AHEC-26921-D_Answers to Questions_Project Management Consultant_FINAL.pdf

Answers to Questions Documented Quote AHEC-26921-D

Project Management Consultant Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC or Auraria)

This document contains all questions submitted by the deadline specified. Inquiries are in black text and AHEC’s answers are in red text.

Q1. What existing tools does AHEC use today for project management, tracking and reporting?

A1. Excel spreadsheet is used for communicating on-going Project updates, entered by each PM.

PMs use spreadsheet templates exist for estimating small projects and Agreement templates in Adobe are also used by the Administrator to gain approval of project costs from clients.

AHEC’s CMMS system, TMA, houses all the project information, tracking costs and reports against overall budgets at a high level; it is also used for PMs time tracking to Projects. A budget template has been devised in Excel for more detailed tracking on larger state-funded projects.

The TMA system may have additional reporting capabilities to be leveraged, but the TMA system itself is not part of the scope and needs to stay as is.

Q2. Are there required frameworks, standards, or tools (e.g., MS Project, Smartsheet, JIRA, ServiceNow, etc.) that must be used?

A2. No.

Q3. How many existing project management processes and documents currently exist, and can you provide a sample set?

A3. Existing processes include – the intake process for new projects, assignment of Projects to

PMs, creating a project folder in our structure for housing all documents; creating and conveying cost estimates and Project agreements to clients to approve small institutionally funded projects; invoicing project costs (Projects creates the invoices, records in TMA, then AHEC Accounting bills the institutional clients or internal AHEC departments). Documents include project estimate form and project agreement, project update spreadsheet.

For larger state projects, preparation of Office of the State Architect (OSA) required initial funding forms, required encumbrance certification, checklists for required items from PM for professional services Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and construction contractor bidding;

project checklists and kick-off forms for contractors and architects (or design teams), OSA required forms for project close out.

Q4. Does the scope include updating all existing documents (policies, SOPs, processes, etc.)?

A4. There will likely be some processes or forms that are determined to be fine as-is so likely not all but hard to say at this point.

Q5. And what level of transformation is expected (Light refinement of existing processes or full redesign aligned to a specific framework)?

A5. Somewhere in the middle – could be creating new forms or processes in some cases and could be refining the forms and processes that already exist. The team manages projects successfully today so we’re not trying to change everything, just standardize some processes that today are more ad-hoc and update other processes that could use a little improving/modernization.

Q6. For the toolkit deliverable, what level of detail is expected? High-level templates vs. fully built, ready-to-use tools with instructions and governance?

A6. Fully built ready-to-use tools, some of which may already exist or need to be updated.

Q7. What does “industry best practices” mean in your context—are there benchmark organizations or models you want aligned to?

A7. Using expertise from other PMOs whether construction or IT.

Q8. Will there be formal acceptance criteria or review cycles for deliverables?

A8. AHEC will want to review proposed deliverables and have a period of testing through a project cycle to ensure the deliverable(s) works in a real application.

Q9. What format is expected for training: Live workshops? Recorded sessions? Written guides?

A9. Live workshop and written guides. Also, provide recording of live workshops so they can be used as training materials in the future.

Q10. How would you describe the current maturity level of your project management function (e.g., ad hoc, defined, standardized, optimized), and where would you like it to be post-engagement?

A10. Some aspects are standardized, but could be modernized (i.e., a running spreadsheet for project updates, vs some other tool), and other aspects are more ad hoc, like project intake processes.

Q11. What level of on-site presence is expected versus remote work?

A11. On-site will only be required for interviews with project team members, interviews or discussions with campus partners, training, and ideally periodic project updates. We don’t have a workstation for the consultant to utilize, so the expectation is that most of the independent work will be done remotely.

Q12. Approximately how many stakeholders (across AHEC and partner institutions) are expected to participate?

A12. Exploration of existing processes will involve around four (4) projects and facilities team leaders. Training will involve around twelve (12) project team and facilities members. The primary engagement with our partner institutions will be about the intake prioritization rubric (scope copied below) and will likely include 1-2 people from each institution.

Q13. What level of engagement is anticipated with CCD, MSU Denver, and CU Denver?

A13. One meeting with each institution (3 meetings total) to gather feedback on the proposed prioritization rubric to determine which projects are higher priority and order and timing of other projects in the queue.