March 2015 ICASS Service Center. Learn how to use the FAP Data Model Understand the data sources ...
-
Upload
martin-booth -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
0
Transcript of March 2015 ICASS Service Center. Learn how to use the FAP Data Model Understand the data sources ...
Managing with the FAP Data Model
March 2015ICASS Service Center
2
Learn how to use the FAP Data Model Understand the data sources Leverage ILMS and ICASS Data Discuss what’s new in FAP Management
Training Goals
3
Measures FAP performance Provides stakeholders assurances on the
status of FAP financial management Captures the level of ongoing FAP
capitalizationUses post ILMS Data and ICASS budget
informationCalculates a ratio of liquid assets compared to
accrued depreciation Changes every year … understand why!
What is the FAP Data Model?
4
The FAP Data Model resides on the FAP page of the ICASS website
It is updated twice a year, linked to the ICASS budget cycle and ILMS inventory dataUses the Initial and Final budget information on
FAP carryover, DN collections, and the annual FAP target
Captures ILMS inventory data in September, at the end of the summer transfer cycle and after receipt of new procurements, and again in March, after the annual inventory process
Where Does the Data Come From?
5
ICASS Data
This data comes from the ICASS Global Database and provides background information on the mission FAP
This data is not used in calculating the Sustainability Coefficient but is useful in interpreting it.
Post
Adjusted Basic
Package Count
FAP Wkld Count
FAP Partic. Rate
Buy-In Cost
Annual Assessmt
Cost
AA as % of Buy-In
Cost
A B C ( B/A ) D E F ( E/D ) Regional Totals and Averages 3,110.5 2,843.1 91% 70,058$ 6,537$ 9%ABIDJAN 60.0 60.0 100% 62,582$ 7,800$ 12%ABUJA - MISSION NIGERIA 189.0 177.0 94% 70,855$ 4,600$ 6%
6
ICASS Budget Data
Three amounts are captured for each post: Col I - FAP Carryforward reported at the beginning of the fiscal year; Col J – the sum of the FAP Target (based on FAP Wkld X AA) plus DN Collections (for new buy-ins and buy-in assessments).
Updated twice each year: Based on the ICASS budget cycle, updated in January and August.
The total Amount Available for Recapitalization is the sum of your FAP carryforward, FAP target and DN Collections.
Post FAP Carry Forward
FY14 FAP Target
DN Collections
FY14 FAP Target & DN Collections
Amount Available for
Recapitalization
I * * J K (I+J) Regional Totals and Averages 8,036,622$ 17,008,200$ 8,440,100$ 25,448,300$ 33,484,922$ ABIDJAN -$ 468,000$ 435,400$ 903,400$ 903,400$ ABUJA - MISSION NIGERIA -$ 885,100$ 1,463,800$ 2,348,900$ 2,348,900$
WW Totals and Averages 30,921,172$ 55,821,552$ 65,460,300$ 121,281,852$ 152,203,024$
7
We collect ILMS Data for all residential furniture.◦ Excludes designated residences, where
identified.◦ Includes items in residences, in stock & for
repair. We use straight-line depreciation.
◦ Furniture/furnishings – 12 years◦ Appliances – 6 years◦ Mattresses – 4 years
ILMS Data in the Model
8
ILMS: Physical Assets
Col. G: The remaining value of all residential furniture at post. It is calculated based on straight-line depreciation; if it’s past the standard lifecycle, it is valued “$0”.
Col H: Accrued depreciation only of items in residences. This represents the future replacement costs for the FAP.
Post
Remaining Value of
Physical Assets
AccumulatedDepreciation of Physical
Assets
G H Regional Totals and Averages 72,858,250$ 54,286,702$ ABIDJAN 1,566,044$ 1,105,656$ ABUJA - MISSION NIGERIA 6,558,988$ 2,929,701$
WW Totals and Averages 298,800,915$ 230,936,894$
9
The Sustainability Coefficient
The total amount available for recapitalization is divided by the accumulated depreciation of assets in the residences.
This derives each post’s sustainability coefficient.
