Review of Procurement Services of the Shelby County Schools December 2016 Council of the Great City Schools Dorsey Hopson, Superintendent of the Shelby County Schools (SCS), requested that the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) provide a high-level management review of the district?s Procurement Services.I Speci?cally, he requested that the Council2 0 Review and evaluate the leadership and management, organization, and Operations of the district?s procurement functions 0 Develop recommendations that would help Procurement Services achieve greater Operational efficiency and effectiveness. In response to this request, the Council assembled a Strategic Support Team of senior managers with extensive experience in procurement operations from other major urban school systems across the country. The team was composed of the following individuals. (Attachment A provides briefbiographical sketches of team members.) Robert Carlson, Project Director Director, Management Services Council ofthe Great City Schools David Koch, Principal Investigator ChiefAdministrative Of?cer (Retired) Los Angeles Unified School District Gary Appenfelder Director, Purchasing Ethics MetrOpolitan Nashville Public Schools Kristen DeCato Director, Procurement Risk Management Milwaukee Public Schools The COuncil has conducted some 300 instructional, management, and operational reviews in over 50 big-city school districts over the last 18 years. The reports generated by these reviews are often critical, but they also have been the foundation for improving the Operations, organization, instruction, and management of many urban school systems nationally. In other cases, the reports are complimentary and form the basis for identifying ?best practices? for other urban school systems to replicate. (Attachment lists the reviews that the Council has conducted.) 3 The Council conducted a review of food services in Shelby County Schools in 2016. Council ofthe Great City Schools Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools Michael Eugene Chief Operating Officer Orange County (Florida) Public Schools James Skrobo Purchasing Manager Omaha Public Schools Christopher Steele (Retired) Assistant Superintendent, Budget Planning Portsmouth Public Schools The team conducted its ?eldwork for the project during a four-day site visit to Memphis on December 11-14, 2016. The general schedule for the site visit is described below. (The Working Agenda for the site visit is presented in Attachment B.) The team met on the first day of the site visit to discuss expectations and objectives for the review and to make final adjustments to the work schedule. The team used the second and third days of its fieldwork to conduct interviews with staff members and others (a list of individuals interviewed is included in Attachment C) and to review documents, reports, and data provided by the district (a list of documents reviewed by the team is presented in Attachment The final day ofthe visit was devoted to and refining the team?s findings and to debrie?ng the Superintendent?s Chiefof Staff on the Team?s preliminary conclusions. The Council sent a draft of this document to the team members for their review to ensure the accuracy of the report and obtain their concurrence with the ?nal recommendations. A draft of the report was also sent to the Shelby County school administration for their review and comment. District comments were sent to the team for their examination and comment. All district comments were considered as part of this final report. All observations and recommendations are current as of the team?s site visit. This management letter contains the findings and recommendations that were designed by the team to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the district?s Procurement Services. Please note that the footnotes contained herein are an integral part ofthis report. The Shelby County Schools Procurement Services As of July 1. 20I3, the Memphis City Schools were merged with the Shelby County Schools (SCS), resulting in the largest public-school district in Tennessee and 25th largest public-school district in the nation. Now. the combined SCS operates 220 schools serving 95.000 3 The Council?s peer reviews are based on interviews of district staff and others, a review of documents provided by the district, development or review of comparability data, observations of operations, and the teams? professional judgments. In conducting interviews, the teams must rely on the willingness of those interviewed to be factual and forthcoming, but cannot always judge the accuracy of their statements. Council of the Great City Schools 2 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools students with over 9,100 employees. Located in the southwest corner of Tennessee, SCS covers a large geographic area that spans over 460 square miles. SCS is governed by an elected, nine-member Board of Education that appoints the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent is responsible to the Board of Education for the effective operation of the school system, including implementation of the district?s 10-year Strategic Plan. Destination 2025.4 The Superintendent is also responsible for the ef?cient management of the district?s resources. The approved General Fund budget for 2016-2017 was $958,913,051.? An abridged overview ofthe Superintendent?s administrative organization is shown below in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1. Superintendent?s Administrative Organization Chart 1 30 1i lilt'b Clitlollntemeltutit adamant I a a? lnnPatlman mgr, limm?iams Intemalliudit . . . armada: Mater Sthuel Rodney Moore Dorseyi?apsoall Italian itilLimFulltn . 1 WW I Dteciartolti-ttigislaton Daputl?eneralfwniel . Juanita llatalietlti?nnay lenient} thlelofStaff 1 ?mm . mam ?tiara-aim BrlanStadnn l- 9151311 13m ?1 Histllanagemwl {games - . l- Hartman tishaGoeris Adviser (hielinnonllun I {titlol?tslness {liltl I 01121 . {1119101 Other Ultra Operations Smite: lnlomtion??ltct lbantlal?i?ttr lithium-as Heldiililiamirtz {Erin Butler Gerald Baring johnluillfam; Unlalmm TrinelteC.Small Source: Shelby County Schools The Interim Chief of Business Operations (CBO), who is a direct report to the Superintendent, has reSponsibility for TranSportation Services, Nutrition Services, Facility Planning and Management, and Procurement Services. The Interim Chief of Business Operations? organizational structure is shown below in Exhibit 2. 