisition of microcomputer commodities and the agency does not have an approved Workgroup Computing Policy.

X The estimated total development and acquisition cost exceeds the departmental cost threshold. The project meets a condition previously imposed by Finance.



2.4 Budget Information Project # 2660-416 Doc. Type SPR Budget Augmentation Required? No Yes X If YES, indicate fiscal year(s) and associated amount: FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 0 0 10,393,351 9,482,519 6,630,000 0

PROJECT COSTS

1. Fiscal Year 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 TOTAL2. One Time Cost 541,242 1,462,622 11,326,360 10,845,718 5,124,926 0 $29,300,8683. Continuing Costs 55,959 567,436 4,697,189 5,782,068 $11,102,6514. Total Project Budget 541,242 1,462,622 11,382,319 11,413,154 9,822,115 5,782,068 $40,403,519

SOURCES OF FUNDING

5. General Fund 6. Redirection 541,242 1,462,622 988,968 1,930,635 3,192,115 5,782,068 13,897,6497. Reimbursements 8. Federal Funds 9. Special Funds

10. Grant Funds 11. Other Funds 0 10,393,351 9,482,519 6,630,000 0 26,505,87012. Project Budget 541,242 1,462,622 11,382,319 11,413,154 9,822,115 5,782,068 $40,403,519

PROJECT FINANCIAL BENEFITS 13. Cost Avoidances 91,000 3,079,354 $3,170,35414. Revenue Increase


Project # 2660-416

Vendor Cost for FSR Development (if applicable) $232,412 Doc. Type SPR

Vendor Name Gartner Consulting

a ntrtme Integrated Financial Management System SPR of Transportation


2.5 Vendor Project Budget

VENDOR PROJECT BUDGET

1. Fiscal Year 05/06 06//07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 TOTAL 2. Primary Vendor Budget 0 0 8,476,130 7,341,500 2,711,250 0 18,528,880 3. Independent Oversight Budget 10,000 115,437 125,422 125,423 90,750 0 467,032 4. IV&V Budget 0 230,000 300,000 106,960 101,197 0 738,157 5. Other Vendor Budget 310,670 383,338 235,330 195,200 150,003 0 1,274,541 6. TOTAL VENDOR BUDGET $320,670 $728,775 $9,136,882 $7,769,083 $3,053,200 0 $21,008,610

Vendor

First Name

Last Name

Area Code

Phone

Ext.

Area Code

Fax

E-mail

11. CGI Angela Cheung (916) 283-2021 (916) 830-1199 [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------(Applies to SPR only)-----------------------------------------------------

PRIMARY VENDOR HISTORY SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT 7. Primary Vendor CGI

8. Contract Start Date 04/16/2008

9. Contract End Date (projected)

04/16/2011

10. Contract Amount $ 18,528,880

PRIMARY VENDOR CONTACTS

Dep

mailto:[email protected]


2.6 Risk Assessment Information Yes No Has a Risk Management Plan been developed for this project? X

General Comment(s)

Given the scope, activities, and resources required to plan for, procure, design and implement IFMS/E-FIS, Caltrans has developed a Risk Management Plan that adheres to its Project Management Office (PMO) standards while factoring in the risks specific to this effort. The resulting methodology for the Risk Management Plan is consistent with the State of California’s Project Management Methodology, the Office of the Chief Information Officer’s Information Technology Project Oversight Framework, and the Caltrans IT Project Management Methodology and Standards. Preventive measures will be taken in each of the risk areas to mitigate the chances of risk occurrence. These measures are identified in the risk management worksheet contained in Section 5 of this SPR. As new risks are identified throughout the project life cycle, appropriate preventive measures will be developed.



3.0 Proposed Project Change

3.1 Project Background/Summary Changes in business needs over the past 20 years have placed the Caltrans organization at a crossroads regarding its financial management processes and supporting systems. Aging technology, an increasing number and complexity of funding sources, and changes in legislation have collectively raised the demands on Caltrans and accentuated problems with the current method of executing financial management functions. More importantly, the lack of management data available to Caltrans often results in decision-making that is based on untimely, incomplete and anecdotal information.

The current automation method for financial management includes 160 systems that vary from centralized mainframe systems to distributed client-server applications to individual desktop databases and spreadsheets. This environment has resulted in systems that exhibit duplicate functionality and data, redundant data entry into unconnected systems, as well as multiple point-to-point interfaces necessary to provide data to meet user needs.

The largest application in support of financial management functions is Caltrans’ primary accounting system, Transportation Accounting and Management System (TRAMS). TRAMS is a collection of mainframe applications implemented in 1983. It was designed to meet Caltrans’ accounting needs in the following areas: appropriation control, expenditure accounting, encumbrance accounting, receipt accounting, accounts payable, general ledger accounting, cost accounting, cost allocation and labor distribution. However, functional gaps, both real and perceived, and other limitations in TRAMS have led to the development and acquisition of complementary and overlapping systems that negatively impact productivity, data integrity and support costs.

