invoice process and payment review - laccd - home · invoice process and payment review -...

Invoice Process and Payment Review for BuildLACCD Briefing No. 3

May 25, 2016

Status Update On February 26, 2016, LACCD’s Board and AECOM requested Deloitte to assess the invoice and payment process at BuildLACCD

All tasks completed on May 25, 2016 which included analyses of following invoice/contract types:

• MATOC Staff-Augmentation

• MATOC Professional Services

• General Contractor (GC)

• Professional Services (non-MATOC)

• Furniture, Fixture and Equipment (FF&E)

To perform these tasks, we:

1. Interviewed CPTs at 9 colleges and PMO

2. Interviewed MATOC Prime-Vendors (Staff-Augmentation)

3. Performed data analytics

4. Performed Contractual Lifecycle Analysis

5. Performed Actual Lifecycle Analysis

6. Performed Variance Analysis

7. Developed Primary Observations and Opportunities for Improvement (see Slides 16 to 18)

BuildLACCD Organization Chart (for invoice and payment process)

Board of Trustees

District

Deloitte Gafcon, Inc.

PMO

CPT City

Primes

Subs

CPT East

Primes

Subs

CPT Harbor

Primes

Subs

CPT Mission

Primes

Subs

CPT Pierce

Primes

Subs

CPT Southwest

Primes

Subs

CPT Trade-Tech

Primes

Subs

CPT Valley

Primes

Subs

CPT West

Primes

Subs

Pacifica Services, Inc.

*Central Services include: College Project Central Services (e.g.: legal and insurance), Satellites (Southgate and VDK), and District Wide Initiatives (e.g.: IT, Energy, Transportation & Accessibility).

Central Services*

PMO Partners PMO Partners

Four Types of BuildLACCD Contracts and Invoices

1. Multi-Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC), which include:

staff augmentation and professional services

2. General Contractor (GC) contracts

Invoices for MATOC and GC contracts require the most effort to process by the BuildLACCD team. For this reason, our analysis and observations focused primarily on these types of contracts.

3. Furniture, Fixture and Equipment (FF&E) contracts, which include:

furniture procurement and Move Managers

4. Professional Services, which includes master agreements for:

Architect/Engineer, Inspector of Record and Laboratory of Record

Invoices for FF&E and Professional Services contracts appeared to require lower level of effort to process by the BuildLACCD team. For this reason, our report entails an ‘overview’ analysis on these types of contracts.

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Contractual Lifecycle (All MATOC Vendors)

Sub-vendors

CPT

Prime Vendors

Prime Vendors

Cut Check/

Mail

Prime Receives Payment

Invoice Receipt and Process by PMO

B1

Sub-vendors

Element within PMO’s contractual purview

Element outside of PMO’s contractual purview

Invoice Receipt and process by CPT

District Review, Drawdown and

Wire Funds

(If applicable) (If applicable)

Element outside of PMO’s functional purview

District PMO PMO

Element Contractual Duration

A Beyond PMO’s Contractual Purview

B1 or B2 15th of each Month after POP

C

30 Calendar Days

D

E

F

G Beyond PMO’s Functional Purview

H Paid when Prime paid

(Varies from 7 to 15 Calendar Days for MATOC Staff-Augmentation Vendors)

B2

D

G

E

A H

C F

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Contractual Lifecycle (All Other Vendors)

Sub-vendors

CPT

Prime Vendors

Prime Vendors

Cut Check/

Mail

Prime Receives Payment

Invoice Receipt and Process by PMO

B1

Sub-vendors

Element within PMO’s contractual purview

Element outside of PMO’s contractual purview

Invoice Receipt and process by CPT

District Review, Drawdown and

Wire Funds

(If applicable) (If applicable)

Element outside of PMO’s functional purview

District PMO PMO

Element Contractual Duration

A Beyond PMO’s Contractual Purview

B1 or B2 Varies per Contract

C

30 Calendar Days

D

E

F

G Beyond PMO’s Functional Purview

H Varies per Contract

B2

D

G

E

A H

C F

Invoice Process and Payment Review

Multi-Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC): Staff-Augmentation Contracts

Slides 8 to 18

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2014 to Mar 2015) MATOC Staff Augmentation Prime-Vendors

Notes: 1. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 2. Data was not available for Elements G and H, since they were not within the PMO’s Functional or Contractual purview. 3. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all vendors for this period. 4. Hill International Inc. and Jacobs Project Management did not have invoices within this period.

Process Description Avg. Durations

(Calendar Days)

Arcadis US,

Inc.

Cordoba

Corporation

Cumming

Construction

Management

Hill

International,

Inc.

Jacobs

Engineering

Group

Jacobs

Project

Management

STV/AVA

Vanir

Construction

Management

Yang

Management,

Inc.

Period of Performance (POP) End to Receipt by CPT/PMO

A and B 35 22 28 NA 32 NA 47 37 13

CPT to Prime C - - 5 NA - NA - - -

PMO Analysis D 16 15 14 NA 16 NA 20 14 12

District Review / Drawdown E 6 7 6 NA 7 NA 5 6 6

Cut check / Mail F 3 3 2 NA 2 NA 2 1 2

Integrated Cycle 60 46 52 NA 54 NA 77 60 33

Median 54 34 45 NA 54 NA 72 58 30

Mode 41 34 60 NA 34 NA 72 41 27

Invoice Count 98 15 109 NA 67 NA 12 77 40

Total Invoice Amounts

$1.9 M $313 K $2.1 M NA $1.3 M NA $139 K $1.5 M $641 K

% of Total Invoice Amounts

24% 4% 27% NA 16% NA 2% 19% 8%

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2015 to Nov 2015) MATOC Staff Augmentation Prime-Vendors

Notes: 1. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 2. Data was not available for Elements G and H, since they were not within the PMO’s Functional or Contractual purview. 3. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all vendors for this period. 4. In mid-April 2015, Jacobs Engineering Group was substituted by Jacobs Project Management to provide Staff Augmentation Services for BuildLACCD. We observed invoices from both entities for a short period in April 2015.


(Calendar Days)

Arcadis US,

Inc.

Cordoba

Corporation

Cumming

Construction

Management

Hill

International,

Inc.

Jacobs

Engineering

Group

Jacobs

Project

Management

STV/AVA

Vanir

Construction

Management

Yang

Management,

Inc.


A and B 20 29 22 41 16 15 29 21 12

CPT to Prime C 11 - 7 - - - 3 - -

PMO Analysis D 15 11 17 12 26 16 16 11 12

District Review / Drawdown E 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Cut check / Mail F 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3

Integrated Cycle 45 50 47 71 51 40 53 42 32

Median 41 37 42 50 43 37 42 41 30

Mode 37 37 41 41 43 31 35 41 24

Invoice Count 380 73 370 28 8 230 143 214 85


$6.2 M $1.3 M $6.2 M $376 K $142 K $4.1 M $1.9 M $3.7 M $1.3 M


25% 5% 25% 2% 1% 17% 8% 15% 5%

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Dec 2015 to Feb 2016) MATOC Staff Augmentation Prime-Vendors

Notes: 1. This table represents only those invoices that were provided by Primes and paid. 2. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 3. Cumming did not provide dates for invoice process and payment tracking. Thus, only Elements C to F were populated (based on data from the PMO’s information systems). 4. Hill International does not carry sub-consultants. 5. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all vendors for this period. 6. All Primes except Cordoba furnished Sub-Consultant agreement templates for our review with respect to their subs.

Process Description Ave. Durations

(Calendar Days)

Contractual Requirement

(Days)

Arcadis US,

Inc.

Cordoba

Corporation

Cumming

Construction

Management

Hill

International,

Inc.

