Inbound MIPR Process

The Virginia National Guard Cooperative Agreement Process is how the State Department of Military Affairs seeks reimbursement from the Federal government for services rendered. This process was functioning in such a poor state that senior leaders in Virginia were considering furloughing employees due to tied up funds. At the end of this process we were able to take the reimbursement time from an average of 49 days to 5 days, improved their delinquency rate and standardized the process across all functions. This also resulted in a cost avoidance of 50% on behalf of the Federal Government while improving transparency for all parties involved.

1. James Foster, MBBc
LTC Jeffery Cree, Sponsor
Chris Biggs, Mentor
Project Initiation Date: 03/09/18
Project Close Out Date: 2/21/2019
Lean Six Sigma
Incoming MIPR Process Improvement
Project LD# NG11377

2. Agenda
Project Charter
SIPOC
VOC/VOB
Initial Process Map
Data Collection Plan
Operational Definitions
Measurement System Analysis
Baseline Process Performance –External Agency Perspective
Baseline Process Performance –Internal Cooperation
Baseline Process Performance –Preparing the Invoice
Proposed Short Term Process Map
Proposed Long Term Process Map
Root Causes & Proposed Solutions
Solution Implementation Accountability
Implementation Risk Analysis
End State Success

3. Incoming MIPR Process Project Charter

4. SIPOC

6. Initial Process Map
MTC
GOR
External
Units
Utilization Report of TY
Used For Scheduling
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
MTC Calls Units
To Coordinate
Admin Info &
Cost
Contracting
Comptroller
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
Requirements
entered into
RFMSS
Customer Value Add (Green);
Non-Value Add -Required (Amber);
Non-Value Added (Red)
Customer Doesn’t Know
Actual Cost
MIPR
Acceptance
USPFO Accounting Tech
USPFO
Review & Approve
Final Approval –
Signed For Payment

7. Data Collection Plan
Performance
Measure
Operational
Definition
Data Source
and Location
How Will Data
Be Collected
Who Will
Collect Data
When Will Data
Be Collected
Sample
Size
Stratification
Factors
How will data
be used?
Length of Packet
processing
Time from
when the
invoice is
received to
when the State
receives
reimbursement
USPFO Accounting
Tech & MTC
Budget Analyst –
Data not kept in a
single tracking
system; VKO &
Spreadsheet
Data will be pulled
from MIPR packets
are complete and
located in their
respective
computer locations
Dawn Meek; Ron
Cochran; Tonya
Gordon
Once for FY17
Population
15 samples
(approxima
tely 100
packets a
year)
None; only
external users
To determine
Processing time
between stages
of the packet
lifecycle

8. Operational Definitions
Terms:
Requesting Agency -The requesting agency is the customer activity that places an order for
goods or services to another federal agency or DoD component. The term is synonymous with
and referenced throughout various Federal government agreements as the “ordering agency”
Servicing Agency -The servicing agency is the provider activity that fills an order for goods or
services from another federal agency or DoD Component. The term is synonymous with and
referenced throughout various Federal government agreements as the “performing agency”
Interagency Support -Transactions for goods or services between DoD and non-DoD Federal
government agencies, also known as intergovernmental support
Intra-agency Support-Transactions for goods or services within and between DoD and other
DoD Components, also known as interservice support
Fiscal Year Appropriation-An appropriation that is available for obligation only during a specific
fiscal year. This is the most common type of appropriation. It is also know as a “one-year” or
“annual” appropriation
The Economy Act -Authority for federal agencies to order goods and services from major
organizations within the same agency or other federal agencies and to pay the actual costs of
those goods and services. The Congress passed the Act in 1932 to obtain economies of scale
and eliminate overlapping activities of the Federal Government. Within the Department, an activity
within a DoD Component may place an order for goods or services with (1) another activity within
the same DoD Component, (2) another DoD Component, or (3) with another federal agency
MIPR-DD Form 448, “Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request

9. Measurement System Analysis
Type of
Measurement Error
Description Considerations to this Project
Discrimination
(resolution)
The ability of the measurement system
to divide measurements into “data
categories”
Packet Cycle Time; All stages of the
packet have trackable dates
Bias
The difference between an observed
average measurement result and a
reference value
No observation, Packet data –No
automated system that tracks
information, however the dates are
from specific actions tracked in different
stages
Stability The change in bias over time
The data is in a manual tracked
spreadsheet tracking its lifecycle –will
consider SE instead of STD
Repeatability The extent variability is consistent
Would be an issue if master tracker was
altered.
Reproducibility
Different appraisers produce consistent
results
Data set has the name of Packets so
anyone can pull the same sample set to
get the exact same results.
Variation The difference between parts N/a to this process.