Post
Regional Totals and AveragesABIDJANABUJA - MISSION NIGERIA
WW Totals and Averages
Amount Available for
Recapitalization
K (I+J) 33,484,922$
903,400$ 2,348,900$
152,203,024$
AccumulatedDepreciation of Physical
Assets
H 54,286,702$
1,105,656$ 2,929,701$
230,936,894$ 0.66
Sustain-ability
Co-Efficient
L (K/H)0.620.820.80
10
FAP Data Model Post
Adjusted Basic
Package Count
FAP Wkld Count
FAP Partic. Rate
Buy-In Cost
Annual Assessmt
Cost
AA as % of Buy-In
Cost
Remaining Value of
Physical Assets
AccumulatedDepreciation of Physical
Assets
FAP Carry Forward
FY14 FAP Target & DN Collections
Amount Available for
Recapitalization
Sustain-ability
Co-Efficient
A B C ( B/A ) D E F ( E/D ) G H I J K (I+J) L (K/H) Regional Totals and Averages 3,110.5 2,843.1 91% 70,058$ 6,537$ 9% 72,858,250$ 54,286,702$ 8,036,622$ 25,448,300$ 33,484,922$ 0.62ABIDJAN 60.0 60.0 100% 62,582$ 7,800$ 12% 1,566,044$ 1,105,656$ -$ 903,400$ 903,400$ 0.82ABUJA - MISSION NIGERIA 189.0 177.0 94% 70,855$ 4,600$ 6% 6,558,988$ 2,929,701$ -$ 2,348,900$ 2,348,900$ 0.80ACCRA 127.0 125.8 99% 85,735$ 5,750$ 7% 2,289,495$ 1,420,395$ 1,280,420$ 1,052,500$ 2,332,920$ 1.64ADDIS ABABA 164.0 152.0 93% 73,237$ 7,050$ 10% 4,363,533$ 3,007,297$ 259,231$ 1,381,700$ 1,640,931$ 0.55ANTANANARIVO 38.0 35.0 92% 71,680$ 7,430$ 10% 1,065,789$ 857,523$ 276,437$ 403,500$ 679,937$ 0.79ASMARA 15.0 15.0 100% 56,000$ 7,000$ 13% 401,425$ 238,130$ -$ 56,000$ 56,000$ 0.24Bamako 72.0 56.0 78% 71,690$ 7,530$ 11% 2,026,172$ 1,766,908$ -$ 1,278,200$ 1,278,200$ 0.72BANGUI 7.0 7.0 100% N/A N/A N/A 41,990$ 159,983$ -$ 66,000$ 66,000$ 0.41BANJUL 10.0 10.0 100% 52,948$ 5,676$ 11% 546,608$ 235,054$ -$ 167,800$ 167,800$ 0.71BRAZZAVILLE 11.0 10.0 91% 73,100$ 8,500$ 12% 461,588$ 304,898$ -$ 167,500$ 167,500$ 0.55BUJUMBURA 26.0 26.0 100% 69,733$ 3,300$ 5% 878,398$ 1,022,631$ 204,800$ 229,100$ 433,900$ 0.42CONAKRY 37.0 32.0 86% 72,650$ 6,500$ 9% 1,529,819$ 954,736$ -$ 201,500$ 201,500$ 0.21COTONOU 23.0 23.0 100% 80,000$ 7,963$ 10% 649,870$ 970,680$ 177,000$ 359,100$ 536,100$ 0.55DAKAR 134.0 133.0 99% 68,500$ 6,500$ 9% 3,367,492$ 2,933,578$ 495,700$ 1,058,600$ 1,554,300$ 0.53DAR ES SALAAM 117.0 115.0 98% 72,355$ 8,292$ 11% 2,219,479$ 2,595,678$ 665,950$ 1,025,900$ 1,691,850$ 0.65DJIBOUTI 34.0 33.0 97% 79,000$ 8,500$ 11% 1,113,734$ 770,697$ 83,031$ 395,700$ 478,731$ 0.62FREETOWN 44.0 44.0 100% 53,670$ 6,970$ 13% 770,600$ 380,744$ -$ 139,400$ 139,400$ 0.37GABORONE 51.0 51.0 100% 60,000$ 5,500$ 9% 1,545,848$ 902,818$ -$ 404,300$ 404,300$ 0.45HARARE 66.0 65.3 100% 78,478$ 8,500$ 11% 1,598,824$ 1,686,858$ 148,224$ 1,184,800$ 1,333,024$ 0.79KAMPALA 183.0 115.0 63% 75,250$ 7,608$ 10% 3,788,817$ 2,668,868$ 201,530$ 1,140,200$ 1,341,730$ 0.50
11
Metric for Washington stakeholdersRegional bureaus, A/LM, IEB/IWG
Post Management tool for FAPScore between .4 and .7 is idealNot a grade, but if you are outside the range, you
need to understand why – “own” your numbers!!Reasons could be:
Orders in the pipeline Collections not yet registered ILMS data not yet updated Buy-in assessments not collected
Using the FAP Data Model
12
Is this post under/over-capitalized or just right? What is driving the coefficient? What are they doing right? Should they have any concerns? What should
they be watching? What should their plan be for FY2015?