4 The SCS Strategic Plan can be viewed at: 5 The SCS FY17 Approved General Fund Budget can be viewed at: Council of the Great City Schools Review of Procurement Services of the Shelby County Schools Exhibit 2. Chief of Business Operations? Organization Chart Chief of Business Operations Deputy Chief Operations Of?cer Executiize Director of Facility Planning and Management Director of Procu reme?nt Director of Director of Nutrition Services Of?ce of Facility Office of Asset Planning Management Source: Shelby County Schools The Procurement function is headed by an Interim Director of Procurement, supported by the Procurement Manager and the Manager of Assets Management, which was a unit recently added to the department.6 Exhibit 3 below shows this organization and its 17 positions at the time of the team?s review. The Procurement Manager is responsible for ?ve buyers, whose work is organized by commodity; two Fast Lane personnel who focus on expediting lower value orders; and two Child Nutrition Buyers who are funded by the Food Service program. The Asset Management unit of four is charged with accounting for and tracking district assets on two asset inventory systems. 5 At the time of the site visit, the Procurement Manager and Asset Manager positions were vacant - a condition that had existed for nearly twelve months. Council of the Great City Schools 4 Review of Procurement Services of the Shelby County Schools Exhibit 3. Procurement Services Organization Chart Procurement Director Manager, Asset Management Procurement Manager Fast Lane lnvento FY Buyers (5) Specialist (2) Clerks (2) Child Nutrition Buyers (2) Data Specialist Source. SCS Procurement Services Reference Manual Findings and Observations Clerical The overall conclusion of the Council?s Strategic Support Team was that the ?Shelby County School system is encumbered by workplace culture differences remaining from the legacy districts that inhibit a uni?ed movement forward. Speci?cally, the team?s ?ndings and observations below are organized into four general areas: Commendations, Organization, Leadership and Management, and Operations. These finding and observations and followed by a series of recommendations. Commendations - Many staff members in the Procurement Services unit appeared to be experienced, hardworking. and dedicated to their assigned tasks. a The Procurement Services unit has developed an excellent Reference Manual, which is comprehensive and constitutes an effort at best practices. 0 The Interim Director of Procurement Services appears to possess the interest, motivation, and energy to move the department forward by instituting improvements necessary to make the organization exemplary. Council ofthe Great City Schools Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schoois 0 The Procurement Services unit has begun modernization of its practices. including testing Reverse Auction acquisition techniques. I To improve cyber security, the district has entered into a contract for recycling surplus and obsolete computers, including the destruction oftheir hard drives. Organization 0 The district?s procurement functions are fragmented and the organization of the Procurement Services unit does not represent industry best practice. For example - 0 General Counsel staff is assigned tasks that should be performed by the Procurement Department, specifically - Procurement"s role in facilitating and executing agreements and General Counsel?s role in reviewing legal suf?ciency and form are not being reflected in current processes The General Counsel?s office is negotiating contract content, such as scope, price and term, which should be the responsibility of the Procurement Department. Some departments are submitting proposed vendor agreements directly to the General Counsel rather than processing those agreements through Procurement Services. It was reported to the team that schools often do not know where to go with contract requests. The department?s processes are transactional driven. As a result, the department is focused on workload and processing speed rather than strategic goals, which would enable it to achieve fiscal efficiencies and ensure internal control. The placement of Asset Management in the Procurement Services unit distracts from its core business, which is to account for and track district assets. This critically important function is not getting the attention from the Chief Financial Officer that is warranted. For example - The team was told that the two asset management systems maintained by the district may account for as little as 60 percent ofthe district?s total assets. The Chief Information Officer indicated that he did not have an accurate count of electronic devices in schools. 0 Procurement Services appeared to be adequately staffed. However The resources in the Fast Lane unit, focused on expediting lower-value orders, would likely be more productive if converted to regular buyer positions and workloads were redistributed. Issues related to the expediting of low-dollar transactions should be Council of the Great City Schools 6 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools addressed through process improvements, ERP automation of work orders, and Card utilization. 0 While productivity data were not readily available, the staffing level of the Procurement Services unit was generally higher than peer school districts of comparable size. Leadership and Management While management appears to be open to innovation and new ways of doing business, nothing seems to be changing and projects languish because there is no sense of urgency and detailed implementation plans do not appear to have been developed. The instability and uncertainly resulting from the designation of management positions as Interim Chief of Business Services and Interim Director of Procurement Services negatively affect the department?s ability to set a cohesive direction and implement positive changes. The process for developing Specifications for the proposed new ERP did not appear to have been robust enough to ensure that the new system would not simply replicate the current "as is? processes, but rather would take full advantage of best practices. The district reported that it retained an outside consultant to work with the district and its personnel in developing the scope and Specifications of a new ERP, and that the work was not a duplication of the present system. However, the team did not see any evidence that a ?gap analysis? had been conducted to identify needs versus capabilities; that offline processes had been incorporated into the