The scope and scale of the business problems and impacts related to financial management functions is challenging to quantify. However, given that Caltrans is responsible for an annual $14 billion budget, $6.5 billion in capital projects and approximately 545 contracts for transportation improvement projects, the impacts of financial management problems are significant for current initiatives and future investments. In addition, the Caltrans program has a direct impact on State commerce, tourism, and recreational travel of Californians. Due to the scope and scale of Caltrans’ responsibilities, Caltrans is often placed in the difficult position of responding without complete information to inquiries from the Legislature, Department of Finance, and the general public regarding the use of, and accountability for, taxpayer dollars.

In 2004, Caltrans completed an Integration Study which established an Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) Strategic Plan. (The IFMS Integration Study, which includes the Strategic Plan, is available from the Bidders Library.) The plan outlines a series of projects to consolidate and streamline financial operations and systems, including a roadmap, project priorities, sequencing and dependencies. The Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Financial Infrastructure (E-FIS) project is the first of these projects identified by the IFMS Strategic Plan.

The IFMS Strategic Plan also identifies future capabilities which will build upon and leverage the E-FIS capabilities including budget development, inventory management, asset management, procurement (requisitions), and additional reporting functionality.



The Department of Finance also is embarking on an enterprise level project to implement a statewide accounting and budgeting system (Fi$Cal). The IFMS solution will be required to interface with this future system. It is anticipated that this interface will be accomplished through the E-FIS Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) tools.

The IFMS/E-FIS project scope includes:

• Establishing the base infrastructure to support the ERP, data warehouse and other related applications.

• Procuring and customizing the General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, and Reporting functionality of a COTS ERP product, including workflow processes, configurable business rules and validations, and standard reports.

• Installing an Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) infrastructure to support interfaces among legacy, existing, and future systems.

• Establishing a data warehouse, including data extraction, transformation and load (ETL) tools, and creating the required data feeds for pertinent financial and related information.

• Implementing COTS business intelligence and reporting tool(s) that will provide managerial and operational reporting and data analysis functionality.

3.2 Project Status Since the FSR was approved and released in January 2006, Caltrans has made significant strides towards completing the procurement phase of the IFMS/E-FIS project. Once the project team was established, Caltrans began the process of preparing for procurement by selecting vendors to assist with the procurement process, defining business requirements, and drafting the RFP.

The RFP was published in December 2006, and most of 2007 was spent working with DGS to ensure that final proposals received would be compliant with Caltrans defined requirements. Prospective bidders submitted questions relating to the RFP seeking clarification of requirements, technical and legal terms. In response to bidder questions, Caltrans revised the requirements to clarify what vendors were expected to provide in their bid proposals. Caltrans determined that the time spent revising and strengthening the RFP resulted in clearer expectations of potential bidders. Caltrans prepared 9 addenda to the RFP.



Table 1. Table of Major Milestones Achieved to Date:

MAJOR MILESTONES Actual Completion Date

DOF Approves the Feasibility Study Report 01/11/2006

Caltrans IFMS/E-FIS Project team is established 01/12/2006

RFP Preparation

Select Business Requirements Vendor 2/10/2006

Select Procurement Vendor 6/14/2006

Define Business Requirements 6/15/2006

Define Technical, Implementation, and Support Requirements 9/25/2006

Develop Draft RFP 9/27/2006

Submit RFP to DOF and DGS for Review 10/12/2006

Develop Final Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Matrix 11/01/2006

Receive DGS Approval of RFP 11/02/2006

Receive DOF Approval of RFP 12/19/2006

Release RFP 12/21/2006

RFP Bidding Process

Conduct Bidders Conference 1/12/2007

Evaluate Draft Proposals 4/13/2007

Conduct Confidential Discussions 5/09/2007

Final RFP Addendum Published 9/25/2007

Receive Final Proposals 10/05/2007

Evaluate Final Proposals 10/19/2007

Complete Final Proposal Scoring 10/24/2007

Conduct Public Cost Opening 11/14/2007

Notice of Intent to Award 12/14/2007

End of Protest Period 12/21/2007



3.3 Reason for Proposed Change The Department of Finance’s January 11, 2006 approval of the IFMS/E-FIS Request For Proposal (RFP) requires Caltrans to submit a Special Project Report (SPR) that documents the chosen vendor’s project plan and costs. Additionally, Caltrans is proposing changes to both project costs and the project schedule. There are no proposed changes to the scope of the project.

3.3.1 Reason For Schedule Change There are several contributing factors that led to changes in the project schedule. See Table 2 for a visual comparison of schedule changes between the FSR and SPR. 1. The procurement process took longer than anticipated. The original FSR

schedule was aggressive, estimating Caltrans could complete all the required procurement tasks within 14 months, including writing the RFP, obtaining control agency approvals, selecting a prime vendor, selecting IV&V, IPOC, and Project Management vendors, and completing the contract award process for all vendors. The FSR estimated that the procurement process would end and system development would start by February, 2007. The RFP process and prime vendor selections actually took 28 months. The new target date for completion of the procurement process and start of system development is April, 2008.

