Independent Project Oversight Report (IPOR) Rating

Key Questions

Is the project on track to satisfy the customer's business objectives?Yes

Is the project on track to achieve the objectives in the approved timeframe?Uncertain

Is the project on track to achieve the objectives within the approved budget?Uncertain

Project Overall Health

Comments

Red

The Project Overall Health rating is Red for June 2026 due to the current assessment of the following focus areas. -- Time Management and Quality continued Red: There is a significant risk to the health of the project. All remaining Milestones were due to be completed in the December 2025 – January 2026 timeframe, and several continue in the QA validation process. The backlog of product and data conversion defects are impacting Production Simulation activities. -- Cost Management, Transition Readiness continued Yellow: Caution, risks/issues exist. The Annual 2027 APDU is due to the ACF August 1 and is in progress. The cost of Production Simulation is not reflected in the SPR6 FAW. -- Scope Management was changed to Yellow due to the current V1 scope discussions with County stakeholders, and V2 scope not yet defined. -- Governance, Resources, Risks/Issues, continued Green: Satisfactory, no corrective action necessary. The Board of Directors and Executive Leadership Team are actively engaged. Stakeholders are regularly communicated updates and are collaborative overall. • In lieu of the previously approved Pilot, the Board-approved Production Simulation environment is planned in two phases. Phase 1 started as planned on May 4, and Phase 2 (includes legacy converted data) started on June 22. • Product delivery continues with 20 milestones complete, 16 in progress. The system scope includes core product development, infrastructure, interfaces, shared services, data conversion, scenario testing, rework based on user feedback, and design blueprints. • As of June, there are currently 11 high-priority issues. • In the project’s May 2026 Project Status Report (PSR) submission to the CDT, OTSI responses continued as “Uncertain” for the Key Questions: -- “Is the project on track to achieve the objectives in the approved timeframe?” -- “Is the project on track to achieve the objectives within the approved budget?”