Jacobs

Project

Management

STV/AVA

Vanir

Construction

Management

Yang

Management,

Inc.

Sub to Prime A NA 6 12 Not Provided NA 6 8 11 5

Prime to CPT/PMO B 15th of each month after

POP End 17 24 Not Provided 17 15 19 14 5

CPT to Prime C

30

6 4 5 6 5 5 4 5

PMO Analysis D 17 25 14 23 16 10 17 7

District Review / Drawdown

E 8 8 8 9 7 7 8 8

Cut check / Mail F 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2

Prime Receives Payment G NA 4 4 Not Provided 5 4 2 3 2

Prime Sends Payment to Sub

H Paid when Prime Paid

(varies from 7 to 15 days) 2 8 Not Provided NA 7 40 7 2

Integrated Cycle 54 71 Not Provided 57 49 63 55 30

Median - 54 NA Not Provided 59 49 59 53 28

Mode - 57 NA Not Provided - 57 35 53 26

Shortest - 35 NA Not Provided 44 38 35 43 26

Longest - 88 NA Not Provided 71 66 114 87 39

Invoice Count - 82 3 39 7 73 28 48 11


- $1.4 M $26 K $616 K $107 K $1.3 M $320 K $869 K $158 K


- 28% 1% 13% 2% 28% 7% 18% 3%

Notes: 1. Data was not available for Elements G and H between April 2014 and November 2015, since they were not within PMO’s functional or contractual purview. 2. Cumming did not provide data for the period between Dec 2015 to Feb 2016. 3. MATOC Prime-Vendors are required to submit their invoices within 15 days after the end of Period of Performance.

Invoice Process and Payment Review Actual Lifecycle for ‘MATOC Staff Augmentation Prime-Vendors’: Elements A to F

(Apr 2014 to Feb 2016)

A and B

A and B

A and B

C C

C

D D D

E E E

F F F

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

April 2014 to March 2015 April 2015 to November 2015 December 2015 to February 2015

DAYS

POP End to Receipt by CPT/PMO CPT to PMO PMO Analysis District Review, DD Cut Check/Mail Prime Receives Payment Prime Sends Payment to Sub

G

H

All MATOC Staff-Augmentation Vendors except Cumming All MATOC Staff-Augmentation Vendors

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle for MATOC Staff Augmentation: ‘AIM Consulting’ as Jacobs’ Sub-Vendor

(Dec 2015 to Feb 2016)

Notes: 1. These percentages are based on data provided by Jacobs to BuildLACCD (as well as available data within BuildLACCD’s information systems): 17 invoices at Elements A-B; 11 invoices at Elements C-G; and 18 invoices for Element H. 2. According to its Sub-Consultant Agreement, Jacobs was required to pay AIM Consulting within 7 days of Jacobs’ receipt of payment from BuildLACCD. 3. MATOC Prime-Vendors are required to submit their invoices within 15 days after the end of Period of Performance. 4. Element E (District Review/Drawdown) is demonstrated via a stand-alone bar graph (and is already accounted for in Elements C-F).

100%

91%

36% 91% 67%

9%

64% 9% 28%

6%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

POP End to Receipt byCPT/PMO

CPT/PMO Receipt to MailCheck

District Review/Drawdown Prime Receives Payment Prime Paid to Send Paymentto Sub

DAYS

$ 279,000

C-F

A-B

G

H

E

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle for MATOC Staff Augmentation: ‘Global Design Build’ as Jacobs’ Sub-Vendor

(Dec 2015 to Feb 2016)

Notes: 1. These percentages are based on data provided by Jacobs to BuildLACCD (as well as available data within BuildLACCD’s information systems): 4 invoices at Elements A-B; and 9 invoices for all other elements. 2. According to its Sub-Consultant Agreement, Jacobs was required to pay its subs within 7 days of Jacobs’ receipt of payment from BuildLACCD. 3. MATOC Prime-Vendors are required to submit their invoices within 15 days after the end of Period of Performance. 4. Element E (District Review/Drawdown) is demonstrated via a stand-alone bar graph (and is already accounted for in Elements C-F).

25%

89%

33% 33% 67%

75%

11%

56%

11%

11% 11%

56%

22%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

POP End to Receipt byCPT/PMO

CPT/PMO Receipt to MailCheck

District Review/Drawdown Prime Receives Payment Prime Paid to Send Paymentto Sub

DAYS

$ 62,000

C-F

A-B

G

H

E

Invoice Process and Payment Review: Observations/Inputs from CPT Interviews 1. Invoices from GCs require wet signatures from Architect/Engineer and IOR/LOR. CPTs

spend a lot of time to obtain these signatures if these individuals/entities are not on site.

2. Invoices for Retention Release from GCs also require wet signatures from Architect/Engineer and IOR/LOR. CPTs report that these signatures had been previously obtained from prior invoices, are therefore redundant, and need not be required.

3. Certain MATOC Prime Vendors do not submit invoices in a timely way. On occasion, these Primes hold onto invoices from prior months and submit them in a ‘bundle’ at a later date.

4. There was not a clear way to determine how long it takes for Prime Vendors to receive Cut Checks once mailed by the PMO.

5. On occasion, Prime Vendors submit invoice packages that are incomplete or inaccurate. This lengthens the time for processing by the CPT, since they must question the Primes for requisite clarifications and missing information. If vendors do not respond promptly, the CPT will reject the entire invoice (including any Sub-Vendors) and return it to the Prime.

6. On occasion, green-bag courier service was delayed or did not deliver invoices to the PMO.

Invoice Process and Payment Review: Observations/Inputs from MATOC Staff-Aug Prime Interviews 1. Agreements between Primes and Subs specified varying payment terms (between 7 and

15 calendar days).

2. Agreements between Primes and Subs often did not specify a timeline for invoice submission.

3. On occasion, Prime’s staff (or their Subs) have had difficulty in acquiring wet signatures from supervisors for labor logs.

4. After a shift in submission procedure was instituted by the PMO in December 2015, some Primes reported a lack of clear communication and a lack of transparent point of contact among PMO/CPTs. Around this time and on occasion, they experienced delays in invoice payments and difficulties in getting responses to inquiries from the PMO.

5. Some Primes indicated recent, improved communication from the PMO in regard to responding to questions and processing some of their back-logged invoices.

6. Some Primes elected to submit only after it had received all invoices from all Subs for a given period of performance. If one Sub did not submit in a timely way, then all Subs became delayed.

Invoice Process and Payment Review: Opportunities for Process Improvement – MATOC Contracts Element Suggested Improvement Savings in Days

A

1) Electronic signatures on ‘labor logs’ eliminates time to obtain on-site approvals and allows faster processing time between Subs and Primes

2) Automated monthly reminders between Primes to Subs will prompt invoices to be generated in a timely way

1 to 5 days

B

1) Automated monthly reminders between CPT/PMO to Primes will prompt invoices to be generated in a timely way

2) Electronic submission of invoices will reduce transit time of invoices among Primes, CPTs, and the PMO

3) Possible implementation of ‘PMIS’ Invoice Loading feature by Primes to expedite processing and to enhance transparency and communication

4) Assign a Point of Contact at the CPTs/PMO for each prime as a “go-to” resource to facilitate communication between PMO and Primes

1 to 3 days

C 1) Electronic signatures will reduce processing time by CPTs 2) Electronic submission of invoices between CPT and PMO will reduce transit time

1 to 3 days

D 1) Staffing and process review at PMO may alleviate backlog and processing time --

Invoice Process and Payment Review: Opportunities for Process Improvement – MATOC Contracts (Cont.) Element Suggested Improvement Savings in Days

E

1) Designate certain days for submission of Invoice and Drawdown Requests to District (i.e., Tuesday and Thursday of every week by 2:00 PM)

2) Designate back-up individual(s) at District for review and approval of Invoice and Drawdown Requests

3) Allocate Reserve Funds to the PMO to allow checks to be cut prior to District’s final approval

4) Streamline communication between District and LA County to release funds in a more accelerated manner

1 to 4 Days

F & G

Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs) in lieu of paper checks that are wet-signed and mailed could lead to many efficiencies: 1) Automated authorizations eliminates the need for manual signatures and

mailing of individual checks 2) Less reliance on third-party delivery systems 3) Higher assurance that funds are received, and are received in a faster and more

timely way 4) Automated proof of payment

(See next slide)

Invoice Process and Payment Review: Opportunities for Process Improvement – MATOC Contracts (Cont.)