2. There were significantly more bidder questions than anticipated. Caltrans

determined it was in the best interests of the project to clarify many of the RFP requirements and terms in response to these questions. This added time to the procurement process, but is expected to result in fewer misunderstandings with the prime vendor and a smoother system development phase. In addition, Caltrans determined that spending the time necessary to clarify what was required of vendors increased the likelihood of receiving proposals that met the needs of the project and reduced the risk of protests by unsuccessful bidders.

3. The control agency review and approval of project documents such as the RFP

and RFP addenda exceeded the schedule estimate. 4. The FSR called for a one month “production acceptance” period. During the

development of the RFP Caltrans changed the production acceptance requirement to four months. Given the large number of systems being replaced or interfaced, both the DGS analyst and procurement consultant agreed with Caltrans that the shorter production acceptance period would not provide an adequate amount of time for monitoring the system in the production environment. The four month production acceptance period allows Caltrans to verify end of month and end of quarter functions and reporting while still having the Contractor available onsite to support analysis and correction of any anomalies or problems. Since the Contractor is onsite, it is able to respond to questions and problems in a more timely manner than regular warranty support provides when the Contractor is offsite. It also provides a longer transition period



allowing Caltrans to begin taking responsibility for the system while still having onsite access to the Contractor in the event of complex anomalies or problems

5. Decrease in time for System Development, Deployment, and Training. While the

timeline for procurement is expected to take 14 months longer than originally anticipated, the time required for System Development, Deployment, and Training is expected to take eight months less than originally anticipated for the following reasons:

a. The requirements are more streamlined and well-defined than they were

before. Higher quality requirements are expected to result in improved development efficiency.

b. Discussions with potential vendors led the project management team to

the conclusion that it is not necessary to implement at the fiscal year cutover. The concept of mid-fiscal year implementation was determined to be plausible. Without the need to be tied to a fiscal year end date, more attention could be placed on the actual time needed for implementation.

c. During the extended procurement process, Caltrans was able to better

prepare for the System Design and Implementation phase, performing tasks in advance that would otherwise have been incorporated into the system development timeline. Activities are underway in four key areas: Business Process Review, Data Conversion, Interface Specifications and Requirement Mapping. For example, Caltrans has recently completed updating the Business Process Review, drafted a Data Conversion policy that will facilitate the process of converting existing data into the newly developed system, and begun developing specifications for systems that will interface with IFMS/E-FIS. Also, Caltrans is in the process of mapping requirements to business processes. This will streamline requirements traceability during the development process.




3.3.2 Reason For Change In Costs Caltrans anticipates changes of greater than 10% in its costs for the project. There are three primary reasons for the change in costs: 1. The contract amount proposed by the successful bidder exceeds the estimate

documented in the FSR. The original estimate was $10,595,200, but the successful bid was $15,176,250. Caltrans attributes this increase to the following factors:

a. Additional System Interfaces - While preparing the RFP, Caltrans

performed further analysis of the System Interface requirements identified in the FSR. This analysis uncovered additional existing systems that interface with the core accounting system and must be included in the E-FIS interface requirements. Additionally, some systems with “two-way” interfaces (data flows to and from the core accounting system) were counted as one interface. Caltrans clarified the RFP requirements to correctly describe these as two separate interfaces. While addition of these interfaces increases the work required by the vendor, they don’t change the core functionality of the proposed ERP solution.

b. Additional Data Conversion - While preparing the FSR, Caltrans also

performed further analysis of the storage requirements for data being converted from the current accounting system and determined that 4 terabytes (TB) of data would need to be converted instead of the 0.5 TB of data estimated in the FSR.

c. Increased Production Acceptance Period - During the development of

the RFP, Caltrans changed the production acceptance requirement from one month to four months. Given the large number of systems being replaced or interfaced, both the DGS analyst and procurement consultant agreed with Caltrans that the shorter production acceptance period would not provide an adequate level of time for monitoring the system in the production environment.

2. The extension of the project schedule by 9 ½ months will require Caltrans to

commit more internal staff resources to the project than originally estimated and will also require Caltrans to extend the contracts of the IV&V, IPOC, and Project Management vendors by nine months.

3. DTS costs for data processing and storage, as projected by the successful

bidding vendor, exceeded the cost estimates in the FSR. Caltrans attributes this increase to the fact that required data storage costs were inadvertently omitted from the EAW Proposed Solution worksheet when the FSR was prepared, although this requirement was addressed in the Assumptions in section 6 of the FSR.

Table 3 provides the detailed breakdown of the change in costs from the FSR to the SPR, along with analysis of these changes.


