Request for Project Closeout Certification Form s4

Closeout Request for Project Closeout Certification Form

ALL CERTIFIED PROJECTS MUST FOLLOW NM STATE POLICIES AND PROCUREMENT CODE

1. PROJECT GOVERNANCE

PROJECT NAME Recycled Metals Management System PROJECT SHORT NAME(S) RMMS

DATE September 25, 2013

LEAD AGENCY New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)

OTHER AGENCIES J. Dee Dennis, Superintendent EXECUTIVE SPONSOR

AGENCY HEAD J. Dee Dennis, Superintendent

AGENCY CIO/IT LEAD Ryan Gutierrez, Chief Information Officer

PROJECT MANAGER Ryan Gutierrez, Chief Information Officer

2. PROJECT ABSTRACT (PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE FOR THIS PROJECT.) The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department was tasked in 2008 (Sales of Recycled Metals Act, Sections 57-30-1 through 57-30-17 NMSA 1978) with registration of recycled metal dealers. In addition, RLD is required to “maintain an electronic database” which must be “accessible to the public. Records received by the department...shall be made available in the database by the end of the second business day following receipt by the department.”

The records RLD receives are “record[s] of purchase” of “secondhand metal dealer” metal purchases bought or sold in the state. We have had to operate this program out of budget balances for several years. The paperwork submitted to the department had increased to a point that it was no longer feasible to maintain the manual process. Recycled metal dealer tracking was several months behind. Moreover, the ability of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) to query was extremely limited. As well, there was no validation of reported information currently in place.

As part of a FY13 appropriation, RLD was preparing to deploy a recycled metals management system, to include the design and development of a centralized database as well as to develop a

Revision: 6/18/13 Page 1

software application wherein dealers could electronically submit their transactions directly to this centralized database on a daily basis. Query access to this database was to have been restricted to law enforcement officials only.

During the development of the Recycled Metals Management System, the original business owner, project manager, internal developer and business analyst resigned their positions at RLD. As a result the project documentation and current status was not passed on to the remaining members of the IT Team or to any other RLD staff. The funding for this project expired in June 2013 at the end of FY13. Due to the lack of communication and project management, the remaining RLD IT Staff did not have adequate time and information to complete the project’s original scope of work prior to the funding expiring. The contractors involved required a minimum of 8 months to complete the required tasks of building an interface with other agencies.

To satisfy the legislative mandate of “maintaining an electronic database…which is accessible to the public”, RLD will be deploying a more simplified version of the project scope which allows for Recycled Metals Dealers to access an internally developed web application that provides a mechanism for the dealers to bulk upload their transactions to the RMMS database. This web application provides the ability for the dealers to manually input individual transactions if a bulk uploaded is not needed. An administration section of the website allows the program manager to create new dealers, manage the metal types recorded and to perform basic transaction searches.

RLD will provide reporting to the public and to external agencies through a separate web interface using COTS technology to provide reporting, querying and transaction reviewing functions. A direct interface will not be provided with the modified version of the RMMS application. Law enforcement and other agencies will be required to access the same interface used by the public to view dealer transactions however additional querying functionally (Name, driver’s license, etc.) will be provided to those agencies that request it.

3A. Scope Verification

REQUIREMENTS REVIEW Yes No Explanation/Notes Were the project objectives (expected Interface to law enforcement  outcomes) accomplished? agencies was not provided. Interface to law enforcement Were all Deliverables submitted and  agencies was not provided, Phase 2 accepted? was not completed N/A – IV&V was not performed Did the IV&V vendor verify that all  on this project. A waiver was deliverables met the requirements? requested 8/14/2012. No contracts were opened for this Have all contracts been closed?  project. Project funding was closed at the Have all final payments been made (i.e.,  end of FY13. All purchases and invoices paid) invoices have been paid. Have all project documents/records been  appropriately stored for future reference? Knowledge transfer from the Has adequate knowledge transfer been  original internal developer has completed? been completed.

3B. MAJOR PROJECT DELIVERABLES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES MET Major Project Deliverable and Performance Measure Budget Date Project Phase (Include an explanation if deliverable or performance measure was not met.) Phase One Requirements Specification/Project $0.00* 09/2012 One Plan/Requirements Traceability Matrix(RTM) Deployment of recycled metals repository database $0.00* 09/2012 One Web interface for recycled metals dealers to submit $0.00* 09/2012 One transaction data to database Bulk file transfer capability (XML, Excel, CSV) $0.00* 09/2012 One Limited LEA query capability1 $0.00* Not One completed Standard reports $0.00* Not complet- One

ed Expanded network storage / server hardware2 $0.00 03/01/2013 One System / User documentation (contract tech writer) $4,012.50 12/12/2012 One Phase Two Requirements Specification/Project $0.00* Not complet- Two Plan/RTM (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) ed MVD interface to validate seller ID (Not Met – $0.00* Not Two Funding lost at end of FY13) completed NMLETS interface to provide full LEA query $0.00* Not Two capability (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) completed Public Web interface for query capability (Not Met – $0.00* Not Two Funding lost at end of FY13) completed Expanded Administration/Reports module (Not Met – $0.00* Not Two Funding lost at end of FY13) completed Training / system documentation (contract tech $0.00* Not Two writer) (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) completed Extended warranty(s) (Not Met – Funding lost at end $0.00* Not Two of FY13) completed

1 – Reporting will be provided through a Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services Web Interface once data has been populated in the database

2 – SAN Expansion was funded from RLD IT Operational Budget

4A. CERTIFICATION HISTORY Cert. Date Cert. Amount Funding Source(s) – Funding Total Amount (Cite the specific laws, grants, etc. and total amount.) August 4, $100,000 LAWS 2012 HB2, Chapter 19, Section 5, Item 13 2012

4B. RFP / Contract History (LIST ALL RFP’S AND CONTRACTS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT.) List RFP and Contract Contract Compensation % (Purpose and/or Description) Number Amount or NA Complete

5. Schedule and Budget Planned Start Date September 1, 2012 Actual Start Date September 1, 2012 Planned End Date January 1, 2014 Actual End Date June 30, 2013 Planned Cost: $100,000 Actual Cost: $11,899.85 (Budget) (Total) . Profes . Pr $4,012.50 sional Services ofessional Services . Hard . Ha $6,666.63 ware rdware . Softw . So $1,220.72 are ftware . Netw . Ne ork twork . Other . Ot her

6A. Independent Verification & Validation (INCLUDE SUMMARY OF THE LAST IV&V REPORT OR RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT.)

N/A – IV&V was requested on 8/14/2012 for this project, however we cannot locate the DoIT

letter that granted the waiver.

6B. LESSONS LEARNED  Hire a project manager to maintain the project from start to finish. RLD does not have the internal staffing to maintain a project of this scope adequately.  Consider a commercial off the shelf solution rather than a custom built application.  Include end user staff in design, development and testing/all phases of project.  Need to improve project handoff between internal staff.

7. TRANSITION TO OPERATIONS Yes No Explanation/Notes Are there recurring maintenance/operational  N/A costs for the product/service? Are there any recommended enhancements  or updates? Summary of agency plan to support project solution in production.

RLD will support the reduced project scope using the web application we built internally, and existing RLD staff.

Summary of agency plans to fund the maintenance and Operations of this project.

No additional funding is required to support the reduced project scope using the web application we built internally, and existing RLD staff.