Element Suggested Improvement Savings in Days

F & G (Cont.)

5) Less administrative follow-up burden for PMO and District associated with lost checks

6) Automated notifications to Vendors when funds are wired 1 to 5 Days

H 1) EFTs between Primes and Subs will hasten the payment time --

Cumulative Time Savings

5 to 20 Days


Multi-Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC): Professional Services Contracts

Slides 20 to 22

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2014 to Mar 2015) Top 5 MATOC Professional Services Prime-Vendors

Notes: 1. We selected the top five vendors with the highest invoiced amounts in this period, as tabulated above. 2. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 3. Data was not available for Elements G and H, since they were not within the PMO’s Functional or Contractual purview. 4. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all tabulated vendors for this period.


(Calendar Days)

California Testing &

Inspections, Inc.

Cannon Design

Group

Gonzalez Goodale

Architects

Hammel, Green &

Abrahamson, Inc.

PBWS Architects,

LLP


A and B 32 61 15 35 44

CPT to Prime C 7 8 11 5 7

PMO Analysis D 8 2 14 5 6

District Review / Drawdown E 6 6 7 6 5

Cut check / Mail F 1 - 3 1 2

Integrated Cycle 68 77 51 48 60

Median 68 77 46 40 60

Mode - 77 - - 60

Invoice Count 3 2 4 3 9

Total Invoice Amounts $96 K $50 K $137 K $114 K $172 K

% of Total Invoice Amounts 17% 9% 24% 20% 30%

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2015 to Feb 2016) Top 5 MATOC Professional Services Prime-Vendors

Notes: 1. We selected the top five vendors with the highest invoiced amounts in this period, as tabulated above. 2. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 3. Data was not available for Elements G and H, since they were not within the PMO’s Functional or Contractual purview. 4. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all tabulated vendors for this period.


(Calendar Days)

American Engineering

Labs, Inc.

California Testing &

Inspections, Inc.

Cannon Design

Group

Southwest Inspection

& Testing, Inc.

Tate Snyder Kimsey,

Inc.


A and B 83 32 40 86 18

CPT to Prime C 6 5 5 8 8

PMO Analysis D 12 12 14 12 10

District Review / Drawdown E 7 8 5 7 7

Cut check / Mail F 2 1 3 3 2

Integrated Cycle 110 57 65 115 42

Median 97 44 64 103 38

Mode 35 54 - 96 29

Invoice Count 43 33 9 34 20

Total Invoice Amounts $842 K $438 K $514 K $526 K $420 K

% of Total Invoice Amounts 31% 16% 19% 19% 15%

Invoice Process and Payment Review Actual Lifecycle for ‘MATOC Professional Services Prime-Vendors’: Elements A to F

(Apr 2014 to Feb 2016)

Notes: 1. MATOC Prime-Vendors are required to submit their invoices within 15 days after the end of Period of Performance. We observed these invoices are often not submitted on time by the Primes. In addition, we noted some late invoices submitted to PMO/CPTs up to a year after rendering services by the vendor. PMO/CPTs should enforce this contractual term to vendors more rigorously. (Refer to our Recommendation for Elements A-B in slide 16 of this report for more detail) 2. In our review of MATOC – Professional Services invoices, we observed similar trends within Elements C to F, when compared to MATOC – Staff Augmentation invoices.

A and B

A and B

C C D

D

E E

F F

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

April 2014 to March 2015 April 2015 to February 2016

DAYS

POP End to Receipt by CPT/PMO CPT to PMO PMO Analysis District Review, DD Cut Check/Mail


General Contractor Contracts

Slides 24 to 26

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2014 to Mar 2015) Top 10 General Contractors

Notes: 1. We selected the top ten General Contractors with the highest invoiced amounts in this period, as tabulated above. 2. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 3. Data was not available for Elements G and H, since they were not within the PMO’s Functional or Contractual purview. 4. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all tabulated vendors for this period.


(Calendar Days)

Charles

Pankow

Builders

Clark

Construction

Group

Edge

Construction,

LLC

Harper

Construction

Co.

Hensel

Phelps

Construction

Masters

Contracting

Corp.

McCarthy

Building Co.

Pankow

Special

Projects

Pinner

Construction

Company

Taisei

Construction


A and B 36 17 36 27 27 12 10 72 25 12

CPT to Prime C 3 3 10 6 7 8 4 10 11 8

PMO Analysis D 11 9 15 14 19 14 10 15 19 13

District Review / Drawdown

E 6 8 6 6 7 6 7 7 6 6

Cut check / Mail F 2 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 3

Integrated Cycle - - - - - - - - - -

Median 47 35 61 52 59 42 30 76 58 53

Mode 30 - 61 44 89 31 30 - 61 -

Invoice Count 25 5 12 44 16 14 13 22 16 11


$16.6 M $5.5 M $8.7 M $38.4 M $17 M $6.1 M $14.9 M $7.1 M $18.8 M $5.5 M


12% 4% 6% 28% 12% 4% 11% 5% 14% 4%

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2015 to Feb 2016) Top 10 General Contractors


(Calendar Days)

Balfour Beatty

Construction

Bernards

Bros., Inc.

Charles

Pankow

Builders

Clark

Construction

Group

Edge

Construction

, LLC

Harper

Construction

Co.

Hensel

Phelps

Construction

Masters

Contracting

Corp.

McCarthy

Building Co.

Pinner

Construction

Company


A and B 37 96 65 18 56 14 77 28 20 18

CPT to Prime C 13 12 4 5 7 5 11 6 4 11

PMO Analysis D 12 15 11 12 16 15 22 18 13 15

District Review / Drawdown E 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 5

Cut check / Mail F 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4

Integrated Cycle - - - - - - - - - -

Median 71 88 52 45 78 45 81 59 29 49

Mode 96 96 35 - 80 35 43 35 43 43

Invoice Count 41 34 18 10 14 44 15 30 16 12

Total Invoice Amounts $5.6 M $16.6 M $9.4 M $17.9 M $9.3 M $30.2 M $7.8 M $6.7 M $17.4 M $10.1 M


4% 13% 7% 14% 7% 23% 6% 5% 13% 8%

Notes: 1. We selected the top ten General Contractors with the highest invoiced amounts in this period, as tabulated above. 2. Based on available data within PMO’s information systems (as of our data cut-off date of March 5, 2016), each element is calculated from a distinctive number of invoices. 3. Data was not available for Elements G and H, since they were not within the PMO’s Functional or Contractual purview. 4. “% of Total Invoice Amounts” represents the ratio of each vendor’s total invoiced amount versus the aggregate invoiced amounts by all tabulated vendors for this period.

