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
Project Short Name(s)
/ Recycled Metals Management SystemRMMS
Date / September 25, 2013
Lead Agency / New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)
Other Agencies
Executive Sponsor
/ J. Dee Dennis, SuperintendentAgency 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 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 outcomes) accomplished? / ü / Interface to law enforcement agencies was not provided.Were all Deliverables submitted and accepted? / ü / Interface to law enforcement agencies was not provided, Phase 2 was not completed
Did the IV&V vendor verify that all deliverables met the requirements? / ü / N/A – IV&V was not performed on this project. A waiver was requested 8/14/2012.
Have all contracts been closed? / ü / No contracts were opened for this project.
Have all final payments been made (i.e., invoices paid) / ü / Project funding was closed at the end of FY13. All purchases and invoices have been paid.
Have all project documents/records been appropriately stored for future reference? / ü
Has adequate knowledge transfer been completed? / ü / Knowledge transfer from the original internal developer has been completed.
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
Phase One Requirements Specification/Project Plan/Requirements Traceability Matrix(RTM) / $0.00* / 09/2012 / OneDeployment of recycled metals repository database / $0.00* / 09/2012 / One
Web interface for recycled metals dealers to submit transaction data to database / $0.00* / 09/2012 / One
Bulk file transfer capability (XML, Excel, CSV) / $0.00* / 09/2012 / One
Limited LEA query capability1 / $0.00* / Not completed / One
Standard reports / $0.00* / Not completed / One
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 Plan/RTM (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
MVD interface to validate seller ID (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
NMLETS interface to provide full LEA query capability (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
Public Web interface for query capability (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
Expanded Administration/Reports module (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
Training / system documentation (contract tech writer) (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
Extended warranty(s) (Not Met – Funding lost at end of FY13) / $0.00* / Not completed / Two
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 HistoryCert. Date / Cert. Amount / Funding Source(s) – Funding Total Amount
(Cite the specific laws, grants, etc. and total amount.)
August 4, 2012 / $100,000 / LAWS 2012 HB2, Chapter 19, Section 5, Item 13
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
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: (Budget) / $100,000 / Actual Cost: (Total) / $11,899.85
§ Professional Services / § Professional Services / $4,012.50
§ Hardware / § Hardware / $6,666.63
§ Software / § Software / $1,220.72
§ Network / § Network
§ Other / § Other
6a. Independent Verification & Validation
(Include summary of the last IVV 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 costs for the product/service? / ü / N/AAre there any recommended enhancements or updates? / ü
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.
Revision: 6/18/13
Page 1