Los Angeles Community College District PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES. PMO Annual Update

Transcription

1 Los Angeles Community College District PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES PMO Annual Update District Citizens Oversight Committee October 9,

2 One Goal: Strong Program Finish ON TIME ON BUDGET NO LITIGATION June 2015 SEPs Centralized Staffing Model Streamlined Procurement Quality & Risk Outreach Audits Reporting Safety Innovation Systems Procedures Processes April 2013 April 2014 April 2015 STEADY SUCCESSS Project Execution & Completion Performance Accountability Continued Process Improvement & Transparency 2

3 BuildLACCD Financial Summary A 1 B 2 C D E 3 Current Budget Expended June 2015 June 2015 Original Re Baseline Baseline Budget Budget October 2011 June 2014 Budget Remaining June 2015 Colleges $4.88 B $4.74 B $4.75 B $3.75 B $ M Satellites $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Central Services $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Districtwide Initiatives Retire District Debt & Refinance District Bond Contingency $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M $80.01 M $ M $ M $ M $7.52 M $17.11 M $14.64 M $14.64 M $ $ M Variance Explanation(s) Columns A thru C Comparison Program Reserve Contributions; Bond Interest, state, and other source funds; Funds transfer to East from Firestone; Funds transfer to Mission from 40J Energy Satellites deferred, transferred to District Bond Contingency; Firestone transfer to East District Bond Contingency transfer for J accounts re baseline effort; Program Reserve transfer to 40J Legal Reimbursement of 40J energy account funds to Mission (PV at East Campus) District reimbursement to Bond for non Bond eligible VDK expenses; Increase per District CFO to allow for arbitrage increase; District Bond Certificate of Participation (COP) Funds received from satellite deferment; Fund transfer for 40J re baseline effort Program Reserve $ $ M $ M $ $ M Funds transfer to 40J Legal TOTAL $6.19 B $6.26 B $6.26 B $4.59 B $1.67 B 1 Budget Baseline as reported in the Master Budget Plan, Board Resolution BT6 in October Budget re-baseline conducted in concert with the Strategic Execution Plan effort. 3 Current Budget (June 2015) less funds expended as of June Source: June 2015 Dashboard Report Continuous re-assessment of Estimate at Completion (EAC) values to ensure a successful Program completion Risk management program with modelling bi-annually Program Controls monthly cost/schedule review meetings 3

4 College-Level Financial Summary A 1 B 2 C D E 3 Original Baseline Re Baseline Current Budget College Budget October 2011 Budget June 2014 Budget June 2015 Expended June 2015 Remaining June 2015 Variance Explanation(s) Columns A thru C; As Required City $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Program Reserve & IT Coord. contributions East $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Program Reserve & IT Coord.; Funds transfer from Firestone Harbor $ M $ M $ M $ M $70.16 M Program Reserve & IT Coord. Mission $ M $ M $ M $ M $44.43 M Program Reserve & IT Coord.; Funds transfer/reimbursement from 40J Energy account Pierce $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Program Reserve & IT Coord. SW $ M $ M $ M $ M $40.91 M Program Reserve & IT Coord. Trade $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Program Reserve & IT Coord. Valley $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M Program Reserve & IT Coord.; Funds transfer from District Bond Contingency for retro commissioning services West $ M $ M $ M $ M $47.51 M Program Reserve & IT Coord. TOTAL $4.88 B $4.74 B $4.75 B $3.75 B $ M 1 Budget Baseline as reported in the Master Budget Plan, Board Resolution BT6 in October Budget re-baseline conducted in concert with the Strategic Execution Plan effort. 3 Current Budget (June 2015) less funds expended as of June Source: June 2015 Dashboard Report 4

5 College Strategic Execution Plan Summary June 2015 College SEP Sub Projects Remaining* Budget Remaining** City 21 $130.4 M East 11 $111.3 M Harbor 16 $63.2 M Mission 15 $44.6 M Pierce 37 $186.0 M Southwest 11 $37.6 M Trade 29 $132.4 M Valley 20 $194.0 M West 23 $57.5 M TOTAL 183 $957.0 M *SEP does not include projects in completion and/or closeout. **Budget remaining is current budget less expended. Construction 16% Design 10% Procurement 7% Project Phase Status Closeout 14% Project Type Breakdown Infra & Other* 55% Mod 36% New 15% Planning/ Prog. 53% *Other includes demo, landscape/hardscape, parking, P.E. fields, roadways/street, stormwater, etc. 5