Case Study 1:Adjusted
Basic Package Count
FAP Wkld Count
Buy-In Cost
Annual Assessmt
Cost
Remaining Value of Physical Assets
Accumulated Depreciation
of Physical Assets
FAP Carry Forward
FY14 FAP Target
DN Collections
FY14 FAP Target & DN Collections
Amount Available for Recapitaliza-
tion
Sustain-ability
Co-Efficient
A B D E G H I * * J K (I+J) L (K/H)
56.0 55.0 $ 52,000 $ 5,170 $ 1,237,967 $ 1,215,610 $ 42,500 $ 182,000 $ 688,700 $ 870,700 $ 913,200 0.75
13
Adjusted Basic
Package Count
FAP Wkld Count
Buy-In Cost
Annual Assessmt
Cost
Remaining Value of Physical Assets
AccumulatedDepreciation
of Physical Assets
FAP Carry Forward
FY14 FAP Target
DN Collections
FY14 FAP Target & DN Collections
Amount Available for Recapitaliza-
tion
Sustain-ability
Co-Efficient
A B D E G H I * * J K (I+J) L (K/H)
Case Study 2:
303.0 233.0 $ 49,866 $ 4,582 $ 3,882,856 $ 3,978,033 $ 216,600 $ 1,044,000 $ 679,200 $ 1,723,200 $ 1,939,800 0.49
Is this post under/over-capitalized or just right? What is driving the coefficient? What are they doing right? Should they have any concerns? What should
they be watching? What should their plan be for FY2015?
14
Is this post under/over-capitalized or just right? What is driving the coefficient? What are they doing right? Should they have any concerns? What should
they be watching? What should their plan be for FY2015?
Case Study 3:Adjusted
Basic Package Count
FAP Wkld Count
Buy-In Cost
Annual Assessmt
Cost
Remaining Value of Physical Assets
AccumulatedDepreciation
of Physical Assets
FAP Carry Forward
FY14 FAP Target
DN Collections
FY14 FAP Target & DN Collections
Amount Available for Recapitaliza-
tion
Sustain-ability
Co-Efficient
A B D E G H I * * J K (I+J) L (K/H)
66.0 66.0 $ 70,940 $ 4,200 $ 3,126,785 $ 1,616,658 $ - $ 281,400 $ 281,400 $ 281,400 0.17
15
Is this post under/over-capitalized or just right? What is driving the coefficient? What are they doing right? Should they have any concerns? What should
they be watching? What should their plan be for FY2015?