system; or that an independent verification was made that the result was best?in-class. In addition, key stakeholders reported to the team that they were not involved in the process. The team did not see evidence that the Procurement Services unit (which should be a critical player) has been involved in bringing custodial services in-house or that the requisite due diligence (business-case planning) has been performed by those who have been involved in the process. For example, critical steps would involve developing exit strategies from the current contract, and identifying manpower, plant, equipment, and supplies needed to support an in-house operation The Procurement Services unit does not have a business plan with specific goals, objectives, timelines, resource allocations, accountabilities, metrics and reporting procedures that are linked to the district?s strategic plan. For example The department has adopted four SMART Goals for FY 17. (See Exhibit 4 below.) Exhibit 4. Procurement Services SMART Goals for 2016-17 Destination 2025 Metric Current 2016 Target Priority Baseline Council of the Great City Schools 7 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools 3 - Develop Fully implement 100% on-line 0% 100% Teachers Leaders vendor registration process Central Office 3 - Develop Achieve $500,000 in cost 10% $500,000 Teachers Leaders savings through procurement ($50,000) Central Office initiatives 3 Develop Implement staff 50% Teachers Leaders professional Central Office deveIOpment/training program 3 Develop Fully implement new asset 10% 100% Teachers Leaders management/inventory policies Central Office and procedures 0 However, these goals are not supported by implementation plans, timelines, defined measurements ofdollar goals, or specific outcomes desired. a The Procurement Services unit is not a data-driven organization and does not maintain a metrics dashboard to monitor operational performance. For example, the organization does not have basic purchasing information, such as 0 Volume of requisitions, purchase orders, and contracts 0 Average size and distribution of requisitions, purchase orders, and contracts 0 Spend analysis 0 Vendor analysis 0 Dollar savings achieved through competitive procurements Disaggregated order fulfillment cycle time analysis 0 Percent of contracts strategically sourced7 0 KP15 or other benchmarking tools to measure performance or productivityg. 0 Procurement Services is transaction-centered, has not strategically focused on supply chain management, and has not adopted many 2151 century tools to leverage efficiency and generate cost savings. For example-- 0 The district does not have a P-card program to generate rebate savings and reduce the volume of small requisitions and purchases orders.9 The district reports that small The strategic sourcing process includes assessment ofthe current spending, assessment ofthe supply market, total cost analyses, identification of suitable suppliers, development ofa sourcing strategy, negotiation with suppliers for service levels and added value, tracking of results, and continuous improvement. 3 The district reports that its current ERP system does not provide these reporting capabilities, which is something the team noted as well. The district is looking for a new ERP system, but it does not have the management direction in place that would make either the old or the new systems produce the kinds of analyses that the team believes is necessary. Council of the Great City Schools 8 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools purchases under $500 do not require a requisition or purchase order, but can be made via a payment request. However, the team does not believe that this practice creates the same kind of efficiencies that the district would see by using P-Cards. It appears the district may under-utilize piggy?back contracting and buying consortia. The district uses an on-line solicitation platform and conducts and awards bids on-Iine to achieve tactical efficiencies, but does not have or use e-procurement functionalities in its ERP to increase operational efficiencies electronic bids and paperless workfiows). 0 There does not appear to be a focus on the total cost of ownership in the acquisition process. 0 The team did not see the Department using detailed analyses to determine if there were high demand items that should be aggregated and contracted or if strategically sourced master contracts were in use beyond office supplies, computers, and interactive boards.10 0 Organizational silos within the district and the Business Operations group limited communications, coordination, and collaboration among the various units and negatively affected the Procurement Services Department. For example-- 0 There was no formalized acquisition planning or advanced notification of expiring contracts. 0 There are no final sign-offs on solicitations from both the end users and Procurement Services unit prior to their advertisement. 0 Senior leaders of user departments cited examples where solicitation specifications had been deleted or had unapproved restrictions added by the Procurement Services unit. 0 The team was told that cancellations and reissuances of RFPs had resulted from inadequate definitions of project scope and specifications that related to communications breakdowns. The Procurement Services unit does not appear to leverage the Purchasing Review Committee to advance procurement policy issues. 0 The department does not conduct customer satisfaction surveys to identify areas in need ofimprovement. 9 The team noted that over 66 percent of purchase order payments were under $500 and 80 percent were less than $1,000. H?The district did produce (presumably from the existing ERP system) a report of district expenditures for 2016- 20 at line item detail with vendor name, description and amount. Though not perfect, it certainly could be used as a starting point for the type of analysis commented upon. The team hopes that the new ERP system would have a purchasing module that could produce this kind of report. Council of the Great City Schools 9 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools I The team became aware of several weaknesses in the district?s internal controls within Procurement Services operations. For example The Internal Audit Department has not conducted an enterprise-level risk assessment to direct its work, nor has it developed a formalized plan to conduct audits of the district?s procurement and payment functions and processes, which the Council has found to be high-risk areas in other districts where it has conducted similar peer reviews. The team was told by the internal auditor that his office was currently responsible for school compliance and school accounting only, but that?s the point. Because of the narrow focus of the internal audit unit, it has not performed an enterprise-level risk assessment nor has it developed a formal plan to do so. It has also not conducted an internal audit of procurement operations per se." 0 Academic professional-services contracts that individually exceed $l00,000 can be submitted directly to the Board of Education for approval without the involvement of the Procurement Services unit. It does not appear that direct payments to vendors are reviewed to ensure adherence to procurement policies. 