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 ILMSTraining@State.gov

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 ILMSAnalytics@state.gov Send questions to:

◦ ICASSServiceCenter@state.gov◦ Nolan Leavitt (leavittn@state.gov)◦ Janet Buechel (buecheljg@state.gov)◦ 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