Case Study 4:Adjusted
Basic Package Count
FAP Wkld Count
Buy-In Cost
Annual Assessmt
Cost
Remaining Value of Physical Assets
AccumulatedDepreciation
of Physical Assets
FAP Carry Forward
FY14 FAP Target
DN Collections
FY14 FAP Target & DN Collections
Amount Available for Recapitaliza-
tion
Sustain-ability
Co-Efficient
A B D E G H I * * J K (I+J) L (K/H)
127.0 125.8 $ 85,735 $ 5,750 $ 2,289,495 $ 1,420,395 $1,280,420 $ 709,600 $ 342,900 $ 1,052,500 $ 2,332,920 1.64
16
Using ILMS DataLocation Relies on post inventory records for all locations, but
particularly residences Coefficient is based on depreciated value of what is
currently at each residenceValue Reflects the original purchase price/shipping
Does not account for current costs
Type of Surplus Remaining assets don’t always match up with
replacement requirements Purchase decisions must rely on GSO’s knowledge of
WH stock vs. needs
17
Agency Code Currently a free form text field/not standard post-to
post or residence-to-residence Results in imprecise/inconsistent data
When we pull the data, we have to make assumptions to identify FAP items
These assumptions have large impacts on your Sustainability Model
ILMS Data Issue - ACTION
Asset IDAgency Code Description
1239 STATE Sofa, 3 Seat465 ICASS Table, end
4674 JERF POOL Table, Coffee1042798 PROG Mattress, Queen1052061 BLAIR Chair, easy
18
A/LM will be creating a standard ‘FAP’ Agency Code for all Posts.
Standardize FAP Agency Code
19
Use the Mass Update/Transfers link to update all FAP items with the new “FAP” agency code
For specific instructions, please review the online tutorials in ILMS or contact [email protected]
GSO Action Plan
20
Ensure that FAP Workload counts are accurate. Exclude CMR, DCR* and POR Properly count and weight dedicated residences
for RESAID, RESDAO, RESFCS and RESFAS as 1.2 Be aware of agency plans to join your FAP Be aware of new positions coming to post
Ensure Buy-ins and/or Buy-in assessments are being collected
ICASS Data Issues
21
Include more detail in the Data Model “Remaining Value” and “Accumulated Depreciation”
will be broken out by “In Stock” and “In Residence” locations
Will provide additional insight on furniture holdings
Develop a new FAP tool in ILMS to calculate buy-in and annual assessment costs
Expand implementation of Inventory Optimization
Next Steps
Inventory OptimizationC
urr
en
t S
tate
Fu
ture
Sta
te*
Manual replenishment process
Reactive procurements
Buy to spend remaining funds
Buy to fill the warehouse
No visibility into demand
Buying in sets
Multiple furniture styles
Inventory Management Tool Key Characteristics
Data-driven replenishment
Proactive planning /purchasing
Buy what you need
Buy to replace assets
Forecasting demand trends
Avoid buying sets
Smart furniture style choices
Impacts
Best guess ordering.
Buy what you need, when you need it.
* Note: Order Suggestions are made at the Asset Class level.22
23
Inventory Optimization Framework
Implementing the Inventory Optimization Tool will help to answer the core questions required to make an accurate furniture procurement:
24
Improved Supply Chain Management Fenced funding allows for targeted procurements
In October of each year, GSO should project requirements for the upcoming year, based on ILMS data, projected transfers, anticipated growth
Order items vs. sets SMART Warehousing
No need to keep it filled/order to needs Cost Containment/Savings
Consolidated FAP/improved ordering Reduced WH requirements Extended lifecycles/better management
Future of FAP Management
25
ICASS website/FAP page◦ http://rm.m.state.sbu/sites/icass/Pages/fap.aspx ◦ FAP Data Model
OCCI portal: http://cas.state.gov/occi/ A/LM Post Dashboard
◦ Inventory Optimization [email protected] Send questions to:
◦ [email protected]◦ Nolan Leavitt ([email protected])◦ Janet Buechel ([email protected])◦ A/LM: http://lm.a.state.gov/PMP/PM/Staff
Resources
26
QUESTIONS
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
27
1. Our policy includes an LQA option, but it really isn’t. What should we do?
2. What are some cost cutting ideas?3. Can I use FAP funds for refurbishment costs?
Welcome kits?4. Can welcome kits be considered “disposable”?5. We have lots of inventory and carryover. Can
we reduce our annual assessment for a year or two?
6. How can we increase/decrease our annual assessment?
FAQs