0 The Procurement Department does not uniformly perform vendor evaluations, have formally defined debarment processes, or consistently incorporate performance penalties liquidated damages) in its contracts.12 0 It was reported to the team that finance personnel have no formal role in facilities construction projects and do not have automated financial systems to manage multi- year construction contracts. 13 0 There are no automated systems controls to prevent overspending of contracts. 0 The district's policies and procedures do not prohibit supervisors and their direct subordinates from participating on the same RFP evaluation team, exposing the process to the possibility of undue influence by the ranking individuals. 0 The team noted evidence of multiple numbers in the vendor file assigned to a single vendor, which could lead to duplicate payments and inaccurate spending reporting. 0 School board policy specifies that the ?superintendent?s designee and/or general counsel are responsible for drafting, reviewing and, when necessary, revising the terms and conditions of the purchase order and bidding standards. This shall occur '1 The Council?s team included a certified public accountant. (See attachment A.) '2 The team noted that penalties are outlined in the district?s contracts with the custodial cleaning services and transportation providers, and encourages the district to extend this practice to other providers. ?3 The Council has found that industry best practice includes (1) ?nance personneI that participates in and ensures that financial aspects are factors in project selection; (2) is the final Approver (for School Board approval of the CIP budget) for selected projects as part of the planning process; and (3) sets budget controls and is the ?nal Approver of CIP expenditures. Council of the Great City Schools l0 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools annually, periodically, or on request of the board, superintendent, or the general counsel; or upon the recommendation of the purchasing department.? The board?s policy, however, does not clarify who has ultimate authority for these changes. In addition, contract values could be unilaterally increased by designated staff above their originally approved value without formal board approval. The team was told during interviews that Accounts Payable had to go to various departments asking for invoices rather than requiring or ensuring that vendors send their invoices directly to Accounts Payable. All travel expenses are not encumbered. While federal regulations require encumbrance of travel expenses incurred with federal monies, it does not appear that the district has the capability currently of encumbering all other travel-related expenses. The district reports being in the process of implementing a travel module with the ability to encumber funds for all travel expenses, but the team did not hear what the time-frame for this implementation was. There is no centralized receiving of capital assets to ensure they are properly identified, tagged, and accounted for. While personnel who breach purchasing policies are sent a notice of violation, repeat offenders are not tracked and superiors are not notified. 0 None of the staff in the Procurement Services unit has professional certification'4 and there are no incentives to obtain such certifications, nor is there any formal professional development plan or cross-training for employees. 0 The effectiveness of the local preference program has not been evaluated to determine if it has met the Board of Education?s intended purposes and objectives. Operations . There is a general perception within SCS that the procurement process takes too long. While this concern appears legitimate, the team found that cycle times are affected by several external factors. For example - 0 Federal program requisitions require an excessive number (four to six) of approvals outside the Procurement Department. It was reported to the team that items being presented to the Board of Education for approval require six weeks? notice to be posted on the Board?s agenda. Staff of the Fast Lane unit indicated that 20 percent of lower?value requisitions received are rejected due to errors. '4 Several professional procurement organizations offer certification programs, including the Certified Public Procurement Officer (CPPO) and Certi?ed Professional Public Buyer (CPPB) programs. Council ofthe Great City Schools 1 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools 0 The team was told that while there are non-federal and federal funds templates and the General Counsel?s office uses a standard template in documents; the procurement unit does not always use standard templates for issuing RFPs, contracts, or terms and conditions. 0 There is no formal policy or adopted procedure for protesting contract or purchase awards or other procurement decisions. 0 A current memorandum of delegation for contract signatures does not exist. 0 Personnel in the Procurement Services unit do not appear to be fully aware of the provisions of federal procurement guidelines and The Uniform Grant Guidance requirements and deadlines.13 0 There is no program to encourage early-payment discounts. (The only evidence of such discounts appears to be when a vendor offers it). Recommendations 1. Consolidate the procurement functions and resources currently in the General Counsel?s office into the Procurement Services Department to provide uniformity, consistency, and efficiency in purchasing and contracting. 2. Organizationally relocate the Asset Management function under the Chief Financial Officer to bring additional focus to establishing a single, accurate inventory system for capitalized assets. 