3.4 Proposed Project Change Caltrans is proposing changes to both the project schedule and the project costs as described below:

3.4.1 Change in Schedule The FSR expected a project start date of December 2005 and completion date of June 16, 2009. The new schedule calls for a completion date of April 1, 2010, an increase of 9 ½ months. See Table 2 below:

Table 2. Comparison of Project Phases – FSR to SPR

Project Phase Dec

-05

Jan-

06Fe

b-06

Mar

-06

Apr-0

6M

ay-0

6Ju

n-06

Jul-0

6Au

g-06

Sep-

06O

ct-0

6N

ov-0

6D

ec-0

6Ja

n-07

Feb-

07M

ar-0

7Ap

r-07

May

-07

Jun-

07Ju

l-07

Aug-

07Se

p-07

Oct

-07

Nov

-07

Dec

-07

Jan-

08Fe

b-08

Mar

-08

Apr-0

8M

ay-0

8Ju

n-08

Jul-0

8Au

g-08

Sep-

08O

ct-0

8N

ov-0

8D

ec-0

8Ja

n-09

Feb-

09M

ar-0

9Ap

r-09

May

-09

Jun-

09Ju

l-09

Aug-

09Se

p-09

Oct

-09

Nov

-09

Dec

-09

Jan-

10Fe

b-10

Mar

-10

Feasibilty Study ReportProcurementSystem DevelopmentSystem Deployment and TrainingUser Acceptance (warranty period) 1 mo

Special Project ReportProcurementSystem DevelopmentSystem Deployment and TrainingUser Acceptance (warranty period)

5 mo4 mo

14 months24 months

4 mo

28 months19 months



3.4.2 Change in Costs Table 3 below identifies the differences in proposed total project costs from the FSR to this SPR. The differences are explained in the Discussion Items following the table.

Table 3. Change in Costs – FSR to SPR

Discussion FSR SPR DIFFERENCE

Item PYs Amts PYs Amts PYs Amts One-Time IT Project Costs

Staff (Salaries & Benefits) 1 84.0 7,137,431 87.7 7,917,070 3.7 779,640 Hardware Purchase 0 0 0 Software Purchase/License/Training 2 3,480,000 3,352,630 (127,370) Telecommunications 0 0 0 TOTAL Contract Services 3 10,595,200 15,176,250 4,581,050 Data Center Services 4 0 14,510 14,510 Procure Assistance/DGS/IV&V/Proj Oversight 5 2,324,266 2,479,730 155,464 Other (Travel) 6 90,000 360,677 270,677

Total One-time IT Costs 84.0 23,626,897 87.7 29,300,867 3.7 5,673,971 Continuing IT Project Costs

Staff (Salaries & Benefits) 7 32.0 2,720,000 21.3 1,941,333 (10.7) (778,667) Hardware Lease/Maintenance 0 0 0 Software Maintenance/Licenses 8 1,183,200 1,796,075 612,875 Telecommunications 0 0 0 Contract Services 0 0 0 Data Center Services 9 3,807,627 6,773,643 2,966,016 Agency Facilities 0 0 0 Other - Training 591,600 591,600 0

Total Continuing IT Costs 32.0 8,302,427 21.3 11,102,651 (10.7) 2,800,224

Total Project Costs 31,929,324 40,403,519 8,474,195



Discussion of Changes In Costs Item 1 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Staff Salaries and Benefits. This line item is higher than estimated in the original

FSR, with an increase of 3.7 PYs and $779,640. The Finance Letter related to this SPR includes the extension of 12 limited-term positions from 2 years to 3 years. The positions were set to expire February 2009 but due to project delays, staff levels need to be extended until February 2010. Position management was exercised in FY 2006/07 and 2007/08. Procurement delays resulted in program subject matter experts not being redirected to the project as early as originally estimated in the FSR. The net increase in project staff costs is 3.7 PYs and $779,640. In addition to the increased staff needs, the estimated salary rate applied to PYs was updated for the SPR. The FSR staff salary rate assumption was $85,000 per PY; the updated rate applied to the SPR (for FY 07/08 and beyond) is $91,000 to factor in COLA increases effective during this time period.

Item 2 – One-Time IT Project Costs – Software Purchase/License/Training. The bid amount for this item was lower than

estimated in the FSR. Item 3 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Total Contract Services. This line item increased because the contract amount

proposed by CGI exceeds the original estimate documented in the FSR. The original estimate was $10,595,200, but the successful bid was $15,176,250. During the development of the RFP, Caltrans determined the need for, and added the requirement of, a four month production acceptance period which increases the cost of services from the vendor. The cost of this longer acceptance period was not estimated in the FSR. Also, further analysis revealed that the vendor will be required to design more system interfaces and assist in more data conversion than estimated when the FSR was developed.

Item 4 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Data Center Services. This cost item is for DTS hardware setup costs not included

in the original FSR. Item 5 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Procure Assistance/DGS/IV&V/Proj Oversight. This line item increased by

$155,464. Revising the project completion date to April 2010 required the completion dates for the IPOC, IV&V and Project Management contracts to be revised from June 30, 2009 to March 20, 2010. The initial cost of the eight month extension is estimated at $341,950. However, initial contract amounts negotiated for these services are lower than estimated in the FSR. Therefore, the net increase to this line item is only $155,464.

