MARS UPDATE PCR04 DRAFT 191126 1234.PDF

Project Update
December 9, 2019

Agenda
• Why MARS?
• Major Capabilities of MARS
• Short Example
• History of Project MARS
• Nature of the Contract & The Agile Method
• Project Change Request 04
• Project Finances
2

Why MARS?
• The current Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system
– Was developed in-house over the past three decades based on Oracle
Forms & Reports
– Is constrained by its obsolete client-server design, limited user interface,
and limited data model. It is difficult to enhance.
– Uses software and hardware at end-of-life
– Is supported by technicians nearing retirement. These skills are not
readily available in the labor market.
• MARS surpasses the CAMA system’s limited capacity.
– Today it takes multiple applications to conduct certain transactions;
MARS provides a “single pane of glass” view of the data
3

6i vs MARS
MARS
Web-based system with a single
interface Assessor’s Public which Maps integrates maps,
CART Calculators
robust search capabilities, valuation
on the fly, desktop review, document Assessor 6i
management, and what-if scenarios.
Statistical Modeling Document Management
Desktop Review
Assessor 6i
Internet Tabular system based on
Oracle Forms & Reports.
Isolated from other
applications.
4

Short Example
5

History of Project MARS
• 2013 – Build vs Buy Recommendation identifies
Hybrid Solution as best option for the County
• 2013 – Board of Supervisors approves and funds the
CAMA project later named Maricopa Assessment
Replacement System (MARS)
• 2014 – Board of Supervisors awards contract to
Vision Government Solutions, Inc.
• 2016 – Board of Supervisors assigns contract to Esri
Canada, Limited
6

Nature of Contract – Why Esri Canada
• GIS & CAMA should be integrated, but nobody
offers the integrated package for this industry
– New, sensible paradigm (transformational)
• MARS functionality was already part of Esri
Canada’s product roadmap
• Maricopa County has successfully used another
launch product from Esri Canada
• Esri has > 90% presence in USA local government
7

Nature of Contract – Agile Method
• Each Release is defined at the end of the prior
Release with the consent of the County.
• Allows for adaptation of requirements as the
project progresses
• Far more collaborative than traditional
“waterfall” approach
• Frequent deliveries for customer review
8

Why PCR 04?
• In January 2019, project teams started to memorialize
two-phase Go-Live delivery starting in July 2020
• Not accommodated in current contract
• Began task to define “Go-live Product” for the first
production delivery
• Only two good opportunities in any calendar year to migrate
systems
– After delivery of Real Property Notices of Value to Owners
(February)
– After delivery of the Tax Roll to the Treasurer (July)
9

Planning for PCR04
• Since June 2019, the size of two delivered Releases has
been significantly smaller than expected
• In August 2019, total project development effort was
finally determined by vendor business analysts
• In September 2019, A serviceable Go-live Product would
not be reached in time for July 2020, even with contract
changes
• Quality of delivered functions has been very good
• But the velocity of the build was not sustained
10

Release Deliveries
• Since July 2019,
scope of
development
per Release has
become
significantly
smaller than
expected
• Quality of
delivered
functions has
been very
good, but the
quantity has
suffered
11

Release Quality
• Each Release is
measured
against a
threshold
based on the
scope of that
release
• All Esri Canada
Releases have
scored below
that threshold,
often by a wide
margin to the
good
12

Benefits of PCR 04
• Enshrines the Go-live date of February 2021 officially in the
contract
• Provides schedule certainty with defined delivery levels
• Provides more accountability by withholding retainage
payments (as a penalty) for sub optimal delivery levels
• Also makes more of the vendor’s revenue subject to retainage
• Does NOT add cost to the vendor contract, however
consumes some project contingency and delays some
operational efficiencies to next fiscal year (FY 22)
13

Total MARS Estimated
Project Costs
BOS Approved 5/20/2013 $29,979,720
OMB at contract award removed 12/10/2014 (5,091,986)
Total Project $24,887,734
Spend to date (Vision, Esri-Canada, Project Team,
Space, Hardware, Project Consulting) ($18,529,438)
FY 20 - FY 22 Planned Spend ($5,082,076)
FY 21 Delay Spend (6 mo. Project Team,
Project Consulting) ($709,871)
Total Project ($24,294,974)
Estimated Return to Capital Fund 7/1/2022 $566,349*
*$76,500 in Vendor contract savings from PCR04, Agenda Item #19

Total MARS Estimated
Operating Costs
BOS Approved FY 20 Maintenance $306,938*
FY 21 Delay Spend (Oracle - $202,000, Request
over base for Maintenance - $263,068.75
and for Cloud $200,000) $665,069**
* FY 2020 Assessor Operating Budget Adjustment, Agenda Item #58
**Original FY 2021 Request over base (Maintenance -$626,137.50
and Cloud - $400,000) $1,026,137.50

Conclusion…”The Ask”
• Approve 12-11-2019 Agenda Items #19 MARS PCR04 and
#58 Reduce Assessor Operating Budget
• Bottom line…No additional Vendor Costs, however
consumes some project contingencies and delays some
operational efficiencies to the future fiscal year (FY 22)
16

Conclusion…
“Going live prematurely and failing is much
worse than delayed success”
17

Project Update
December 9, 2019