3. Reorganize the resources within the consolidated Procurement Services Department by converting Fast Lane positions into Buyers and by charging each Buyer with responsibility for priority processing of lower?value requisitions. 4. Permanently appoint leaders who have the appropriate skill-sets, training, experience, and attitude to expertly execute their responsibilities. 5. Involve all relevant stakeholders in a thorough review to confirm that the specifications in the proposed new ERP ensures that the system has the capability to take full advantage of best practices and innovative procurement techniques. The district should not rely solely on the assurances ofthe consultant. 6. Before embarking on a project to in-source custodial services, ensure that a comprehensive business plan has been developed in coordination with human resources, ?5 On December 26, 2013, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued rules that combine several OMB Circulars into one document titled ?Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards." This document is also referred to as the Uniform Grant Guidance. Administrative requirements and cost principles are effective for new awards after December 26, 2014. Council of the Great City Schools 12 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools finance, facilities, procurement, and school management that encompasses implementation steps, timelines, and resource requirements.16 7. Expand the portfolio and responsibilities ofthe Internal Audit DepartmentI7 to include-- a. Conducting an enterprise?level risk assessment b. Developing an annual audit plan c. Preforming a review and evaluation of internal controls in the procurement and disbursement areas d. Conducting a performance audit ofthe purchasing and contracting processes e. Supplement the Internal Audit Department?s professional development program for staff to address the proposed expanded role ofthe unit. 8. DeveIOp and execute a business plan for the Procurement Services Department with specific goals, implementation plans, timelines, resource allocations, accountabilities, and reporting calendars that are linked to the district's strategic plan. 9. Establish basic measures of performance, including and other benchmarking tools to measure performance and productivity, and ensure that the new ERP system can perform the following kinds of analysis?? a. Volume of requisitions, purchase orders, and contracts, b. Average size and distribution of requisitions, purchase orders, and contracts c. Spend analysis d. Vendor analysis e. Dollar savings achieved through competitive procurement, negotiations, and cost- avoidance strategies f. Disaggregated order fulfillment cycle time analysis g. Percent of contracts strategically sourced "5 Since its site visit, the Council was informed that the insourcing of custodial services is no longer under consideration. The Council recommends, however, that the district require comprehensive business plans in coordination with stakeholders, which include implementation steps, timelines, and resource requirements for all major projects, programs and initiatives. The Council team has included some limited number of ?ndings and recommendations concerning internal audits in this report because it has found high-risk problems in other districts where it has conducted similar peer reviews in the interface ofprocurement and internal audit. Council of the Great City Schools 13 10. ll. 12. Review of Procurement Services of the Shelby County Schools AdOpt a strategically focused organization by implementing a supply-chain management approach, which will leverage ef?ciencies and generate cost savings. These include - a. Implementation of e-commerce techniques for ef?ciently broadcasting solicitations and receiving informal quotes, bids and proposals, issuing purchase orders, and establishing automated catalogs with punch-outs to pre-contracted vendors. b. Implementation of a P-Card system with appropriate controls to improve ef?ciency (freeing up staff to focus on more strategic and higher value procurements), reduce costs, and achieve rebates. c. Continue expansion of piggy-back contracting and the use of buying consortia. d. Aggregation of multiple purchases into master contracts to balance choice and take advantage of economies of scale. e. Re-evaluate current purchasing thresholds (bid limits) and work with other state governmental entities to increase those that would increase ef?ciencies and reduce costs and delays. f. Establishment ofa focus on the total cost of ownership. Involve stakeholders in strategic procurement decisions by focusing adequate time on front?end scope development to ensure stakeholder goals and district interests are met in the procurement process.?8 Establish a pre-solicitation sign off process for the Procurement Services unit and its customers to help ensure speci?cations and requirements are complete and agreed upon. . Establish a professional certi?cation and training program for buyers, including training on The Uniform Grant Guidance requirements. .Create a uniform vendor evaluation system with performance measures, liquidated damages, and a debarment process that is applied to all vendors. . Review, update, or establish standardized templates for all RFPs, contracts, and terms and conditions. . Execute a current memorandum of delegation for contract signatures. . Create a policy and process for protesting contract awards or other purchasing decisions. ?3 The district indicates that end-scope development for an acquisition is the responsibility ofthe purchasing stakeholder, not procurement. But the team notes that this is not industry best practice. The partnership on front-end scope development results in tighter speci?cations, reduces cycle time by avoiding amendments, improves expectations in contract deliverables, ensures legally required aggregation, improves ef?ciency by strategic sourcing, etc. Council of the Great City Schools 14 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools 18. Develop a program to negotiate, automate, and track early payment discounts. l9. Breakdown organizational silos and improve communications within the Business Operations group by conducting regularly scheduled meetings, developing cross- departmental goals that require collaboration, and conducting customer satisfaction surveys. 20. Conduct evaluations of the local?preference programs to determine its effectiveness in addressing the Board of Education?s objectives. 