Invoice Process and Payment Review Actual Lifecycle for ‘General Contractors’: Elements A to F

(Apr 2014 to Feb 2016)

A and B

A and B

C C

D D

E E

F F

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

April 2014 to March 2015 April 2015 to February 2016

DAYS

POP End to Receipt by CPT/PMO CPT to PMO PMO Analysis District Review, DD Cut Check/Mail

Notes: 1. General Contractors (GCs) are required to submit their invoices on 1st day of the month after the end of Period of Performance. However, GC invoices on occasion involve Stop Notices and similar claims that prolong the invoice approval and payment process until such claims are resolved. 2. In our review of General Contractor invoices, we observed similar trends within Elements C to F, when compared to other contract type invoices (e.g., MATOC contracts invoices).


Professional Services Contracts (non-MATOC)

Slides 28 to 30

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2014 to Mar 2015) Professional Services Prime-Vendors (non-MATOC)

Professional Services (non-MATOC) Analysis is underway as of May 13 and will be completed by May 25 for the next FMPOC Meeting

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2015 to Feb 2016) Professional Services Prime-Vendors (non-MATOC)


Invoice Process and Payment Review Actual Lifecycle for ‘Professional Services Prime-Vendors (non-MATOC)’: Elements A to F

(Apr 2014 to Feb 2016)



Furniture, Fixture and Equipment (FF&E) Contracts

Slides 32 to 34

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2014 to Mar 2015) FF&E Vendors

FF&E Analysis is underway as of May 13 and will be completed by May 25 for the next FMPOC Meeting

Invoice Process and Payment Review - Actual Lifecycle (Apr 2015 to Feb 2016) FF&E Vendors


Invoice Process and Payment Review Actual Lifecycle for ‘Professional Services Prime-Vendors (non-MATOC)’: Elements A to F

FF&E Vendors


Building for tomorrow’s leaders 1

Los Angeles Community College District

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Active Construction Summary

Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee

May 25, 2016


Active Construction: City College

NOTE: Does not include projects in programming, in procurement, in

design, at DSA, in closeout, or completed. *-Date does not reflect revised date approved via change order.

**-Inclusive of FF&E, retention, close-out and all soft costs.

(All data and dates are current through March 2016) NTP = Notice to Proceed. EAC = Estimate at completion.

Project # Projects Under

Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion

**Budget **Expended **EAC

01C-110 Holmes Hall

Modernization 02/10/14 01/09/15 05/31/16 $13,009,791 $8,566,759 $13,009,791

01C-134 Student Service Center 02/10/14 08/09/15 06/30/16 $38,105,141 $25,074,218 $38,105,141

01C-173.03 RWGPL - Traffic

Mitigation (Red Line) 12/15/14 01/14/16 09/30/16 $8,471,879 $3,926,760 $8,471,879


Active Construction: East L.A. College


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


02E-222.03

Science Career & Math

Bldg G5

(Classrooms/Labs)

04/23/14 06/21/16 08/20/16 $57,801,981 $29,731,540 $57,449,900

02E-222.04 Science Career & Math

Bldg G7 (Lecture Bldg.) 04/23/14 06/21/16 08/20/16 $3,623,162 $1,330,784 $3,770,911






Active Construction: Harbor College


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


03H-307 Theater Drama Speech

Building 09/02/10 09/08/15 08/19/16 $17,200,876 $15,860,418 $16,773,250

03H-350.01 SAILS Student Union 09/07/10 04/05/14 07/31/18 $52,981,751 $15,599,159 $63,731,497






Active Construction: Mission College


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


04M-405 Media Arts Center 11/12/09 10/03/11 03/31/17 $46,378,970 $26,448,543 $46,378,969

04M-419 Campus Modernization

Phase 1 08/07/09 02/29/16 05/31/16 $21,898,351 $20,334,270 $21,859,092






Active Construction: Pierce College


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


05P-502 Life Science, Chemistry,

Physics Building 08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $22,006,996 $13,577,222 $22,006,996

05P-505.02

Phase II Renovations -

Administration Building -

Interior and Exterior

08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $11,390,485 $7,909,660 $11,390,485

05P-507


Computer Science and

Computer Learning

Phase 2 component

finishing at a later date

08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $10,398,954 $3,772,838 $10,398,954






Active Construction: Pierce College (cont.)


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


05P-510


Behavioral Science,

Social science,

Mathematics, and English

Buildings

Phase 2 component


08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $17,147,992 $4,525,299 $17,147,993

05P-530.01 Campus Center (Existing)

- General 08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $2,577,379 $2,540,689 $2,577,379

05P-535.07 SLE Faculty

Center/Campus Center 08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $3,935,969 $2,071,011 $3,935,969






Active Construction: Pierce College (cont.)


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


05P-535.02

SLE - North of Mall -

Classroom

Modernization/Technology

/Low Voltage

Phase 2 component


08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $9,268,054 $4,262,728 $9,268,054

05P-542.06

SLE - North of Mall -

ADA/Landscaping

Phase 2 component


08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $7,673,426 $3,072,761 $7,673,426






Active Construction: Trade-Tech College


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


07T-720.01 East Parking Structure 07/06/15 07/26/16 08/10/16 $40,803,429 $22,225,851 $40,782,310

07T-772.06

East Campus Substation

and Electrical Distribution

System

07/06/15 07/26/16 11/09/16 $7,036,866 $2,935,319 $7,015,598

07T-720.03 East Campus Ground

Improvements 07/06/15 07/26/16 08/10/16 $1,581,881 $11,803 $1,581,881






Active Construction: Valley College


Construction

NTP

construction

/ design-build

*Contract

substantial

completion

Forecast

substantial

completion


08V-836

Community Workforce

Development Center/New

Administration a.k.a.

Valley Glen Gateway

(VGG)

01/28/14 09/11/15 12/30/16 $43,318,309 $27,788,621 $46,678,335

08V-839 Multi-Purpose Community

Services Center 04/15/13 08/20/16 09/26/16 $24,926,523 $21,870,441 $24,926,524

08V-842 Monarch Center (Student

Union Annex) 01/28/14 04/18/14 05/02/16 $37,832,079 $35,023,862 $37,832,079





Building for Tomorrow’s Leaders

LACCD Program Management 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90071 www.build-laccd.org 213.593 8000 tel 866.817.1051 fax

*--Date does not reflect revised date approved via change order. **-Inclusive of FF&E, retention, close-out and all soft costs.

ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY (All data and dates are current through March 2016)

Does not include projects in programming, in procurement, in design, at DSA, in closeout, or completed. NTP = Notice to Proceed. EAC = Estimate at completion.

No. Project # Projects Under Construction NTP

construction / design-build

*Contract substantial completion

Forecast substantial completion


Los Angeles City College

1 01C-110 Holmes Hall Modernization 02/10/14 01/09/15 05/31/16 $ 13,009,791 $ 8,566,759 $ 13,009,791

2 01C-134 Student Service Center 02/10/14 08/09/15 06/30/16 $ 38,105,141 $ 25,074,218 $ 38,105,141

3 01C-173.03 RWGPL - Traffic Mitigation (Red Line) 12/15/14 01/14/16 09/30/16 $ 8,471,879 $ 3,926,760 $ 8,471,879

East Los Angeles College

4 02E-222.03 Science Career & Math Bldg G5 (Classrooms/Labs)

04/23/14 06/21/16 08/20/16 $ 57,801,981 $ 29,731,540 $ 57,449,900

5 02E-222.04 Science Career & Math Bldg G7 (Lecture Bldg.) 04/23/14 06/21/16 08/20/16 $ 3,623,162 $ 1,330,784 $ 3,770,911

Los Angeles Harbor College

6 03H-307 Theater Drama Speech Building 09/02/10 09/08/15 08/19/16 $ 17,200,876 $ 15,860,418 $ 16,773,250

7 03H-350.01 SAILS Student Union 09/07/10 04/05/14 07/31/18 $ 52,981,751 $ 15,599,159 $ 63,731,497

Los Angeles Mission College

8 04M-405 Media Arts Center 11/12/09 10/03/11 03/31/17 $ 46,378,970 $ 26,448,543 $ 46,378,969

9 04M-419 Campus Modernization Phase 1 08/07/09 02/29/16 05/31/16 $ 21,898,351 $ 20,334,270 $ 21,859,092

Los Angeles Pierce College

10 05P-502 Life Science, Chemistry, Physics Building 08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $ 22,006,996 $ 13,577,222 $ 22,006,996

11 05P-505.02 Phase II Renovations - Administration Building - Interior and Exterior

08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $ 11,390,485 $ 7,909,660 $ 11,390,485

12 05P-507 Phase II Renovations - Computer Science and Computer Learning Phase 2 component finishing at a later date

08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $ 10,398,954 $ 3,772,838 $ 10,398,954

http://www.build-laccd.org/

Building for Tomorrow’s Leaders

*--Date does not reflect revised date approved via change order. **-Inclusive of FF&E, retention, close-out and all soft costs.

