Request for Project Closeout Certification Form s2

Closeout Request for Project Closeout Certification Form

ALL CERTIFIED PROJECTS MUST FOLLOW NM STATE POLICIES AND PROCUREMENT CODE

1. PROJECT GOVERNANCE

PROJECT NAME CID Permitting and Inspections Replacement PROJECT SHORT NAME(S)

DATE November 30, 2016

LEAD AGENCY Regulation and Licensing Department

OTHER AGENCIES None Robert (Mike) Unthank, Superintendent EXECUTIVE SPONSOR

AGENCY HEAD Robert (Mike) Unthank, Superintendent

AGENCY CIO/IT LEAD David Martinez

PROJECT MANAGER David Martinez & Vadra Baca

1. PROJECT ABSTRACT (PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE FOR THIS PROJECT.) The scope of the State of New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department- Construction Industries Division (CID) Permitting and Inspections Replacement Project is to procure and implement a new system to upgrade its current permitting and inspection software KIVA to the latest permitting and inspection technologies.

The new system, Accela solution is built around a robust workflow manager that was configured to meet RLD established workflows, enforce RLD business rules, and notify involved parties as tasks are assigned and completed. This has allowed the agency to streamline processes, reduce the time and effort to process permits and licenses, initiate and manage compliance cases, and conduct inspections.

The new permitting system has also made it easier for contractors and residents to apply for permits, check the status of an application, estimate fees, and schedule inspections via a robust web portal. RLD is able to offer powerful Electronic Document Review technology, making it easier to do business with customers and provide a more modern permitting system to the agencies clients and staff. RLD acquired and installed the software upgrade and licensing in FY14 and configured, tested,

Revision: 6/18/13 Page 1

trained and deployed the upgraded permitting system in FY15-FY16. RLD had an IT business analyst and IT Application Developer III assigned to the project. Other IT staff were also involved in the software deployment and configuration. There was also a team of existing Construction Industries staff assigned to the project to ensure the business needs of the division were addressed. This team was responsible for system configuration, testing, user acceptance, training and deployment leading to project closeout.

The Accela Automation (AA), Accela Citizen Access (ACA) and Accela Mobile Office (AMO) were implemented on October 27, 2016. Since Go Live, the division has issued 66,558 permits. 47,314 permits were issued through ACA and 19,245 were issued through AA. The Division has completed 67,134 inspections. The KIVA system (previous system) shows the division issued 40,614 permits and completed 61,304 inspections from October 2014 through October 2015.

With Accela, RLD realized the following efficiencies and successes:  The system will not allow a permit to be issued unless you have the proper license classification.  Reporting capabilities – the agency has been trained on all aspects of report writing and development. This allows us to produce accurate and complex reports.  Contractors can track the progress of permits on ACA.  Inspection fees (current and failed) are auto assessed.

The project close out was delayed due to the department holding the retainer fee until all issues logged at Go Live were resolved.

3A. Scope Verification

REQUIREMENTS REVIEW Yes No Explanation/Notes Were the project objectives (expected X outcomes) accomplished? Were all Deliverables submitted and X accepted? Did the IV&V vendor verify that all X deliverables met the requirements? Have all contracts been closed? X Have all final payments been made (i.e., X invoices paid)

3A. Scope Verification Have all project documents/records been X appropriately stored for future reference? Has adequate knowledge transfer been X 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.) Acquired software from vendor $ 692,805.79 06/02/2014 Initiation/Planning

Project Initiation (Project Kickoff, Core Team Training) $ 79,971.07 02/05/2015 Initiation Planning IV&V $34,749.83 12/15/2015 Accela Automation / Setup - Dev and Test $ 29,432.22 03/19/2015 Initiation/Planning Updates to Best Practice Configuration $ 41,203.82 04/06/2015 Initiation/Planning To-Be Analysis Sessions $ 88,290.23 04/29/2015 Initiation/Planning To-Be Analysis Documents $ 88,290.23 04/29/2015 Initiation/Planning Accela Automation Solution Foundation $ 88,290.23 06/02/2015 Initiation/Planning Interface Analysis and Development – APO $ 41,203.82 05/28/2015 Implementation Interface Analysis and Development – PSI $ 41,229.79 06/29/2015 Implementation Interface Analysis and Development – EDMS $ 41,200.72 04/22/2015 Implementation Business Process Validation and Automation $ 41,260.86 05/25/2015 Implementation Accela Mobile Configuration $ 41,260.86 05/28/2015 Implementation Report Workshop $ 27,806.06 06/05/2015 Training User Experience $ 13,450.60 09/10/2015 Training Accela Automation Setup – Production $ 10,087.95 09/03/2015 Implementation Administrative Training $ 26,901.20 08/05/2015 Training Daily User Training $ 16,813.25 09/04/2015 Training User Acceptance Testing $ 30,263.85 08/28/2015 Testing Production Support $ 16,813.25 11/06/2015

Post Deployment Support and Transition to the Customer $ 6,725.39 Resource Center (CRC) Total: $ 1,498,051.02

