The purpose of contract management is to ensure that all parties meet their obligations. All contracts, including service agreements, require active lifelong management to ensure that goods and services meet agreed standards and deadlines. Maintains a positive approach to problem-solving and encourages mutual cooperation in resolving differences of opinion. We used the following definitions to assess performance standards and services for service agreements, while some of these requirements are explicitly included in service agreements, others are in documents next to them. Subsidized organizations can access these documents through the CAF. These measures do not contain information on the quality of service. In addition, the result framework does not contain benchmarks or objectives for evaluating performance or achieving results. Figure 2A Key outcomes of DHHS service agreements Chart 2E summarizes the responses of recipient organizations to our question of whether their management and compliance obligations have been properly aligned with service risks. It shows that 70% of respondents either agree or agree that the management and compliance obligations in their service contract are compatible with the risk involved. Responses to our DHHS employee survey on service agreement management also provide insight into some of the constraints of fopmf-Design.
Below is a summary of the key results of the FOPMF design survey described in Appendix D. DHHS applies annual price indexation to government-approved rates to current or temporary wage-related funding. Particularly for service activities that are funded on an ongoing basis, SAMS2 would automatically require DHHS employees to take action and performing goals. However, performance indicators are optional for service activities that receive temporary and non-indexable funds. This creates inconsistencies in the way contracts are managed and limits DHHS` ability to evaluate the performance of these service activities. The basis for this differentiation is unclear, as organizations provide the same service. We found that the performance criteria and objectives set out in Schedule 2 of the 12 service agreements reviewed were not always feasible or easy to understand. For example, some performance criteria were aimed at “0.1 new cases.” We have heard conflicting reasons from DHHS: the FOPMF includes a number of existing and new monitoring instruments, as shown in Figure 4B.
FOPMF tools focus on monitoring governance, financial management and the quality and security of customer services. The absence of subsequent variation compliance audits since 2016/2017 limits the assurance that DHHS approves and processes changes to service agreements in a consistent and evidence-based manner.