Active Construction Summary – March 2016 Page 2

No. Project # Projects Under Construction NTP construction / design-build

*Contract substantial completion

Forecast substantial completion


13 05P-510 Phase II Renovations - Behavioral Science, Social science, Mathematics, and English Buildings Phase 2 component finishing at a later date

08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $ 17,147,992 $ 4,525,299 $ 17,147,993

14 05P-530.01 Campus Center (Existing) - General 08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $ 2,577,379 $ 2,540,689 $ 2,577,379

15 05P-535.07 SLE Faculty Center/Campus Center 08/14/15 05/12/16 09/16/16 $ 3,935,969 $ 2,071,011 $ 3,935,969

16 05P-535.02 SLE - North of Mall - Classroom Modernization/Technology/Low Voltage Phase 2 component finishing at a later date

08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $ 9,268,054 $ 4,262,728 $ 9,268,054

17 05P-542.06 SLE - North of Mall - ADA/Landscaping Phase 2 component finishing at a later date

08/14/15 08/17/16 09/16/16 $ 7,673,426 $ 3,072,761 $ 7,673,426

Los Angeles Trade Tech College

18 07T-720.01 East Parking Structure 07/06/15 07/26/16 08/10/16 $ 40,803,429 $ 22,225,851 $ 40,782,310

19 07T-772.06 East Campus Substation and Electrical Distribution System

07/06/15 07/26/16 11/09/16 $ 7,036,866 $ 2,935,319 $ 7,015,598

20 07T-720.03 East Campus Ground Improvements 07/06/15 07/26/16 08/10/16 $ 1,581,881 $ 11,803 $ 1,581,881

Los Angeles Valley College

21 08V-836 Community Workforce Development Center/New Administration a.k.a. Valley Glen Gateway (VGG)

01/28/14 09/11/15 12/30/16 $ 43,318,309 $ 27,788,621 $ 46,678,335

22 08V-839 Multi-Purpose Community Services Center 04/15/13 08/20/16 09/26/16 $ 24,926,523 $ 21,870,441 $ 24,926,524

23 08V-842 Monarch Center (Student Union Annex) 01/28/14 04/18/14 05/02/16 $ 37,832,079 $ 35,023,862 $ 37,832,079

TOTAL $499,370,244 $298,460,556 $512,766,413

Building for tomorrow’s leaders

Invoice & Payment Process Improvements

• PMO’s action plan to improve BuildLACCD’s invoice process & payment procedures:

• Recommended actions under review by PMO prior to potential implementation:

Action Benefit

Forecasted

Completion

• Use of e-signature platform • Reduction in processing time (timesheets, invoices) July 2016

• Automated email reminders

• Electronic invoice submission via email

• Reduction in delayed submissions

• Reduction in transit time June 2016

• Point of Contact assignment at the CPTs/PMO for

each Prime

• Serves as a “go-to” resource to facilitate

communication & efficiency June 2016

• Designate days for invoice submission & drawdown

requests to District • Consistency, efficiency Complete

• Back-up District personnel for review/approval of

invoice/drawdown requests • Efficiency Complete

• District to allocate Reserve Funds to PMO • Reduction in release of checks timing Complete

• Streamline District & LA County communications • Accelerate release of funds Complete

• Electronic Funds Transfer (PMO to Prime) • Efficiency (in lieu of wet-signed and mailed) TBD*

Action Benefit

• PMIS Invoice Loading feature • Expedite processing

• Enhance transparency and communication

• PMO staffing and process review • Alleviate backlog and processing time

• Electronic Funds Transfers (Prime to Sub)

Contingent upon EFT of PMO to Prime resolution

• Accelerate payment time

*PMO to coordinate with the District to obtain District approval for PMO to communicate with the Bank and set up the process.


Los Angeles Community College District

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES

PMO Annual Update

Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee

May 25, 2016


BuildLACCD Financial Summary

A B C D E F=B-E

Variance Explanation(s) Funding June 2015

Current Funding Dec 2015

Contracted Dec 2015

Expended Dec 2015

EAC Dec 2015

Variance Funding - EAC

Colleges $4.75 B $4.75 B $4.16 B $3.86 B $4.76 B $(11.21 M)

EAC adjustment ($11.2M) not captured by Dashboard data run due to timing issue. Resolved in January 2016 Dashboard to show zero variance.

Satellites $330.37 M $330.37 M $216.44 M $209.91 M $335.99 M $(5.62 M) Funding adjustment pending District resolution.

Central Services $541.02 M $541.02 M $440.41 M $368.38 M $541.02 M $- N/A

Districtwide Initiatives

$371.62 M $374.65 M $205.83 M $160.01 M $374.64 M $0.01 M

June to Dec Funding: Funding transfer from Pierce College to consolidate project IT funds into one financial ID. Current Funding to EAC: EAC adjustment not captured by the Dashboard data run due to timing issue. Resolved in January 2016 Dashboard to show zero variance.

Retire District Debt & Refinance

$117.16 M $117.16 M $109.64 M $109.64 M $117.16 M $- N/A

District Bond Contingency

$14.64 M $14.64 M $- $- $1.53 M $13.12 M N/A

Program Reserve1 $140.00 M $133.17 M $- $- $- $133.17 M Funding transfer to Mission College.

TOTAL $6.26 B $6.26 B $5.13 B $4.70 B $6.13 B $129.47 M

Source: December 2015 Dashboard Report

1 Program Reserve EAC currently under evaluation to account for outstanding Program-wide exposure.


College-Level Financial Summary

A B C D E F=B-E

Variance Explanation(s)

Funding June 2015

Current Funding Dec 2015

Contracted Dec 2015

Expended Dec 2015

EAC Dec 2015


City $568.44 M $568.44 M $482.14 M $452.76 M $568.44 M $- N/A

East $664.82 M $664.82 M $622.67 M $573.94 M $664.82 M $- N/A

Harbor $449.24 M $449.24 M $440.22 M $382.64 M $460.44 M $(11.21 M)

EAC adjustment not captured by Dashboard data run due to timing issue. Resolved in January 2016 Dashboard to show zero variance.

Mission $438.68 M $445.51 M $420.83 M $399.88 M $445.51 M $- Funding variance (June to Dec): Funds transfer from Program Reserve.

Pierce $627.76 M $625.06 M $499.49 M $440.33 M $625.06 M $-

Funding variance (June to Dec): Funds transfer from Pierce to 40J IT to consolidate budget under one financial ID.