21. Evaluate the Direct Payment process (those payments made without a purchase order) to ensure these transactions are reviewed and approved by the Procurement Services unit and are in accordance with district policy. Council ofthc Great City Schools 15 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools ATTACHMENT A. STRATEGIC SUPPORT TEAM Robert Carlson Robert Carlson is Director of Management Services for the Council ofthe Great City Schools. In that capacity, he provides Strategic Support Teams and manages operational reviews for superintendents and senior managers; convenes annual meetings of Chief Financial Officers, Chief Operating Of?cers, Transportation Directors, and Chief Information Officers and Technology Directors; ?elds hundreds of requests for management information; and has developed and maintains a Web-based management library. Prior to joining the Council, Dr. Carlson was an executive assistant in the Office of the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools. He holds doctoral and master?s degrees in administration from The Catholic University of America; a BA. degree in political science from Ohio Wesleyan University; and has done advanced graduate work in political science at Syracuse University and the State Universities ofNew York. David Koch David Koch is the former Chief Administrative Officer for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the nation?s second largest public-school system. Mr. Koch?s responsibilities encompassed virtually all non-instructional operations of the District, including finance, facilities, information technology, and all business functions. Mr. Koch also served the LAUSD as Business Manager, Executive Director of Information Services, and Deputy Controller. Mr. Koch was also Business Manager for the Kansas City, Missouri Public School District and was with Arthur Young and Company prior to entering public service. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri and a Certified Public Accountant in the states of California, Missouri, and Kansas. Currently a resident of Long Beach, California, Mr. Koch provides consulting services to public sector clients and companies doing business with public sector agencies. Gary Appenfelder Gary Appenfelder has been the Director of Purchasing Ethics for the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools for nearly six years. Prior to that, Mr. Appenfelder had over 30 years of experience in private industry Procurement, Supply Chain, and Operations Management with a variety of world-leading companies such as Texas Instruments, Koch Industries, and Cray Research. He is a graduate of the US. Naval Academy and served his country for nine years as a US. Marine Corpsjet pilot. Kristen DeCato Kristen DeCato is the Director of Procurement Risk Management for the Milwaukee Public Schools and has been with the district for 8 years in various capacities. In this capacity, she is responsible for all district purchasing and contracting, and managing the district?s risk portfolio, including workers? compensation and all insured programs. Prior to moving the public education, Ms. DeCato practiced law for 5 years, representing public and private clients, including school districts and other municipal entities. Ms. DeCato also served as a contributing Council of the Great City Schools 16 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools author to the white paper published by the Council of Great City School entitled: Enterprise Risk Management in the Great fry Schools. Ms. DeCato is a graduate of James Madison University and ajuris doctor from University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Michael Eugene Michael Eugene is the Chief Operating Officer for the Orange (Florida) County Public Schools. In that capacity, he leads Food Nutrition Services, Transportation, Information Technology, Safety 82; Security, Procurement Contracts, Warehouse Operations, and Building Code Compliance. Prior to joining Orange County, he was Business Manager for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Eugene also served as the Chief Operating Officer for the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. Mr. Eugene serves in a voluntary capacity as co-director of the Council ofthe Great City Schools? ?Managing for Results? KPI Program. Before joining public education, Mr. Eugene was a management consultant in the private and not?for-profit sectors, specializing in performance measurement, benchmarking, and public budgeting. Mr. Eugene holds a master?s degree in public administration. James Skrobo James Skrobo has 17 years in education procurement and is the Purchasing Manager for the Omaha Public Schools. In this capacity, he has responsibility for and experience in service contract management, manages the daily activities ofa staff of 13, and is the Division?s software system super user. Mr. Skrobo has long experience particularly in the procurement of the commodity areas of computers, network infrastructure, short long term services, furniture, music supplies and instruments, classroom supplies, textbooks, special education and vehicles. Mr. Skrobo was involved in the District's original implementation of the Financial Information System software, was the Functional Lead for the 2006 upgrade, and currently is in a leadership position for an upcoming upgrade and reimplementation of that system. His prior experience in private procurement included working with General Electric?s Apparatus Service Division, as well as with Kiewit Construction on the nationwide Level 3 project. Mr. Skrobo graduated from the University with a degree in Marketing. Christopher Steele ChristOpher Steele is the former Assistant Superintendent for Budget Planning for the Portsmouth (Virginia) Public Schools, and previously served as the Senior Director of Purchases Supply at Norfolk City Public Schools. Mr. Steele has over 30 years? experience in operational supply chain logistics, financial management, facility management and acquisition contracting with both the public (federal, state, and K-l2) and private sector. Mr. Steele holds a master?s degree in engineering and business from the University of Kansas, a master?s degree in human resource management from Pepperdine University, and a BS. degree in chemistry from State University. Mr. Steele attained the following certifications: Certified Public Procurement Officer (CPPO), Certified Purchasing Manager (C.P.M.), Certified Management Accountant (CMA), Certified Purchasing Card Professional (CPCP) and the highest certi?cation level in the federal Acquisition Professional Corps. Council of the Great City Schools 17 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Sheiby County Schools ATTACHMENT B. WORKING AGENDA Strategic Support Technical Assistance Team Procurement Services Shelby County Schools December 11 14. 