Item 6 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Other (Travel). This cost item was not included beyond FY06/07 in the original

FSR. The SPR was written to reflect Operating Expense funding stated in the BCP and Finance Letter through FY09/10.


artment of Transportation Integrated Financial Management System SPR


Item 7 – Continuing IT Project Costs; Staff Salaries and Benefits. This line item is lower than estimated in the original

FSR. The PY figure for FY 09/10 is lower because of the change in project implementation date. The FSR anticipated continuing IT support of 16 PYs per fiscal year would start at the beginning of the fiscal year. However, our new schedule anticipates continuing IT support will start with only 4 months left in the fiscal year, resulting in a prorated PY figure of 5.3 PYs for the remainder of FY09/10.

Item 8 – Continuing IT Project Costs – Software Purchase/License/Training. The actual bid amount for this item was

higher than estimated in the FSR. Item 9 – Continuing IT Project Costs – Data Center Services. The line item was higher than estimated in the FSR,

because required data storage costs were inadvertently omitted from the EAW Proposed Solution worksheet when the FSR was prepared, although this requirement was addressed in the Assumptions in section 6 of the FSR.

.

Dep


3.5 Impact of Proposed Change on Project

Table 4. Impact of Proposed Change on Project

# Area Impact

1. Scope • Caltrans is not requesting any changes in scope 2. Schedule • Implementation date changed from June 2009

to April 2010. 3. Cost • Increased total one-time costs by $5,673,971.

• Increased total continuing costs by $2,800,224. • Increased total project costs by $8,474,195.

3.6 Feasible Alternatives Considered There were no alternatives considered for the purposes of this SPR.

3.7 Implementation Plan There is no change to the Implementation Plan as approved in the FSR.



4.0 Updated Project Management Plan

4.1 Project Manager Qualifications Since the FSR for the IFMS/E-FIS project was approved, Caltrans has assigned an experienced project manager with the requisite project management skills to lead the IFMS/E-FIS project. Caltrans selected a project manager from the Division of Accounting so that the project would be managed and owned from a business perspective.

Kathy Booher, the assigned project manager, has worked for Caltrans in the Division of Accounting for nearly 18 years. A Certified Public Accountant (CPA), she has experience as the Chief of Caltrans' Office of Financial Accounting and Analysis, and was the Chief of the Branch responsible for managing and operating Caltrans’ primary legacy financial system, TRAMS. Her years of experience in the Division have provided her with an understanding of Caltrans' business processes, supporting systems, and the objectives and requirements of IFMS/E-FIS. Her background has also provided her with extensive experience managing complex programs, leading staff, and implementing Department-wide change. Ms. Booher has broadened her management experience by taking formal courses in project management. Within the past year, Ms. Booher has completed the courses to achieve a Certificate in Project Management from the California State University, Sacramento, College of Continuing Education. In addition, she recently completed a comprehensive course in ERP Project Management sponsored by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.

Caltrans has supplemented Ms. Booher’s experience by adding Ardeana Ota as the IFMS/E-FIS Technical Project Manager. Ms. Ota will manage the technical tasks and personnel assigned to the project. She will bring specific experience managing technical projects and staff to IFMS/E-FIS. She has more than 9 years of technical project management experience, all with Caltrans. She has recently been responsible for managing the initial implementation of Caltrans’ enterprise-wide human resource ERP system, which is a COTS application. In this role, she was responsible for managing the software and integration vendor for the HR application, and managed approximately 20 state technical staff assigned to the system’s implementation and support teams. Overall, she has direct experience managing ERP implementation projects and “hands on” experience using system development processes and standards.

Finally, the IFMS/E-FIS project procured a project management consultant, Infiniti Consulting Group, to supplement and enhance existing project management skills. The project management consultant will continue on the IFMS/E-FIS project through completion.

4.2 Project Management Methodology The IFMS/E-FIS project management methodology has been updated to better reflect the OCIO’s Oversight Framework and the project management needs of the project.

Since the approval of the FSR, the IFMS/E-FIS project has implemented project management processes and plans in compliance with the State’s Project Management Methodology as defined in SIMM Section 200 and the Office of the Chief Information Officer IT Project Oversight Framework (SIMM 45), augmented by project management methodologies as found in Caltrans’ Information Technology (IT) Project Management Methodology Manual.



The following processes and plans were established for the IFMS/E-FIS to guide our activities during the procurement phase of the project (project prior to the selection of CGI) and provide a project management “infrastructure” for future phases:

Project Management Plan

Risk Management Plan

IT Procurement Plan

Communications Plan

Issue Management Process

Project Schedule Update Process

Budget Management Process

Quality Management Plan

Resource Management Plan

Scope Change Management Plan

Contract Management Plan

Deliverable Review Process

Organizational Change Management Plan

During the proposal process, CGI submitted a draft Project Management Plan detailing the recommended system development and project management processes specific to the implementation of their proposed solution. The draft Project Management Plan was developed as a requirement of the IFMS/E-FIS Request for Proposal. The CGI Project Management Plan is based on CGI project management best practices and leverages the CGI’s Client Partnership Management Framework and Advantage Implementation Methodology for project management and system development and implementation. The CGI Project Management Plan details the following:

Project Management Approach and Methodology

Proposed Project Schedule

Approach to Deliverables (use of Deliverable Expectation Documents, deliverable review process, and deliverable quality control)