Southwest $405.39 M $405.39 M $375.46 M $370.27 M $405.39 M $- N/A

Trade $582.29 M $582.29 M $467.22 M $433.74 M $582.29 M $- N/A

Valley $612.49 M $612.49 M $490.64 M $449.08 M $612.49 M $- N/A

West $400.91 M $400.91 M $360.24 M $354.30 M $400.91 M $- N/A

TOTAL $4.75 B $4.75 B $4.16 B $3.86 B $4.76 B $(11.21 M) See Harbor Variance Explanation above.

Source: December 2015 Dashboard Report


Risk Exposure Analysis

• Risk cost workshops conducted at the Colleges & PMO (Oct-Dec 2015)

• Monte Carlo analysis run in December 2015 for all active registers

• Analysis determined risk exposure at the 80th percentile

As of December 31, 2015

Potential Commitments $39.30M

College COPs: $12.10M

Aggregate College Risk Exposure $61.34M

Program Risk Exposure $60.78M

Aggregate College Contingency

$100.65M

Aggregate College Reserve $27.39M

40J Risk Exposure $2.10M

District Bond Contingency $14.64M

Program Reserve $133.17M

$-

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

Aggregate Risk Exposure & Outstanding COPs & Commitments Aggregate Contingencies & Reserves

LACCD Aggregate Risk Exposure as a Function of College and District Contingencies & Reserves


College Projects Status Summary

Pending Planning Design Construction Completed TOTAL

City 6 3 3 5 52 69 East 3 4 3 3 88 101 Harbor 7 0 1 3 55 66 Mission 1 1 5 4 66 77 Pierce 7 12 4 8 75 106 Southwest 0 2 2 0 71 75 Trade 7 8 0 3 64 82 Valley 6 6 2 5 45 64 West 4 1 9 0 47 61 Satellites 0 2 0 0 10 12

Projects Remaining Breakdown

12% 9%

8%

8%

22%

3%

13%

14%

10% 1%

City East Harbor Mission

Pierce SW Trade Valley

West Satellites

As of December 2015

Chart does not include 40J college projects such as ADA, Stormwater, Technology, Energy, etc.

80 Projects Pending/In Planning

29 Projects in Design/DSA

Review

31 Projects in Construction

41 Projects forecasted to start

Construction in 2016


$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15

Aw

ard

s (

$M

)

2015 New Contract Awards

Design Construction Other

Procurement Activity Summary

40 39

57

25 26

51

0102030405060

Ju

l-1

5

Aug

-15

Sep

-15

Oct-

15

Nov-1

5

Dec-1

5

No

. o

f T.O

.s

Task Orders Issued

36

18 21

31

20 24

0

10

20

30

40

Ju

l-1

5

Aug

-15

Sep

-15

Oct-

15

Nov-1

5

Dec-1

5

No

. o

f P.O

.s

Purchase Orders Issued

2.4 2.5 2.6

1.3

0.7

2.5

$-

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

Ju

l-1

5

Aug

-15

Sep

-15

Oct-

15

Nov-1

5

Dec-1

5

Mil

lio

ns

Value of TOs and POs Issued

Construction: $74.20M

Design: $7.71M Contract value only


Remaining Work by College

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

Total Remaining Funds Remaining Construction Funds Only

* Southgate is included within the Satellite category per the Dashboard report. Remaining Work: Current Funding less Expended to-date (data as of 12/31/15).

As of December 2015


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


No

. of

Pro

ject

s Projects Status Activity

Planning

Design/DSA

Construction

Design & Construction

1

10

1

3 3 2 2

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


No

. of

Pro

ject

s

Construction Activity

Construction NTP Issued Substantial Completion Achieved


DSA Certification

26 Projects

Closed with Certification

Construction Value: $389M

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Jul-15 Dec-15

Nu

mb

er

of

Pro

jec

ts

Closed without Certification Trend

College Projects CWC July - Dec 2015

City 2

East 6

Harbor 4

Mission 1

Pierce 3

Southwest 3

Trade 1

Valley 4

West 2

TOTAL 26

CWC: Closed with Certification

CWOC: Closed without Certification

* Two additional projects closed without certification in September

2015 (City, Pierce) and have since been submitted to DSA for

certification.

Projects

CWOC July 2015

Remaining

CWOC * Dec 2015

6 7

9 7

2 0

2 1

6 5

1 0

5 5

6 3

0 1

37 29

22% Drop in Total Projects

Closed without Certification


July –December 2015

7 Recordables

2015 NAICS Avg. 3.2

TRIR Goal: 3.2

TRIR Actual: 3.1

NAICS: North American Industry Classification System

TRIR: Total Recordable Injury Rate

Safety Report

1

3

0

1 1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5


To

tal M

on

thly

In

cid

en

ts

Incidents by Month

79,615 80,705

69,816

84,313

64,717 62,889

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000


To

tal M

an

Ho

urs

Man Hours by Month


College Key Performance Indicators

• New criteria established and implemented for Risk and Schedule KPIs

• Change Order KPI criteria under development

• 2 New KPIs under development: Commissioning & Closeout

• KPI Comparison Report (June 30, 2015 vs. December 31, 2015):

Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-15 Dec-15

Compliant

Needs

Improvement

Unsatisfactory

Compliance

Construction

Schedule

Monthly

Risk

Quarterly

Time to Execute

Change Orders

Monthly

Variance 0 to 1%

Variance > 1%

Budget to

EAC Variance

Monthly

Invoice

Timing

Monthly

Safety

Monthly

< 20 days

20 to 30 days

30 + days

RIR < 3.4

RIR w ithin 10% of

3.4

RIR > 3.4

> 90% C.O.s approved

w ithin 90 days

50% - 89% C.O.s

approved w ithin 90 days

Variance < = 0%

City

East

Harbor

Mission

Pierce

Southwest

Trade

Valley

West

< 50% C.O.s approved

w ithin 90 days

All Individual Projects Green

(SC Slippage 0 to 30 days)

Total of All Projects is Yellow

(SC Slippage 31 - 60 days),

or One Project Yellow or Red

(SC Slippage > 60 days)

Total of All Projects is Red

(SC Slippage > 60 days)

Weighted criteria

score 100% - 85%

Weighted criteria

score 84% - 50%

Weighted criteria

score 49% - 0%

New Criteria New Criteria Criteria Under Dev.


LSEDV Contract Award Breakdown

Contract Category Total Firms

LSEDV Firms

LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Non-LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Staff Augmentation 178 124 34 15

Architecture/Engineering 18 7 5 7

Environmental 12 6 6 4

Inspector of Record 18 13 7 4

Laboratory of Record 9 5 5 4

Whole Bldg. Commissioning

11 3 2 5

Professional Services 246 158 59 39

Construction Companies 51 20 N/A N/A

LSEDV : Local, Small, Emerging, Disabled Veterans

297 Total

Companies

178 LSEDV

Companies

60% Task Orders

awarded to

LSEDV Figures are not totaled under the “Total Companies” and “LSEDV Companies” to avoid

double-counting.

December 2015


Local Worker Hiring Performance

14,598 Workers performed

work on 28 active projects

4,733 or 32%, are local

(through Dec 2015)

43% 39%

27%

32% 20% 25%

34% 41%

30% 34%

27% 37% 33% 43% 27%

29% 36% 37% 34%

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Total Craft Workers Local Workers

Contractor Local Worker Hiring Performance

28.00%

29.00%

30.00%

31.00%

32.00%

33.00%

07/15 08/15 09/15 10/15 11/15 12/15Actual Local Hire Participation (By Month)


College Internship Program Monthly Intern Participation (H1-B Grant Funded On-Campus/PMO Positions)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

07/2015 08/2015 09/2015 10/2015 11/2015 12/2015

Inte

rn C

ou

nt

by C

om

pan

y

AECOM HARPER PACIFICA SGI


Small Business Program-Small Contractor Boot Camp

0

10

20

30

40

SBE LBE DVBE EBE

21

38

2 9

Small Contractor Boot Camp Participants Spring 2015

(51 Contractors)

SBE

LBE

DVBE

EBE

*Some firms qualify for more than one business category.