Focus Area/Rating	Comments
Governance Green	The Governance rating continued Green in June 2026. The scope and character of decision-making authority are documented, and governance bodies meet regularly. • The last approval document, SPR 6, was approved in May 2023. -- The project schedule was re-baselined on July 3, 2024. -- The Production Simulation environment/approach was approved on December 18, 2025. • The ACF approved the FFY 2026 APDU on April 21, 2026. • Two As-Needed APDUs were approved on April 21, 2026, for amendments to several contracts, with some expiring in 2026. • Readiness activities for the Production Simulation are in progress. -- Phase 1 started on May 4 with synthetic data. -- Phase 2 started on June 22 with converted legacy data, and was scheduled to start on June 8-9 (previously May 26). -- Four readiness checkpoints are scheduled, with the first (120-day) checkpoint completed on June 29. • The Tech War Room (leadership working sessions) activities that began in October 2025 transitioned into daily morning and evening leadership meetings with working sessions in between focused on Production Simulation readiness including data conversion and critical/high open defects. • Seven decisions were made via the Decision-Making Framework in June: -- 621 CARES 105 Stand Up Options -- 620 CWS-CARES will accept file type "png" from Binti -- 619 Continue with 47 stories assigned to sprint 26.06 (CWDA voted “No”) -- 618 Prod Sim with 66 out of 84 defects fixed -- 617 Production Simulation Go-No-Go approval -- 615 Sealed/Sensitive Data in Prod Sim -- 614 Cancelling the Implementation Bi-weekly Meeting Series • Constituent engagement includes regular communications to constituents, including communications, data, external systems, and implementation activities. • ACF Monthly Report on User Engagement & Adoption – June report with key accomplishments and stakeholder topics was prepared and submitted describing May’s activities. -- Advanced Production Simulation readiness activities and a revised implementation approach to support statewide validation efforts and October 2026 Go-Live -- Conducted Stakeholder Briefing #7 to provide project updates, readiness information, and stakeholder engagement opportunities -- Continued implementation, Organizational Change Management (OCM), and training readiness activities to support organizational preparedness for Go-Live -- A total of 14 communications were sent to stakeholders and users • Per an SPR 6 approval condition, the project utilizes Earned Value Metrics (EVM) to monitor project health. The Total V1 Scope is measured in Function Point Equivalents (FPE). The May FPE value of 88,148 is consistent with values since December 2025.
Time Management Red	The Time Management Focus Area rating continued as Red in June 2026. • Although product milestone progress continues, delivery has not consistently aligned with baseline expectations, resulting in downstream impacts to Production Simulation activities. -- 16 of 37 product and interface milestones have not yet completed the Service Delivery Life Cycle (SDLC) stage. • There is 1 high-priority issue for Time Management -- RI-376 (High Issue): Inadequate time to complete development for SDM and CARES Live before Mock 2. • May 2026 IV&V MAR reports findings that may impact time. -- 1.4.4.1 PaaS SI Poor Delivery Performance Increasing Schedule Risk and Declining Quality. -- 1.5.27 Agile Planning and Delivery Misalignment Risk. • Sprint metrics vary between the State PMO and PaaS SI. -- State PMO monitors overall Sprint metrics for inclusion in the monthly PSR. Historical Overall Sprint Velocity (percentage of user stories completed versus committed) is 26.05 = 36%, 26.06 = 47%. -- PaaS SI Sprint Commitment and Closure reports focused on Build and SIT metrics. Historical Velocity for Application Functionality and Component stories (e.g., Salesforce, Interfaces, DocGen, DocuEdge, and Security) is 26.02 = 37%, 26.03 = 42%, 26.04 = 43%. • The monthly PSR is reporting “uncertain” that project objectives will be achieved within the approved timeframe. • The project maintains adequate control of the (Microsoft Project) V1 Schedule. State and Contractors’ staff collaborate and meet weekly with a standing agenda. Changes to Finish Dates require approval by the Project Director. • The project's performance in achieving the remediated and re-baselined project schedule is reported by PaaS SI to be on track. As of June end: -- PaaS SI schedule variance metrics show the overall project is on track at 94% (+1% from last month) complete, with 162 tasks Overdue and 62 Behind Schedule. -- IPO notes a variance (-1%) comparing the percentage of V1 work completed (94%) and the elapsed state business days* (95%) planned to complete this work. Although the variance is less than 10%, the effort required to complete all remaining tasks may be greater or less than the effort required for the work completed to date. • As per the SPR approval conditions, the Project is using EVM to gauge performance. The Schedule Performance Index (SPI) decreased to 0.980 as of June 15, indicating the project is on schedule with a variance of less than 5% from the target of 1.0.