6 Procuring the Work $339 M in total procurements awarded from June 2014 June 2015 $208 M of new contracts awarded to date in 2015 Construction: $197 M Design / Other Professional Services: $11 Average major procurement tender time is 116 days 3.3% improvement from 120 days reported in April % improvement from 185 day average pre-april 2013 Zero protests filed in

7 LSEDV Contract Award Breakdown LSEDV : Local, Small, Emerging, Disabled Veterans June 2015 LSEDV Firms with Task Orders Non LSEDV Firms with Task Orders Total LSEDV Contract Category Firms Firms Staff Augmentation Architecture/Engineering Environmental Inspector of Record Laboratory of Record Whole Bldg. Commissioning Professional Services Construction Companies N/A N/A Figures are not totaled under the Total Companies and LSEDV Companies to avoid double-counting. 297 Total Companies 178 LSEDV Companies 60% Task Orders awarded to LSEDV 7

8 Internship Update & Accomplishments Process Student outreach and internship participation at each campus Phase One: 11 interns completed internships with CPTs & PMO. Intern Discipline Breakdown: 46% 27% 27% Construction Management Engineering Architecture $78,429 cost savings through use of H1-B grant 3 retained by the PMO upon internship completion 5 applied for full-time employment with AECOM Phase Two: 10 intern positions currently being filled with CPT & PMO. $94,000 cost savings through use of H1-B grant 8

9 DSA Certification June 2014 June Total Projects Closed # of projects achieving DSA Closeout Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun % Reduction in Projects Closed w/out Certification Since 2014 & Closeout Bin Time reduced by 50% Since

10 Safety Excellence Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIR) 2013* 7 Recordables TRIR Goal: 3.8 TRIR Actual: 2.2 *Jul-Dec 2013 Data only Recordables TRIR Goal: 3.7 TRIR Actual: Industry Average NAICS: ** 3 Recordables TRIR Goal: 3.2 TRIR Actual: Industry Average NAICS: 3.2 **Figures to-date Industry Average Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) 10

11 M&DR Program Savings M&DR: Metering & Demand Response $750 K Annual Cost Savings Estimated Ability to adjust operations Load reduction for demand response event OTHER HIGHLIGHTS 6 Colleges enrolled in LADWP Pilot Program 3 Colleges enrollments underway for SCE Program 11

12 College Key Performance Indicator Review June 2014 vs. June

13 Internal & External Assessment External: KPMG Performance and Financial, State of California, Vasquez Internal: CPT Quality, Voice of the Client Assessment Format To-Date 2014 KPMG Performance Audit 2014 KPMG Financial Audit CPT Quality Audit (9 Colleges) Voice of the Client (2014, 2015) Vasquez PMO Invoice (Ongoing, monthly) State of California 2015 Dept. of Finance Audit 2015 KPMG Performance Audit 2015 KPMG Financial Audit June June 2015 Underway June 2015 Underway September

14 Continued Process Improvement & Transparency June June 2015 Award-Winning Website ( 10 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) created or refreshed Over 200 Bond Program forms reviewed and/or refreshed Over 125 (FMP&OC, BOT, BSC and DCOC) presentations 14

15 Six Month Project Progress Outlook September 2015 March 2016 $230+ M New contracts projected Sept March Project/Building Occupancies 15+ DSA Closeouts (estimated) 15

16 Program Savings & Cost Avoidance Success Over $70 million saved since April 2013 Examples of savings and cost avoidance measures Procurement efficiencies Bundled procurements Electronic plans requirement Etc. IT upgrades and standardization Professional services scope re-alignment to Program needs Protest and change order procedure improvements Master plan format revision and standardization Legal claim vs. settlement amount savings Funds recovery from contractors/sureties/a/e s Program file storage brought in-house (Firestone) 16

17 Feedback Voice of the Client Report - July 2015 Better job communicating down the organization; this is possible now that the ONE Team structure is in place. SEP: Lot s of value. It s clear, simple and can communicate the plan. The tool is excellent. The budget process brings rigor and definition. It is easy to analyze because it is structured in a comprehensive manner. The message is to gain support not us vs. them. We re in this together and want a positive closeout I really like the PMOs willingness to hear suggestions. They are looking ahead and anticipating my needs. Improvements continue with both the management of where we are and where we need to go. There is clearly a path forward. The PMO identified talented CPDs. 17