21 Small Business Enterprise (SBE)

38 Local Business Enterprise (LBE)

9 Emerging Business Enterprise (EBE)

2 Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE)

*Some firms qualify for more than one business category.

51 Small Contractors attended Small Contractor

Spring 2015


Small Business Program-Prequalification Workshop

37 small contractors attended the workshop

31, or 84%, responded to the Request for Small Contractor Pre-Qualification

11 of 31, or 35%, who attended the workshop are Prequalified. Five (5) of those contractors attended the Small Contractor Boot Camp


Energy: PV System Buyouts Summary

Year Type College Project Name Early Buyout Net EBO Price Total Net

EBO Price

1 2007 PPA East NW Parking PV Farm /

Carport Structure

5/1/16 $ 2,972,750 $ 2,972,750

2 2009 SL Harbor Phase 1 – Parking lots 6 &

8

6/30/16 2,050,501

5,993,497

3 2009 SL Harbor Phase 2 – Parking lots 6 &

7

6/30/16 2,126,845

4 2009 SL Pierce Parking lot 6 6/30/16 896,160

5 2009 SL East A1 CC, C1 MG, E9 WG,

G3 Aud, H9 PF, P1 AS

6/30/16 217,542

6 2009 SL SW Parking Lot 3 6/30/16 463,194

7 2009 SL East NW Parking PV System

Expansion

6/30/16 239,255

8 2010 SL Pierce Parking lots 1 & 8 12/30/17 1,377,619

2,905,136 9 2010 SL Valley M&O, C & D Parking Lots 12/30/17 1,140,045

10 2010 SL VDK South Parking Lot 12/30/17 387,471

TOTAL $ 11,871,383

PPA = Power Purchase Agreement with production guarantees

SL = Solar Leases/Master Equipment Leases with production guarantees


ELAC Buyout Status

• Tasks Underway

– Fair market value assessment (Energy Consultant)

– Buyout contract Good Faith review (Outside Counsel)

• Next Steps (April 2016)

– PMO recommendation to the Board regarding the buyout execution

– PMO recommendation to the Board regarding the post buyout

maintenance & operation

– Obtain Board approval of next steps and proceed

Alternative I No action; Service and maintenance of PV system performed by current owner

under contract.

Alternative II District to hire outside entity to service and maintain existing solar asset.

Alternative III Continue a service and maintenance contract for 1 year (min) with outside entity

to allow college staff to be trained on system service and maintenance.

Alternative I Execute buyout contract immediately,

Alternative II Continue to make annual payments for the remaining 12 years of the contract.

1

2

3


– Completed FY 2015 KPMG Performance and Financial Audits:

• Audit period covered: July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015

• Audits reported: at November 18, 2015 Facilities Master Planning and

Oversight Committee meeting

• Audit results: No material or significant weaknesses or findings

– Auditors repeatedly expressed recognition of major/significant

improvements in several areas:

• Budget

• Estimating

• Cost reporting

• Scheduling

• Communication and Expediency

• Standardization across Colleges

• Audit Transparency

External Assessment


Returning vs. New Visitors Visitor Acquisition Device Type

Website Activity – Jul 1, 2015 – Dec 31, 2016


Program Awards

October 2015

Green California Schools & Community Colleges

Summit, 2015 Green Building Award for

Community Colleges

Leadership Award https://green-technology.smugmug.com/Events/GCSCS15-

Leadership-Awards/

November 2015

US Green Building Council Los Angeles Chapter,

5th Annual Sustainable Innovation Awards

Energy & Atmosphere Merit: Pierce College

Library Learning Crossroads http://usgbc-la.org/greengala/

https://green-technology.smugmug.com/Events/GCSCS15-Leadership-Awards/








http://usgbc-la.org/greengala/



http://usgbc-la.org/


Revised Baseline & Forecast


Revised Baseline Financial Summary

A B C D F=A-D

Variance Explanation(s)

Current Funding Mar. 2016

Contracted Mar. 2016

Expended Mar. 2016

EAC Mar/Apr 2016 *


Colleges $4.75 B $4.16 B $3.91 B $4.77 B $(16.0 M) See slide 25 for detail.

Satellites $330.37 M $216.44 M $209.99 M $335.99 M $5.44 M

Variance shown is not to offset VDK shortfall as Firestone is currently in programming. To be re-evaluated at the completion of Firestone.

Central Services $542.95 M $444.19 M $375.10 M $543.32 M $(0.37 M)

EAC adjustment not captured by Dashboard data run due to timing issue. Resolved in April 2016 Dashboard to show zero variance. Note: Funding variation from Dec 2015 due to Corporate Center funding transfer.

Districtwide Initiatives

$378.73 M $206.12 M $161.36 M $378.73 M $-

Note: Funding variation from Dec 2015 due to funding transfer from Pierce and West for physical security upgrade projects.

Retire District Debt & Refinance

$117.16 M $109.64 M $109.64 M $117.16 M $- N/A

District Bond Contingency

$12.72 M $- $- $1.53 M $11.19 M Note: Funding variation from Dec 2015 due to Corporate Center funding transfer.

Program Reserve** $130.87 M $- $- $- $130.87 M Note: Funding variation from Dec 2015 due to settlement payment.

TOTAL $6.26 B $5.14 B $4.77 B $6.13 B $131.11 M

Source: March 2016 Dashboard Report

* EAC figures listed under Colleges and Satellites reflect the revised baseline EAC per the analysis completed in

April 2016. EAC figures for the remaining line items listed reflect the March 2016 Dashboard figures. Analysis for

the Central Services and Districtwide Initiatives accounts is commencing in Summer 2016.

** Program Reserve EAC currently under evaluation to account for outstanding Program-wide exposure.


Revised Baseline & Forecast Basis & Assumptions

• Current College Funding as of March 31, 2016

• Baseline Estimate at Completion (EAC) figures as of April 2016

– Negative variance (EAC to Funding) explanations provided in subsequent

slide

– Positive variances (EAC to Funding) remain at a few colleges and Southgate;

however risks remain, as many projects are in early in design that could

erode those funds as the project progresses

• Remaining Work is the forecasted EAC less incurred costs as of

March 2016


Revised EAC Baseline & Forecast Summary

COLLEGES A B C D=B+C E F=A-D

Major Negative

Variance Drivers

Potential Negative Variance

Mitigation Measures

Current

Funding

Mar. 2016

Design &

Construction

Contingency

Mar. 2016

Projected

EAC w/o

Contingency

Apr. 2016

Projected EAC

w/ Contingency

Apr. 2016

Remaining

Work

Mar. 2016

Variance

Funding to

EAC+

Contingency

City $568.4 M $15.9 M $549.4 M $565.3 M $106.6 M $3.2 M N/A N/A

East $664.8 M $12.2 M $649.6 M $661.8 M $72.1 M $3.0 M N/A N/A

Harbor $449.2 M $2.9 M $451.7 M $454.6 M $67.2 M ($5.4) M

Student Union cost escalation

and delay due to subsurface

conditions; IT data center

addition to Student Union

Deferral of Central Green; Use of

40J IT funding for IT project;