Project Organization Structure

Development Process Model (tools and methodologies for system development, implementation, and conversion)

Issue Resolution Approach

Communication Plan

Schedule Management Plan

Quality Control Plan

Document Management Plan

Risk Management Plan



Configuration Management Plan

CGI was directed to submit this information to identify the processes, tools, and techniques which have been successfully used in the past to implement its specific products. Caltrans will work with CGI to integrate all project management processes and plans into a comprehensive Project Management Plan to be implemented and managed by the IFMS/E-FIS Project Office. This approach will enable the IFMS/E-FIS project to conform to the State’s Project Management Methodology as defined in SIMM Section 200, the Office of the Chief Information Officer IT Project Oversight Framework (SIMM 45), and Caltrans’ Information Technology (IT) Project Management Methodology Manual while also leveraging CGI’s tools and best practices for the implementation of its specific products.

4.3 Project Organization

The organizational structure for the IFMS/E-FIS Project is illustrated below in Figure 1. The number and classification of the state team members assigned to the project is also detailed in Table 5. Figure 1. IFMS/E-FIS Project Organization

TRAINING AND CHANGEMarSue Kleptic

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONWill Kempton, Director

E-FIS STEERING COMMITTEEProject Sponsors

Cindy McKim, Chief Financial OfficerAnn Barsotti, Chief Information Officer

IFMS PORTFOLIO PROJECTS MANAGERKari Gutierrez

E-FIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

E-FIS PROJECT MANAGERKathy Booher

E-FIS TECHNICAL PROJECTMANAGER

Ardeana OtaDEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

NETWORK / SERVER TEAM

DEVELOPMENT / INTERFACETEAM

BUSINESS PROCESS ANDSYSTEM CONFIGURATION

TEAMLisa Kwong

TEST TEAM1 Senior Project Manager

FTE

PROJECT MANAGEMENTCONSULTANT

Infiniti Consulting Group

PRIME VENDOR PROJECTMANAGER

TBD

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENTCOMMITTEE

IT OFFICE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONBill Brown

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

INDEPENDENT PROJECT OVERSIGHTCONSULTANT

RMA Consulting Group

TECHNICAL TEAMS BUSINESS TEAMS

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

SUPPORT

E-FIS PROJECT OFFICEMarlin Lofton

INDEPENDENT VALIDATION ANDVERIFICATION CONSULTANT

Visionary Integration Professionals(VIP)

QUALITYASSURANCE

IFMS E-FIS PROJECTProject Organization Chart



Figure 2. Information Technology Organization

Chief Information OfficerAnn Barsotti

Office of ProjectImplementation

Kari Gutierrez

Project ManagementOffice

Lori Knott

IFMS/EFIS IT ProjectManager

Ardeana Ota

Information Technology



Figure 3. Department of Transportation Organization



Table 5 below presents the classifications of the state personnel assigned to the IFMS/E-FIS team.

Table 5. IFMS/E-FIS Project Team Classifications

IFMS/E-FIS Project Team Staffing Resources

Number State Employee Classification

Project Manager 1 Accounting Administrator III

1 Senior Information Systems Analyst (Supervisor)

2 Accounting Administrator II

1 Accounting Administrator I

3 Staff Information Systems Analyst

1 Associate Information Systems Analyst

Project Management Team

3 Associate Accounting Analyst

1 Data Processing Manager III Technical Project Manager

1 Senior Programmer Analyst Supervisor (Supervisor)

4 Staff Programmer Analyst

2 Systems Software Specialist II

Technical Project Team

1 Associate Programmer Analyst



4.4 Project Priorities

The project priorities for the IFMS/E-FIS project have changed as illustrated below in Table 6. Due to feedback received from prospective vendors and the IV&V consultant’s recommendations, Caltrans determined that mid-fiscal year implementation was acceptable. Although the timely and successful completion of the IFMS/E-FIS project is critical to improving Caltrans’ operational abilities, removing the fiscal year end implementation constraint provides some flexibility in the project implementation date. As a result, the project schedule is changed from constrained to accepted. The project scope is changed from accepted to constrained as the success and functionality of latter projects are directly dependent on the successful implementation of the IFMS/E-FIS project. Finally, resources remain improved, meaning that additional resources may be added to the project depending on the circumstances and requirements of the project.

Table 6. Project Priorities

Schedule Scope Resources Accepted Constrained Improved

4.5 Project Plan

The following section details any changes to critical project planning elements, including project scope, project assumptions, project phasing, and an initial schedule estimate.

4.5.1 Project Scope

There are no changes to project scope since the FSR.

4.5.2 Project Assumptions The following assumptions have changed since the development of the FSR. All other project assumptions remain the same:

The FSR assumed that funding for the IFMS/E-FIS project is acquired for the time period specified in the FSR. Due to significant procurement delays, this assumption is changed to reflect that funding for the IFMS project will be available for the time period required for project completion as specified in the revised project schedule included in this document.