2016 Contact: Jenikka Oglesbv, JD Business Operations Cell: 901-267-6134. Email: Working Agenda Subiect to Change as Required Sundav, December 11 Team Arrival Holiday Inn University of Memphis 3700 Central Avenue Memphis. TN 38111 6:15 pm. Team to Meet in Hotel Lobby 6:30 pm. Dinner Meeting Dorsey Hopson Restaurant TBD Superintendent (TBD) Cerita Butler Chief Operations Officer Monday. December 12 7:00 - 7:45 am. Continental Breakfast Reguirements internet Connectivity White Board/Flip Charts LCD Projector Central Office Barnes 214 8:00 - 9:00 am. Team Interview Jonathan Lawshe Interim Director of Procurement 9:15 - 10:15 am. Team Interview Dwan Gilliom Executive Director of Facilities 10:30 - 11:30 am. Team Interview Marjorie Douglas! Deanna Mcleandon Federal Programs/ Headstart I 12:00 1:00 pm. Working Luncheon 1:00 - 2:00 am. Team Interview Lin Johnson Chief of Finance Council of the Great City Schools 18 Review of Procurement Services of the Shelby County Schools 2:15 - 3:15 pm. Team Interview Leon Pattman Chief of Audit 3:30 - 4:30 pm. Team Interview Rodney Moore General Counsel 4:15 - 5:00 pm. Team Interview Angela Carr Deputy Chief of Finance! Reportinngudget 4:15 pm. Team Discussion of Work Plan for Balance of Site Visit Tuesday, December 13 7:00 - 7:45 am. Continental Breakfast 8:00 - 8:45 am. Team Interviews ALL Buyers 9:15 - 10:00 am. Team Interviews Charkesiaha Pequs.l Tammy Bradford Inventory Clerks/ Asset 10:15 - 11:00 am. Team Interviews Lisa Shaw Fast Track Specialists 11:15 - 12:00 am. Team Interview Victoria Senior Buyer, CNC 12:00 1:00 pm. Working Luncheon 1:00 - 2:00pm Team Interview John Williams Chief IT 2:15 - 3:00 pm. Team Interview Cerita Butler Chief of Business Operations 3:30 - 4:15 pm. Team Interviews Team Discussion of Work Plan for Balance of Site Visit Wednesday, Dec.14 7:00 - 7:45 am: Continental Breakfast 8:00 12:00 Noon. Team Meeting Discussion of Findings Recommendations 12:00 - 1:00 pm. Working Luncheon Debriefing Dorsey Hopson Superintendent (TBD) mug Chief Operations Officer 1:00 pm. Adjournment Departures Council of the Great City Schools 19 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools ATTACHMENT C. DISTRICT PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED Brian Stockton, Chief of Staff Rodney Moore, General Counsel Lin Johnson, Chief Finance Officer Leon Patton, Chief Internal Auditor John Williams, Chieflnformation Officer Cerita Butler, Interim Chief of Operations Officer Dwan Gilliom, Executive Director, Facilities Jonathan Lawshe, Interim Procurement Director Leonard Myers, Major Construction Manager Jada Kirk, Facilities Financial Analyst Deanna Mcleandon, Headstart Program Marjorie Douglas, Federal Programs Angela Carr, Deputy Chief Financial Officer Tony Jones, Buyer Wendy Stolotz, Buyer Andre Woods, Buyer Faith Mungah, Buyer Tammy Bradford, Data Information specialist Charkesiaha Pegus, Inventory Clerk Lisa Shaw, Fast Lane Specialist Sybille Noble, Associate General Counsel David Lou, Accounts Payable Stanley Robinson, Accounting Manager Council of the Great City Schools 20 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools ATTACHMENT D. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED School District Organizational Chart, undated Division of Business Operations Organization Chart, undated Contract Request Process, 2010 Contract Review Process, undated Contract Requirements, Approval and Signatory Authority, revised 6/25/13 Insurance Requirements, undated Memorandum of Delegation of Signatory Authority, undated Necessity Contracts, undated Compliance to Board Policy #2006 Purchasing Authority, May 19, 2014 Accounts Payable User Information (payment approval process), undated Board Policy 2006, Purchasing Authority, revised 4/26/16 Board Procurement Committee Meeting Minutes, 10.5.2016 Procurement Services Reference Manual, undated Procurement Services Project Request Form, undated How to Create a Requisition PO on APECS, FY16 Process for Projects, undated Proposed Project Request Form, undated Request for Proposal (template), April 1 l, 2014 Sample Purchase Order, 1 1/19/16 Travel Request, undated Direct Spend, FY 2017 (Prepared at CGCS request) Spend by Commodity Code, FY 2017 (Prepared at CGCS request) Vendor Activity, FY 2017 (Prepared at CGCS request) PO Spend, FY 2017 (Prepared at CGCS request) FY 17 Contracts to date (Prepared at CGCS request) 16-17 and 17?19 SMART Goals 2015 Compliance Document Council of the Great City Schools 21 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools ATTACHMENT E. HISTORY OF REVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL History of Strategic Support Teams of the Council of the Great City Schools The following is a history of the Strategic Support Teams provided by the Council ofthe Great City Schools to its member urban school districts over the last 18 years. City Area Year Albuquerque Facilities and Roo?ng 2003 Human Resources 2003 Information Technology 2003 Special Education 2005 Legal Services 2005 Safety and Security 2007 Research 2013 Human Resources 2016 Anchorage Finance 2004 Communications 2008 Math Instruction 2010 Food Services 201 1 Organizational Structure 2012 Facilities Operations 2015 Special Education 2015 Human Resources 2016 Atlanta Facilities 2009 Transportation 2010 Austin Special Education 2010 Baltimore Information Technology 201 1 Birmingham Organizational Structure 2007 Operations 2008 Facilities 2010 Human Resources 2014 Financial Operations 2015 Boston Special Education 2009 Curriculum Instruction 2014 Council of the Great City Schools 22 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools Food Service 2014 Facilities 2016 Bridgeport Transportation 2012 Broward County (FL) Information Technology 2000 Food Services 2009 Transportation 2009 Information Technology 2012 Buffalo Superintendent Support 2000 Organizational Structure 2000 Curriculum and Instruction 2000 Personnel 2000 Facilities and Operations 2000 Communications 2000 Finance 2000 Finance 11 2003 Bilingual Education 2009 Special Education 2014 Caddo Parish (LA) Facilities 2004 Charleston Special Education 2005 Transportation 2014 Charlotte- Mecklenburg Human Resources 2007 Organizational Structure 2012 Transportation 2013 Cincinnati