Cost & Contract Management Yellow	The Cost & Contract Management rating continued as Yellow in June 2026. • The monthly PSR is reporting “uncertain” that project objectives will be achieved within the approved budget. • State funding is approved for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2025-2026 and 2026-2027: -- Spring Finance Letter (SFL) 2026-2027 BCP was approved in the budget signed by the Governor on June 30, 2026. -- SFL 2025-2026 BCP was approved in the budget signed by the Governor on June 27, 2025. • The FFY 2026 APDU was approved by ACF on April 21 and is only for baseline costs. -- FFY 2027 APDU in progress, due August 1. -- As-Needed APDU 01 was approved by ACF on April 21 to amend Financial Management Services, IV&V, and Security Testing Services contracts. -- As-Needed APDU 02 was acknowledged by ACF on April 21 to amend PaaS SI, PVS, CDI, and Implementation services. Federal funding was not requested. -- As-Needed APDU 03 was acknowledged by ACF on June 3, informing ACF of the new Implementation Services contract. Federal funding was not requested. -- As-Needed APDU 04 was submitted on May 4, requesting approval to amend ancillary contracts. -- As-Needed APDU 05 was submitted on June 15, providing copies of executed agreements for PVS and CDI contract amendments. • On December 18, 2025, the Board of Directors approved a Production Simulation Readiness approach for V1. The total estimated cost of $86.9 million includes $14.9 million for the Production Simulation and $72 million for implementation services. These costs are not delineated in the last approved FAW. • The Total Project Costs approved with SPR 6 are $1,711,011,443 with One-Time Costs of $1,228,909,579, Continuing Costs of $301,567,793, and Future Operations Costs of $180,534,071. -- Total One-Time Cumulative Expenditures are reported as $713,694,139, which is 23.4% less than the planned $931,874,278 Total Cumulative One-Time Budget planned for at this time. -- Current SFY 2025-2026 Cumulative Expenditures increased in June from $213,965,949 to $223,627,650, resulting from the payment of contractors’ invoices. • As per an approval condition, the Project is using EVM to gauge performance. -- The 1.180 CPI reported as of June 15 is consistent with expenditures less than budgeted. The variance from the target 1.0 remains above 10% but is below the peak CPI of 1.378 in August 2025. • There are currently 14 service contracts for delivery of the CWS-CARES solution. -- 7 procurements are planned or in progress. -- 3 contract amendments are in progress.
Scope Management Yellow	The Scope Management rating changed to Yellow in June 2026. V1 scope may require changes to maintain the V1 Go-Live date, which would likely impact the V1 stabilization period and the V2 scope and timeframe. • There is 1 high-priority issue for Time Management -- RI-380 (High Issue): A committed delivery plan for the remaining scope is not established. • SPR 6 approval condition #1 is partially satisfied. -- The PMO continues to provide monthly extracts of the CARES Version 1 (V1) product scope. -- V2 scope definition is delayed, dependent on V2 procurement, which is currently on hold. • The June V1 Scope Extract prepared by the project illustrates that the V1 product functional scope is organized by four Extended User Scenario Testing (EUST) cycles and consists of 4,200 (-6 from last month) user stories categorized into 37 product and interface Milestones (plus Rework, Forms, and Shared Services), 144 Building Blocks, and 510 Epics. IPO observes: -- 3,574 (85% of total) user stories have completed the SDLC phase. -- 1,363 (76% of EUST 3) out of 1,800 user stories for EUST 3 are Done. • There are 8 external interfaces in scope. 3 are SDLC complete, and 5 are in progress. • There are 3 major IT systems used by one or more counties for which Data Conversion (DC) activities are in progress. • Development of 438 Statewide forms continues in progress. • Approximately 2,338 county-specific forms continue in progress by Counties using a dedicated county development environment maintained by CWS-CARES.