The FSR assumed that the project would adhere to a strict schedule in which all milestones would be met. Caltrans has determined that the highest priority for the IFMS/E-FIS project will be to meet Caltrans’ business objectives. Accordingly, the schedule and milestones may be modified to ensure that the project meets the Caltrans’ business objectives and produces quality deliverables. However, established project management processes will be utilized to minimize changes to the project schedule and key milestones. When changes to the project milestones are necessary, they will be approved by the project Steering Committee as defined in the project's schedule update process (referred to in Section 4.2 of this SPR). Significant changes to the project schedule will be made in accordance with Office of the Chief Information Officer



requirements (including those for Special Project Reports). Refer to Section 4.4 for a related discussion of the project priorities.

The FSR assumed that all vendor contracts and procurements would be accomplished within planned timelines (as stated in the FSR). However, due to delays in the procurement processes for the Independent Project Oversight Consultant (IPOC), the Independent Verification and Validation vendor (IV&V), and the Integration Partner, the project has experienced delays in obtaining these consultant services. The delays for procuring the IV&V and IPOC have not significantly impacted the overall project schedule and deliverables. However, delays procuring the Integration Partner have impacted the IFMS/E-FIS implementation date. As a result of the delays in procuring the Integration Partner, the project schedule has been revised from an implementation date of July 1, 2009 to December 7, 2009. These delays are discussed in Section 3.4.1 of this SPR.

4.5.3 Project Phasing

The IFMS/E-FIS project FSR included project phasing which reflected the typical system development and implementation methodology for a COTS ERP package. As required by the IFMS/E-FIS RFP, CGI included in its proposal a draft project schedule which reflected the specific system development and implementation methodology for its proposed solution, modified as appropriate to meet the IFMS/E-FIS project’s timelines, resources, and requirements as expressed in the RFP.

The IFMS/E-FIS project team will modify its existing project schedule (which is based on the schedule and phases in the FSR) to incorporate CGI’s project schedule. A listing of the phases in the CGI project schedule and a summary of the tasks within the phases is presented in Table 7.

Table 7. IFMS/E-FIS Project Phases

Phase Description/Deliverables

Phase 1: Project

Management

Initiate and organize the project Update and finalize the project management plan Develop and finalize additional plans (not included in the project management

plan) Business Process Reengineering Plan Lifecycle Test Plan Organizational Change Leadership and Communication Plan Training Plan

Execute project plans and processes Manage project operations



Phase Description/Deliverables

Phase 2: Envision

Analyze “As-Is” and define “To-Be” business processes (including Chart of Accounts)

Define EAI business model and technical architecture Install and configure ERP prototype Conduct data warehouse / business intelligence analysis, design data warehouse Develop System Architecture Design Document Analyze and validate requirements Complete Additional Required Plans (based on Phase 2 work products):

Data Conversion Plan Requirements Management Plan Implementation and Transition Plan

Phase 3: Build

Establish operational environments: Development Integrated system test Acceptance test Performance test Data conversion Backup and recovery

Complete IFMS/E-FIS detailed design Develop and test IFMS/E-FIS application components Train users Train technical and support staff

Phase 4: Achieve

Set up security and workflow Prepare for production cutover Conduct production cutover readiness assessment Perform production cutover (implementation)

Phase 5: Production Acceptance

Confirm production cutover Transition production deliverables Complete acceptance period tasks

Conduct backup and recovery verification test Correct solution deliverables (defects, etc.)

Final acceptance

4.5.4 Roles and Responsibilities Roles and responsibilities have not changed since the approval of the FSR.

4.5.5 Project Schedule

The project schedule for the IFMS/E-FIS project is attached as a separate document.



4.6 Project Monitoring

Since the approval of the FSR, Caltrans has established a Project Schedule Update Process, Budget Management Process, Scope Change Control Process, and Communications Plan to monitor and control the project. Together, these plans and processes (which have been previously referenced in Section 4.2 Project Management Methodology) establish Caltrans’ project monitoring approach for the IFMS/E-FIS project. In addition to the existing processes established by Caltrans, the project will integrate as appropriate any project monitoring processes suggested by the Integration Partner, as detailed in the Integration Partner’s Project Management Plan described in Section 4.2 of this document.

4.7 Project Quality

Caltrans has established a Project Quality Management Plan which features the use of an Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) vendor for project quality.

4.8 Change Management

The Integration Partner will be required to submit a change management plan to Caltrans once the integration partner begins work on the project. The plan will leverage proven change management techniques specific to the implementation of the selected software. Caltrans will work closely with the integration partner to implement the plan and has established dedicated project resources for change management.

4.9 Authorization Required

As required by the DOF approval of the IFMS FSR dated January 11, 2006, the SPR is required to be submitted to OCIO for approval upon completion of the bid process but before contract award.




5.0 Updated Risk Management Plan There have been no material changes to the Risk Management plan since the Feasibility Study Report.


6.0 Updated Economic Analysis Worksheets The IFMS/E-FIS project’s EAW’s have been updated to reflect the proposed project changes. The original EAW, submitted with the FSR, is included to provide a baseline for the updates. Both of these documents are included as separately attached Excel files. This section also includes the revised EAW, Economic Analysis Summary Worksheet, and the updated Project Funding Plan. The Project Funding Plan indicates that Caltrans will fund project activities through a combination of staff redirects, and BCP and Finance Letter funding for fiscal years 06/07, 07/08, 08/09, and 09/10.