4A. CERTIFICATION HISTORY Cert. Date Cert. Amount Funding Source(s) – Funding Total Amount (Cite the specific laws, grants, etc. and total amount.) 4/23/2014 $692,806 Laws 2013, Chapter 227, Section 4; RLD FY14 (Initiation/ Operating Budget Planning) 4/22/2015 $186,200 Laws 2013, Chapter 227, Section 7 (12) (Planning) $230,003 Laws 2014, Chapter 63, Section 4 Total: $416,203 7/22/2015 $369,770 Laws 2014, Chapter 63, Section 4 Implementation $19,272 Laws 2015, Chapter 101, Section 4 Total: $389,042 Total: $1,498,051

4B. RFP / Contract History (LIST ALL RFP’S AND CONTRACTS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT.) Contract Compensation List RFP and Contract % Number Amount or (Purpose and/or Description) Complete NA Professional Services – Accela 15 420 1601 00019 $770,495.40 100% Automation Professional Services – IV&V 15 420 1601 00023 $34,749.83 100% Maintenance Agreement 16 420 1601 00010 $549,075.30 33%

5. Schedule and Budget Planned Start Date 4/23/2013 Actual Start Date 4/23/2013

Planned End Date 6/30/2015 Actual End Date 6/17/2016 Planned Cost: $1,573,676 Actual Cost: $1,498,051 (Budget) (Total) . Profes $880,870 . Pr $805,245 sional Services ofessional Services . Hard . Ha ware rdware . Softw $692,806 . So $692,806 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.) Cognosante was the IV&V vendor selected for this project. We received a project management plan, initial assessment report, 4 periodic reviews and a close out report. Phase 1 was completed in green status. RLD had a single severity 1 error involving fees that had to be computed. A work-around was put in place and the issue was resolved by November 15. The Accela Automation system is working well as is demonstrated by the successful processing of over 4,000 CID permits. This is a good indicator that the Accela system is working and that CID is able to manage its workflow more efficiently than under the old KIVA system.

6B. LESSONS LEARNED

Project Management:  The project charter did not clearly identify key project governance roles. The project manager’s duties and responsibilities were not defined nor was a project steering committee convened.  Lacking a formal dedicated project management structure, the vendor, Accela, filled in and led the weekly project team meetings until they were discontinued. In effect RLD delegated some project activities to Accela.  The vendor also experienced significant staff turnover. Accela had two project managers over the course of Phase 1 of the project. This resulted in some confusion between Accela and RLD as to project scope, schedule and responsibilities.  A project steering committee was not defined until late in the project. Absent regularly scheduled steering committee meetings, project risks, issues, scope and schedule changes were communicated in Senior Management Team settings.  Bi-weekly project meetings were discontinued when the Accela project manager left. The new project manager called meeting occasionally but not on a scheduled basis.  Need buy-in from Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and better understanding of what UAT is supposed to do.  Better exposure of RLD staff to what the public sees.  Need better stakeholder communication plan – escalation of issues from project team to the ESC.  Hold regular steering committee meetings with agendas and minutes. Risk Management:  There was no active risk management structure/process in place. Risks were not addressed formally in project team meetings.  Need better risk/issue resolution – escalation to ESC. Change Management:  There was no formal change management process. The project plan and schedule were not updated to reflect changes in scope.  The Project Management Plan was not updated during the course of the project. An initial schedule in Microsoft Project was discontinued. An Excel spreadsheet was substituted but never updated. The schedule was never baselined. Communication Management:  RLD did not effectively utilize its Internet tools (RLD Website and CID Website) to communicate key information about the project. There was no central location for project documentation (plan, schedule, deliverables, etc.). Accela posted information about the project on a SharePoint site but it was not generally available to all stakeholders.  The Agency should produce a newsletter about project progress, etc.

 Train line staff to not say to the public “the system doesn’t work” when encountering production issues/training issues. Requirements Management:  More scripts needed for testing. Due to budget we were only able to request 30 scripts and we could have used a least 7 additional scripts. The additional scripts would have been used to update the workflow as tasks were completed.  RLD will apply a lesson learned from Phase One and add a specific requirements traceability matrix (RTM) deliverable under the next Accela contract.  Adequacy of support for post go-live insufficient. RLD should require more support for Phase 2.  RLD should use the vendor retainage under the contract as leverage to get errors resolved.  RLD needs to track licensure requirements to the NM Administrative Code.  RLD staff need to have a better understanding of all of the business processes for new automation – before vendor identified requirements.  User acceptance testing (UAT) needs to be designed better. Testers need to know they are testing versus being trained. UAT with smaller user teams.  Top management needs to be fully informed of the next phase of the project and to understand the need to have the appropriate staff and resources made available.  Testing – Production and Test environments should be fully stabilized. Build on the experiences with Phase 1

7. TRANSITION TO OPERATIONS Yes No Explanation/Notes $177,642.53 in FY16 Are there recurring maintenance/operational X $182,971.80 in FY17 costs for the product/service? $188,460.97 in FY18 Are there any recommended enhancements X (Attach comments) or updates? Summary of agency plan to support project solution in production. Support will be provided by the development team and helpdesk of the agency. Three developers were assigned to the project and took over post production support and assistance for office staff and field employees conducting inspections or utilizing the mobile office. The development team works closely with the Construction Industries call center, which assists the public and licensed contractors when acquiring permits and clarifies which is the appropriate

ALL CERTIFIED PROJECTS MUST FOLLOW NM STATE POLICIES AND PROCUREMENT CODE permit to purchase. Summary of agency plans to fund the maintenance and Operations of this project. The maintenance fees will be included in the annual budget request.