LAUSD funding transfer to LAHC

Mission $445.5 M $3.6 M $442.8 M $446.5 M $40.7 M ($0.9) M Central Plant & Media Arts

escalation due to current market Central Plant scope reduction

Pierce $625.1 M $24.7 M $599.1 M $623.9 M $172.0 M $1.2 M N/A N/A

Southwest $405.4 M $3.2 M $399.9 M $403.1 M $31.2 M $2.3 M N/A N/A

Trade $582.3 M $12.1 M $572.6 M $584.7 M $139.8 M ($2.4) M

Art & Culinary Arts cost

escalation and schedule delay

due to extended DSA review,

Deferral of Facilities M&O &

Toyon Hall (Pending final

Culinary Arts construction

contract award amount)

Valley $612.7 M $16.6 M $614.5 M $631.1 M $161.2 M ($18.4) M

Media Arts bid exceeds original

estimate; Gym Complex,

Campus Center, Allied Health,

Energy Infrastructure projects:

escalation due to current market;

ATF contract amendment

Litigation settlement funds to

LAVC; Use of 40J IT funding for

IT project; Deferral of

Sustainable Mall, RWGPL

Parking Lots H&J

West $399.1 M $4.3 M $393.4 M $397.7 M $42.7 M $1.5 M N/A N/A

TOTAL $4.75 B $95.6 M $4.67 B $4.77 B $833.4 M ($16.0) M

A: Current funding as documented in the March 2016 Dashboard.

C: EAC (Estimate at Completion) as of Apr 2016; figure not reflected in Dashboard as this is a detailed analysis underway.

E: Remaining work calculated using the forecasted EAC less incurred costs as of March 2016

Note: 40J projects are not included in figures above.

SATELLITES

Southgate $192.1 M $24.7 M $156.4 M $181.1 M $113.0 M $11.1 M N/A N/A


Revised EAC + Risk Exposure Summary

COLLEGES FUNDING & PROJECTED EAC RISK EXPOSURE ANALYSIS

A B C D=B+C E=A-B F=A-D

Current Funding

Mar. 2016

Projected EAC +

Contingency

Apr. 2016

Risk Exposure

Dec. 2015

Projected EAC+

Contingency+ Risk

Apr. 2016

Variance

Funding to EAC+

Contingency

Variance

Funding to EAC+

Contingency+ Risk

City $568.4 M $565.3 M $6.3 M $571.5 M $3.2 M ($3.1) M

East $664.8 M $661.8 M $5.0 M $666.8 M $3.0 M ($2.0) M

Harbor $449.2 M $454.6 M $2.4 M $457.0 M ($5.4) M ($7.8) M

Mission $445.5 M $446.5 M $2.7 M $449.2 M ($0.9) M ($3.7) M

Pierce $625.1 M $623.9 M $9.3 M $633.2 M $1.2 M ($8.1) M

Southwest $405.4 M $403.1 M $1.5 M $404.6 M $2.3 M $0.8 M

Trade $582.3 M $584.7 M $7.7 M $592.4 M ($2.4) M ($10.1) M

Valley $612.7 M $631.1 M $12.2 M $643.3 M ($18.4) M ($30.6) M

West $399.1 M $397.7 M $3.1 M $400.8 M $1.5 M ($1.7) M

TOTAL $4.75 B $4.77 B $50.3 M $4.82 B ($16.0) M ($66.3) M

SATELLITES

Southgate $192.1 M $181.1 M $11.1 M $192.1 M $11.1 M $0.0 M

• Risk exposure is based upon December 2015 model.

• Fluctuation of risks & risk exposure value since December 2015

• Risks mitigated & closed

• Risks realized as change order proposals

• New risks identified

• Next Risk Model run: Summer 2016


Project Completions Post April 2018

• See 11x17 Handout


40J Account Rebaseline & Forecast Next Steps

• Estimate at Completion (EAC) rebaseline and forecast

analysis for each Central Services & Districtwide Initiatives

account to commence in Summer 2016.

– Technology projects analysis underway and scheduled to be

completed in June 2016.

• 40J Account allocations per college may change based on

a variety of reasons such as:

– EAC analysis discovery

– College need

– Project priority

– Project scope refinement


40J: Central Services Accounts Funding Summary

Account

A B C D E=A-D

Funding

Mar. 2016

Expended

Mar. 2016

% Expended

Mar. 2016

EAC

Mar. 2016

Variance

Mar. 2016

Asset Management $52.4 M $35.4 M 68% $52.4 M $0.0 M

Audit $13.5 M $6.2 M 46% $13.5 M $0.0 M

Corporate Center $1.9 M $0.0 M 0% $1.9 M $0.0 M

FF&E $24.8 M $18.3 M 74% $24.8 M $0.0 M

Legal $49.2 M $31.9 M 65% $49.2 M $0.0 M

Move Management $44.3 M $30.4 M 69% $44.3 M $0.0 M

OCIP $91.0 M $57.2 M 63% $91.0 M $0.0 M

Program

Management $210.8 M $150.0 M 71% $210.8 M $0.0 M

Project

Management $1.4 M $1.4 M 100% $1.4 M $0.0 M

Recycling $7.7 M $7.6 M 99% $7.7 M $0.0 M

Specialty Consulting $45.9 M $36.7 M 80% $45.9 M $0.0 M

TOTAL $542.9 M $375.1 M 69% $542.9 M $0.0 M

A: Funding as reported in the March 2016 Dashboard.

D: EAC is Estimate at Completion.

Note: Central Services often use a single, pooled account or central repository to simplify charges and leverage economies of

scale (e.g. buying bulk insurance). Each Central Service account in the pooled account equals to the amount of funds colleges

have contributed. It is possible for central accounts to change allocations based on current/future needs. Allocation changes

require approval of District CFE.


40J: Districtwide Initiatives Funding Summary

Account

A B C D E=A-D

Funding

Mar. 2016

Expended

Mar. 2016

% Expended

Mar. 2016

EAC

Mar. 2016

Variance

Mar. 2016

Anti-Graffiti

Program $1.1 M $1.1 M 100% $1.1 M $0.0 M

Energy $128.8 M $64.1 M 50% $128.8 M $0.0 M

Stormwater

Implementation $23.0 M $4.4 M 19% $23.0 M $0.0 M

Technology $134.9 M $58.9 M 44% $134.9 M $0.0 M

Transportation

& Accessibility

Improvements

(ADA)

$68.0 M $16.4 M 24% $68.0 M $0.0 M

Warranty

Program $3.1 M $3.1 M 100% $3.1 M $0.0 M

Whole Building

Commissioning $19.8 M $13.4 M 67% $19.8 M $0.0 M

TOTAL $378.7 M $161.4 M 43% $378.7 M $0.0 M


D: EAC is Estimate at Completion

Note: Allocations to each account subject to change based on current/future needs. Allocation changes require approval of District

CFE.


40J: District Bond Contingency Funding Summary

Account

A B C D E=A-D

Funding

Mar. 2016

Expended

Mar. 2016

%

Expended

Mar. 2016

EAC

Mar. 2016

Variance

Mar. 2016

District Bond

Contingency $12.7 M $0.0 M 0% $1.5 M $11.2 M


• Purpose: Funds reserved for Central Services, Satellite, and

Districtwide Initiatives budgets that may be insufficient due to:

– Unprecedented increases in costs

– Unavoidable but necessary changes in scope

– Additional scope of services

– Protracted delays caused by external forces that result in additional costs

• District assesses level of funding to maintain, when the funding

may be reduced, explores potential uses of these remaining

funds.


Thank You


New Bond Program Overview

• Summary of District Needs 1. Central Services & Districtwide Initiatives

2. Per College

• Bond Measure Ballot Language o Request for approval – June 8, 2016

• Potential Project List o Request for approval – June 22, 2016

invoice process and payment review - laccd - home · invoice process and payment review -...

Documents