Resources Green	The Resources rating continued Green in June 2026. • Key consulting contracts that provide specialized, skilled contract staff supporting the project are available for implementation and readiness activities leading to Go-Live. • The approved FY 2025-2026 budget allocates 126 positions, an increase of three positions above FY 2024-25. • The project’s overall position vacancies continued at 4% in June, with no hires made, and this is within the Project’s goal of 10%. • Total primary vendor resources decreased to 757 (-7) staff, including: -- PaaS SI – 397 (no change) -- CDI – 167 (-1) -- PVS – 49 (+1) -- Implementation (KPMG) – 135 (-6) -- QA/Testing – 9 (-1)
Quality Red	The Quality rating continued Red in June 2026. 16 product milestones are late and continue in QA. Users may experience challenges from unresolved product and data conversion defects. • The project is responding to 7 high-priority issues related to Quality. -- RI-379 (High Issue): Interface Batch Jobs Not Executed Against Converted Data; No Successful Runs To Date. -- RI-378 (High Issue): RBAC Gaps for Sealed/Sensitive Records: High Defects; Converted Data Untested. -- RI-354 (High Issue): Non-Adherence to Best Practices in APEX Custom Code Management. The PaaS SI Team is not following an established, traceable process for requesting and procuring increases in Salesforce governor limits. -- RI-345 (High Issue): Insufficient QA capacity to support Build Drop volumes. The current QA velocity is not sufficient to complete testing of all stories and retest corrected defects to support EUST 3. -- RI-344 (High Issue): Separation of Business Rules. -- RI-342 (High Issue): Issues identified by Salesforce Code Quality Review. Salesforce's code analysis has identified several quality issues that need resolution. -- RI-339 (High Issue): Automation Regression Test (ART) execution failures are poor and do not show an improvement or an improving trend. The ART execution results have shown a trend of failures across most Milestones that have passed manual validation in the QA environment. • IV&V observations continue unresolved, including: -- 1.5.26 Incomplete Implementation of Safety Alerts Feature in CARES -- 1.5.28 Cyclic Defect Dependencies and Improper Defect Traceability -- 1.6.13 Ongoing Salesforce Apex Code Review -- 1.7.5.1 Inadequate Storage Monitoring & Management in DevOps Environment -- 1.7.5.2 Data Dictionary Baseline Misalignment with Code Freeze and Downstream Dependencies • EUST 3 (last planned testing cycle) execution of scenario testing and functional validation finished on April 17, 2026. All user feedback was reviewed and elaborated into user stories, categorized as essential, needing improvement, or enhancement. • 92% of user stories deployed to state QA are complete. • Significant volume of open defects in QA, with many older than 60 days. The backlog is decreasing weekly from April to June. -- 596 open Product defects, with 68 Critical, 101 High, 371 Medium, and 56 Low. -- 412 (69%) Product defects are a Development Fix. -- 569 open Data Conversion defects, with 141 Critical and 292 High. • Rework identified from user feedback indicates that some functionality may not fully meet user expectations, requirements, or usability standards. The V1 Scope extract also provides updates on rework. -- 725 (96%) of the total 758 Rework user stories are Done. • Automated Regression Testing is performed for selected (not all) milestones with an average pass rate of 92%. • There are 15 system environments configured for different activities, with 7 containing production data. • ADA testing continues with 35 open defects; 25 Salesforce; 10 Image Trust; 0 PaaS SI.
Risk And Issues Green	The Risks and Issues rating continued Green in June 2026. Risk and issue management is mature, with all items recorded and updated in the Risks and Issues Jira Backlog. • The CWS-CARES team is managing 38 open project-level risks and issues, including 11 high-priority issues. -- RI-380: Committed delivery plan for remaining scope is not established (Scope) -- RI-379: Interface Batch Jobs Not Executed Against Converted Data; No Successful Runs To Date (Quality) -- RI-378: RBAC Gaps for Sealed/Sensitive Records: High Defects; Converted Data Untested (Quality) -- RI-376: Inadequate time to complete development for SDM and CARES Live before Mock 2 (Time) -- RI-369: Production Simulation was not started by 5/4, impacting user confidence (Transition Readiness) -- RI-354: Non-Adherence to Best Practices in APEX Custom Code Management. (Quality) -- RI-345: Insufficient QA capacity to support Build Drop volumes (Quality) -- RI-344: Separation of Business Rules (Quality) -- RI-342: Issues identified by Salesforce Code Quality Review (Quality) -- RI-339: Automation Regression Test (ART) execution failures are poor and not showing an improvement or improving trend (Quality) -- RI-327: Long processing time for Micro-conversion may impact Cutover and Pilot planning and implementation (Transition Readiness) • Breakdown of active Risks and Issues: -- Issues: 26 (11 High, 11 Medium, 4 Low) -- Risks: 12 (0 High, 9 Medium, 3 Low)
