New function to allow users to submit forecast of total costs which allow this value to be used in reporting functions, extracted via the API for use in tools like Power BI and displayed on the contract dashboard. So superusers can run cost reports to assist with budgeting and spot contracts over or under budget.
The platform currently allows the user on NEC Contracts to submit the “forecast of total defined costs” via a notification form, but the value is submitted is a free text form in the “submission” field, so can not be audited or reported on easily.
We require a new dynamic “cumlative_forecast_cost” field to appear when the “submit forecast” dropdown is selected and a new additional number field appears allow the user to add the a value. We require the “forecast_name” and “definition” given to the cumulative cost forecast to be configurable at a contract level so that the forecast name and definition reflects the contract language. We require the cumulative forecast cost to be saved each time its is submitted so that the users can see a history of the forecasts change over time.
We require the latest cumulative cost forecast value to be displayed on the dashboard page below the Current Price, with a heading explain what it is. We require a checkpoint onthe contract overview page to allow admin to decide whether it is displayed on a contract or not and a config setting to turn this feature off across the whole platfrom.
We require this cumulative cost forecast values to be visible in Submission relevant registers (aggregated and contract level) as a selectable additional column vai the column chooser, so that users can extract the value in excel or display it and the evolution on screen.
@chriscorr would this be forecast of Defined Cost plus fee? Our admin staff need this value to raise Purchase Order amount if necessary. PO value would be current contract price or forecast contract value whichever is greatest. This is to prevent delay in payment of invoices.
On a monthly basis we want the Consultant / Contractor to prepare forecast and actuals of defined cost and expenses for the whole of the service/works and submit them to the SM/ECC PM. We need this data to be exportable. Similar to how a supplier submits their application for payment, and we also require this as an additional field on the dashboard. This field is required by the EA for integration with MS Project Online.
Not sure if this is related by Nathan had started implementing a “ForecastedCost” (at least we had created a field in the DB for it). I think his plan was to simply increment this value each time a new forecast was added.
OriginalCostForecast + ForecastedCost
I am not sure if this is related but wanted to mention it just in case.
Ade i will pick this up with you. I think this might well have been what Loreta wanted originally last year and sounds like its align to what been described above. I think however the brief i have written based on my conversation with loreta still has a big hole in it, in so far as the project teams can still instruct a PMI and agree CEs that break their budget. i will add some additional thoughts on this below. The forecast of defined costs plus fee wouldn’t include any change “in process but not yet implemented” so to my mind this brief is flawed if Loreta is the forecast cost will achieve her comment below, it won’t:-
Our CSOs currently monitor increases in contract value via implemented CEs on a daily basis and increase POs accordingly. This doesn’t help them to monitor the PO increases required for Option C and Option E contracts where the payment required may exceed the Contract value. Clearly if we use contract value for integration with PoL we may be underestimating overall contract costs.
Example - we have an Option E contract with contract value of £3k and with £60k certified payments. There is no mechanism in FastDraft for alerting the CSO to increases required to the PO as this doesn’t appear in any aggregated reports.
Loreta the feature will be built to allow you to define what the name and definition of the forecast is eg Defined Cost plus fee, but it is worth bearing in mind that the definition to have referred to is specific to some contract types but not all, so you might want a more generic definition if you wish to forecast costs across different NEC Contracts with non NEC Contract types. We will build this functionality in to provide this flexibility. The spec above has been updated to reflect this. @VFlintWilliams and @Steve.Webley thoughts?
Loreta we now have the scenario you have outlined above covered with the specifications. It worth noting that there are still quite a few other ways that project teams could still commit to spending or spend money that isn’t authorised, that you haven’t flagged. For example under all contract they could unwittingly accept a CE that is more expensive than they thought and the cumulative costs of all CEs on all contracts that are mid process (eg from accepting notice to implementing the CE) in not address between reports. I’d suggest that you consider adding “estimate_cost” field when instructing change eg PMI, CEN, etc. to mitigate this risk. I haven’t added this later scope.
Its more than this, we need to add forecast API with a new model and table in the database for a record of each forecast. i have now update the user story above.
Interesting point you raise Chris. We had discussed previously with Nathan whether we could have ‘total potential’ contract value to include all implemented CEs and any potential CEs that are being assessed. We decided not to pursue this. I still think that in this case if the PO value is on the dashboard we should be relying on our PMs to keep an eye on potential CEs that might push the contract value above the PO value. This only becomes a problem when a payment is certified that exceeds the PO value, and not an issue if there is enough headroom in the PO.
@adrian.von.plato Batu raised a good point that the template editor would allow the dropdowns taht drive the logic to be edited at a later date. Can you discuss with batu how best to mitigate this risk for users. Might be a separate workflows to keep in cleaner.
I recognise the contractual correctness of your point. The issue is that the forecast in the mind of the project managers who may not have your contractual sophistication is ultimately what this will cost them.
So the Forecast needs to be the expected liability so we ensure that the funds are made available on time and before they are required. As Loreta states would achieve this.