As stated in Section 3.4.2, there are 9 reasons for the change in IFMS/E-FIS project costs. Below is a detailed breakdown of the changes in costs between the FSR and this SPR. The differences are explained in the Discussion Items following this table:

Table 8. Economic Analysis – Change in Costs

Discussion FSR SPR DIFFERENCE Item PYs Amts PYs Amts PYs Amts One-Time IT Project Costs

Staff (Salaries & Benefits) 1 84.0 7,137,431 87.7 7,917,070 3.7 779,640 Hardware Purchase 0 0 0 Software Purchase/License/Training 2 3,480,000 3,352,630 (127,370) Telecommunications 0 0 0 TOTAL Contract Services 3 10,595,200 15,176,250 4,581,050 Data Center Services 4 0 14,510 14,510 Procure Assistance/DGS/IV&V/Proj Oversight 5 2,324,266 2,479,730 155,464 Other (Travel) 6 90,000 360,677 270,677

Total One-time IT Costs 84.0 23,626,897 87.7 29,300,867 3.7 5,673,971 Continuing IT Project Costs

Staff (Salaries & Benefits) 7 32.0 2,720,000 21.3 1,941,333 (10.7) (778,667) Hardware Lease/Maintenance 0 0 0 Software Maintenance/Licenses 8 1,183,200 1,796,075 612,875 Telecommunications 0 0 0 Contract Services 0 0 0 Data Center Services 9 3,807,627 6,773,643 2,966,016 Agency Facilities 0 0 0 Other - Training 591,600 591,600 0

Total Continuing IT Costs 32.0 8,302,427 21.3 11,102,651 (10.7) 2,800,224

Total Project Costs 31,929,324 40,403,519 8,474,195



Discussion of Changes In Costs Item 1 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Staff Salaries and Benefits. This line item is higher than estimated in the original

FSR, with an increase of 3.7 PYs and $779,640. The Finance Letter related to this SPR includes the extension of 12 limited-term positions from 2 years to 3 years. The positions were set to expire February 2009 but due to project delays, staff levels need to be extended until February 2010. Position management was exercised in FY 2006/07 and 2007/08. Procurement delays resulted in program subject matter experts not being redirected to the project as early as originally estimated in the FSR. The net increase in project staff costs is 3.7 PYs and $779,640. In addition to the increased staff needs, the estimated salary rate applied to PYs was updated for the SPR. The FSR staff salary rate assumption was $85,000 per PY; the updated rate applied to the SPR (for FY 07/08 and beyond) is $91,000 to factor in COLA increases effective during this time period.

Item 2 – One-Time IT Project Costs – Software Purchase/License/Training. The bid amount for this item was lower than

estimated in the FSR. Item 3 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Total Contract Services. This line item increased because the contract amount

proposed by CGI exceeds the original estimate documented in the FSR. The original estimate was $10,595,200, but the successful bid was $15,176,250. During the development of the RFP, Caltrans determined the need for, and added the requirement of, a four month production acceptance period which increases the cost of services from the vendor. The cost of this longer acceptance period was not estimated in the FSR. Also, further analysis revealed that the vendor will be required to design more system interfaces and assist in more data conversion than estimated when the FSR was developed.

Item 4 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Data Center Services. This cost item is for DTS hardware setup costs not included

in the original FSR. Item 5 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Procure Assistance/DGS/IV&V/Proj Oversight. This line item increased by

$155,464. Revising the project completion date to April 2010 required the completion dates for the IPOC, IV&V and Project Management contracts to be revised from June 30, 2009 to March 20, 2010. The initial cost of the eight month extension is estimated at $341,950. However, initial contract amounts negotiated for these services are lower than estimated in the FSR. Therefore, the net increase to this line item is only $155,464.



Item 6 – One-Time IT Project Costs; Other (Travel). This cost item was not included beyond FY06/07 in the original FSR. The SPR was written to reflect Operating Expense funding stated in the BCP and Finance Letter through FY09/10.

Item 7 – Continuing IT Project Costs; Staff Salaries and Benefits. This line item is lower than estimated in the original

FSR. The PY figure for FY 09/10 is lower because of the change in project implementation date. The FSR anticipated continuing IT support of 16 PYs per fiscal year would start at the beginning of the fiscal year. However, our new schedule anticipates continuing IT support will start with only 4 months left in the fiscal year, resulting in a prorated PY figure of 5.3 PYs for the remainder of FY09/10.

Item 8 – Continuing IT Project Costs – Software Purchase/License/Training. The actual bid amount for this item was

higher than estimated in the FSR. Item 9 – Continuing IT Project Costs – Data Center Services. The line item was higher than estimated in the FSR,

primarily because required data storage costs were inadvertently omitted from the EAW Proposed Solution worksheet when the FSR was prepared, although this requirement was addressed in the Assumptions in section 6 of the FSR.