10. Baseline Process Performance –External Agency Perspective
Measure Phase
DAYS
BETWEEN
TRAINING
COMPLETE &
DATE
REIMBURSED
921751501393713012195262128-27
The extremes are
likely due to timing
in fiscal year and not
much emphasis by
either party
Touch time should
be considered in
these two waves
This metric would
more likely be a
concern for the
outside agency as it
creates a ULO for
them
1st Quartile 22.250
Median 64.500
3rd Quartile147.250
Maximum 195.000
34.469 128.531
22.316 147.106
52.436 125.679
A-Squared 0.49
P-Value 0.175
Mean 81.500
StDev 74.021
Variance 5479.182
Skewness 0.17743
Kurtosis -1.52552
N 12
Minimum -27.000
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
95% Confidence Interval for Median
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
200150100500-50
Median
Mean
14012010080604020
95% Confidence Intervals
Days Between Training Complete & Date Paid

11. Data appears
normal at first glace
but the Moving
Range of the
Samples suggests
there is more to it
Assumption is due
to timing during the
FY in regards to
outside agency’s
ULOs
This likely has a
negative impact on
our workload due to
multiple end of year
requirements
Baseline Process Performance –External Agency Perspective
121110987654321
300
200
100
0
-100
Observation
Individual Value
_
X=81.5
UCL=287.3
LCL=-124.3
121110987654321
240
180
120
60
0
Observation
Moving Range
__
MR=77.4
UCL=252.8
LCL=0
I-MR Chart of Days Between Training Complete & Date paid

12. The time in-
between data points
is extreme
The 77 day moving
average is masking
the large
movements in
regards to
inconsistency
Sample #12 shows
at the end of the FY
the bill was paid
before training was
complete
Baseline Process Performance –External Agency Perspective
121110987654321
200
150
100
50
0
Number of runs about median: 6
Expected number of runs: 7.0
Longest run about median: 4
Approx P-Value for Clustering:0.272
Approx P-Value for Mixtures:0.728
Number of runs up or down: 8
Expected number of runs: 7.7
Longest run up or down: 3
Approx P-Value for Trends: 0.598
Approx P-Value for Oscillation:0.402
Observation
D
a
y
s

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
Run Chart of Days Between Training Complete & Date Paid

13. 5 of 12 samples had the billing date
with the same day as the invoice date
8 of 12 samples had the invoicing date
and bill date within 8 business days
Late billing is likely to occur due to
batch processing on bills in the
USPFO –No standard batching time
frame exists
Baseline Process Performance –Internal Cooperation
DAYS
BETWEEN
INVOICE
DATE & BILL
DATE
59020 0 4 6 24 0 34 9 0 0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
ays between invoice date and b
Individual Value Plot of Days Between Invoice Date & Bill Date

14. The 4 negative numbers at the bottom
appear in the 4
th
Quarter of the FY
due to a practice called “Pre-Billing”
Pre-Billing happens in the 4
th
Quarter
to help sub-entities spend money in
the cooperative agreement process so
that “grow back” does not occur
Baseline Process Performance –Preparing the Invoice
DAYS
BETWEEN
TRAINING
COMPLETION
DATE &
INVOICE
DATE
187931471495-39 76-10-15 0 -47
121110987654321
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50










Observation
Days Between Training Completio
Run Chart of Days Between Training Complete & Invoice Date

15. Proposed Short Term Process Map
MTC
GOR
External
Units
Utilization Report of TY
Used For Scheduling
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
MTC Calls Units
To Coordinate
Admin Info &
Cost
Contracting
Comptroller
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
Requirements
entered into
RFMSS
Customer Value Add (Green);
Non-Value Add -Required (Amber);
Non-Value Added (Red)
Customer Doesn’t Know
Actual Cost
MIPR
Acceptance
USPFO Accounting Tech
USPFO
Review & Approve
Final Approval –
Signed For Payment
X
Need to remove Contracting
from VKO routing

16. Proposed Long Term Process Map
MTC
GOR
External
Units
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
Comptroller
Reviews For
Completeness &
Accuracy
Requirements
entered into
RFMSS
Customer Value Add (Green);
Non-Value Add -Required (Amber);
Non-Value Added (Red)
MIPR
Acceptance
USPFO Accounting Tech
USPFO
Review & Approve
Final Approval –
Signed For Payment
Restructure RFMSS to show
the layout with features of all
buildings with costs built into
the model (like a hotel) –
Once an item is booked then
another cant –no need to
be on the phone

17. Root Causes & Proposed Solutions

18. RACI Analysis for Prioritized Solution Implementation
R = Responsible – The person who performs the action/task.
A = Accountable –The person who is held accountable that the action/task is completed.
C = Consulted –The person(s) who is consulted before performing the action/task.
I = Informed–The person(s) who is informed after performing the action/task.

19. Implementation Risk Analysis & Mitigation Plan
Consequence
Likelihood
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
•Risk: Contracting effort required on Inbound MIPR
•Consequence: Missed billing opportunity
•Mitigation: Beginning of FY contracting and MTC
meet to review scheduled requests
•Risk: Amenities are not fully captured in the cost model
•Consequence: Missed billing opportunity
•Mitigation: Stakeholders are informed of new initiatives impacting current capabilities

20. End State Success
The Solution Objectives
Operational:
Reduced the possibility of missed external customers
Ensured internal customers have information to forecast Cooperative Agreement Reimbursables
Speed up MIPR lifecycle by removing unnecessary reviews
Created external customer satisfaction by making the process efficient and costs clear up front
The Solutions are Being Implemented
The solution was approved XX Feb 19 with implementation slated for XX Feb 19
New/Improved Process Capability will be determined after RFMSS redesign