Curriculum and Instruction 2004 Curriculum and Instruction 2009 Special Education 2013 Chicago Warehouse Operations 2010 Special Education I 2011 Special Education 11 2012 Bilingual Education 2014 Christina (DE) Curriculum and Instruction 2007 Cleveland Student Assignments 1999, 2000 TranSportation 2000 Safety and Security 2000 Facilities Financing 2000 Council of the Great City Schools 23 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools Facilities Operations 2000 Transportation 2004 Curriculum and Instruction 2005 Safety and Security 2007 Safety and Security 2008 Theme Schools 2009 Columbus Superintendent Support 2001 Human Resources 2001 Facilities Financing 2002 Finance and Treasury 2003 Budget 2003 Curriculum and Instruction 2005 Information Technology 2007 Food Services 2007 Transportation 2009 Dallas Procurement 2007 Staffing Levels 2009 Staffing Levels 2016 Dayton Superintendent Support 2001 Curriculum and Instruction 2001 Finance 2001 Communications 2002 Curriculum and Instruction 2005 Budget 2005 Curriculum and Instruction 2008 Denver Superintendent Support 2001 Personnel 2001 Curriculum and Instruction 2005 Bilingual Education 2006 Curriculum and Instruction 2008 Common Core Implementation 2014 Des Moines Budget and Finance 2003 Staf?ng Levels 2012 Human Resources 2012 Special Education 2015 Bilingual Education 2015 Detroit Curriculum and Instruction 2002 Assessment 2002 Communications 2002 Council of the Great City Schools 24 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools Curriculum and Assessment 2003 Communications 2003 Textbook Procurement 2004 Food Services 2007 Curriculum and 1nstruction 2008 Facilities 2008 Finance and Budget 2008 information Technology 2008 Stimulus planning 2009 Human Resources 2009 Fresno Curriculum and Instruction 2012 Guilford County Bilingual Education 2002 Information Technology 2003 Special Education 2003 Facilities 2004 Human Resources 2007 Hillsborough County Transportation 2005 Procurement 2005 Special Education 2012 Transportation 2015 Houston Facilities Operations 2010 Capitol Program 2010 Information Technology 201 1 Procurement 201 1 Indianapolis Transportation 2007 information Technology 2010 Finance and Budget 2013 Jackson (MS) Bond Referendum 2006 Communications 2009 Jacksonville Organization and Management 2002 Operations 2002 Human Resources 2002 Finance 2002 Information Technology 2002 Finance 2006 Facilities operations 2015 Budget and finance 2015 Kansas City Council of the Great City Schools 25 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools Human Resources 2005 Information Technology 2005 Finance 2005 Operations 2005 Purchasing 2006 Curriculum and Instruction 2006 Program Implementation 2007 Stimulus Planning 2009 Human Resources 2016 Transportation 2016 Finance 2016 Facilities 2016 Curriculum and Instruction 2016 Little Rock Curriculum and Instruction 2010 Los Angeles Budget and Finance 2002 Organizational Structure 2005 Finance 2005 Information Technology 2005 Human Resources 2005 Business Services 2005 Louisville Management Information 2005 Staf?ng study 2009 Memphis Information Technology 2007 Special Education 2015 Food Services 2016 Procurement 20 I 6 Miami-Dade County Construction Management 2003 Food Services 2009 Transportation 2009 Maintenance Operations 2009 Capital Projects 2009 Information Technology 2013 Milwaukee Research and Testing 1999 Safety and Security 2000 School Board Support 1999 Curriculum and Instruction 2006 Alternative Education 2007 Human Resources 2009 Human Resources 2013 Council of the Great City Schools 26 Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools Information Technology 2013 Minneapolis Curriculum and Instruction 2004 Finance 2004 Federal Programs 2004 Transportation 2016 Organizational Structure 2016 Nashville Food Service 2010 Bilingual Education 2014 Curriculum and Instruction 2016 Newark Curriculum and Instruction 2007 Food Service 2008 New Orleans Personnel 2001 Transportation 2002 Information Technology 2003 Hurricane Damage Assessment 2005 Curriculum and Instruction 2006 New York City Special Education 2008 Norfolk Testing and Assessment 2003 Curriculum and Instruction 2012 Omaha Buildings and Grounds Operations 2015 Transportation 2016 Orange County Information Technology 2010 Palm Beach County Transportation 2015 Philadelphia Curriculum and Instruction 2003 Federal Programs 2003 Food Service 2003 Facilities 2003 Transportation 2003 Human Resources 2004 Budget 2008 Human Resource 2009 Special Education 2009 Transportation 2014 Pittsburgh Curriculum and Instruction 2005 Council of the Great City Schools Review of Procurement Services of the Shelby County Schools Technology 2006 Finance 2006 Special Education 2009 Organizational Structure 2016 Business Services and Finance 2016 Curriculum and Instruction 2016 Research 2016 Portland Finance and Budget 2010 Procurement 2010 Operations 2010 Prince George?s County Transportation 2012 Providence Business Operations 2001 M18 and Technology 2001 Personnel 2001 Human Resources 2007 Special Education 201 1 Bilingual Education 201 1 Reno Facilities Management 2013 Food Services 2013 Purchasing 2013 School Police 2013 Transportation 2013 Information Technology 2013 Richmond Transportation 2003 Curriculum and Instruction 2003 Federal Programs 2003 Special Education 2003 Human Resources 2014 Rochester Finance and Technology 2003 Transportation 2004 Food Services 2004 Special Education 2008 Sacramento Special Education 2016 San Diego Finance 2006 Food Service 2006 Transportation 2007 Procurement 2007 Council of the Great City Schools Review of Procurement Services ofthe Shelby County Schools San Francisco Technology 2001 St. Louis Special Education 2003 Curriculum and Instruction 2004 Federal Programs 2004 Textbook Procurement 2004 Human Resources 2005 St. Paul Special Education 201 1 Transportation 201 1 Seattle Human Resources 2008 Budget and Finance 2008 Information Technology 2008 Bilingual Education 2008 Transportation 2008 Capital Projects 2008 Maintenance and Operations 2008 Procurement 2008 Food Services 2008 Capital Projects 2013 Toledo Curriculum and Instruction 2005 Washington, DC. Finance and Procurement 1998 Personnel 1998 Communications 1998 Transportation I 998 Facilities Management 1998 Special Education 1998 Legal and General Counsel 1998 M18 and Technology 1998 Curriculum and Instruction 2003 Budget and Finance 2005 Transportation 2005 Curriculum and Instruction 2007 Common Core Implementation 201 1 Wichita Transportation 2009 Council of the Great City Schools 29