Transition Readiness Yellow	The Transition Readiness rating continued Yellow in June 2026. • The project is responding to 2 high-priority issues related to Transition Readiness. -- RI-369: Production Simulation was not started by May 4, 2026, impacting user confidence. -- RI-327: Long processing time for Micro-conversion may impact Cutover and Pilot planning and implementation. • Production Simulation key onboarding dates communicated to County stakeholders. -- June 22: onboard EUST 3 Participants, County Admin, DC validation -- July 6: County requested users, Forms/Reports developers, Data extract agencies -- August 3: Remaining 25,000+ county and orgnization users. • The Production Simulation Phase 1 started as planned with synthetic data in a V1 Readiness environment. Converted legacy data was made available on June 22. -- 16 Product Milestones are not yet done, and a large volume of critical and high-defect issues needs resolution. -- County users may experience quality issues until all V1 functionality has finished the Development and Quality Assurance phases. • Training activities are planned and will focus on two workstreams: -- Train-the-Trainer and Super Users Training to be conducted from June to August. -- End User Instructor-Led Training to be available beginning in August. • Overdue Go-Live Readiness tasks have improved since last month. -- County-Specific Forms: 414 (18%) of 2,338 forms are complete.
Conditions For Approval Green	The SPR 6 Approval Letter stipulates that the project must adhere to the following conditions (abridged language below): 1. Complete an elaboration of the Product Backlog to clarify program needs further and establish the inventory of functions and features required to complete the project. -- a) Satisfied – V1 product scope (Epics) must be elaborated into requirements (Stories) no later than October 31, 2024. IPO reviewed the materials in November 2024 and determined that they satisfy the condition. As per the CDT request, the project is also providing: 1) Tabular data that demonstrates completion progress and adjustments in total stories by milestone in future Project Status Report (PSR) and Quarterly Project Report (QPR) submissions to the CDT, commencing with the PSR due in December 2024. 2) The PSR and QPR reports include tabular data specifically on the details and progress of the "Rework" milestone stories, including identification of the original source milestone (e.g., 157 Rework milestone stories are sourced from "Milestone 03: Screening"). -- b) In Progress – “V1 reporting and V2 Epics must be elaborated into Stories no later than February 28, 2025”. On February 28, 2025, the project was submitted to the CDT materials intended to satisfy condition #1b. At that time, IPO reviewed the materials and determined it was conditionally satisfied. CDT acknowledged that the V2 Baseline scope information must be kept "procurement confidential". The project was requested to provide the CDT the following, but as of June 30, 2026, the V2 procurement is on hold: 1) An updated version of the V2 scope at the Epic/Scenario level immediately after the V2 PaaS SI contractor procurement is completed. (Date TBD) 2) An updated version of the V2 scope elaborated to the Story level immediately upon completion of V2 Business Requirements activities. (Date TBD) 2. Conduct an annual Development Progress Demonstration for stakeholders and CDT during the first quarter of each Calendar year. -- Satisfied. The most recent annual demonstrations were held on April 4, 2024, May 7, 2025, and April 30, 2026. 3. Commence Earned Value Management (EVM) reporting in the monthly Project Status Reports (PSR) and Quarterly Project Reports (QPR) submissions beginning in October 2023. -- Satisfied. The Project began reporting EVM in October 2023. The Project continues to refine the approach and calculations using Function Point Equivalents. 4. Provide a Board of Directors-approved V1 Pilot Plan to the CDT upon completion of the SPR 6 Major Milestone in September 2023. -- Satisfied. The Project Director obtained Board of Directors approval on September 28, 2023, for the initial Pilot Plan version to satisfy the CDT SPR 6 approval condition. -- Board approval is conditional, stipulating that all future iterations be returned for approval. 5. The Independent Advisor (IA) consultant must assess the efficacy of the project’s constituent engagement, communications, and adoption model and provide a report that includes improvement recommendations to project leadership, CalHHS, and the CDT by March 31, 2024. -- Satisfied. Per IPO request, the findings and recommendations were presented to executive stakeholders on June 3, 2024. 6. Provide an updated Vendor Management Plan that includes a revised Work Order Authorization (WOA) process that aligns with the PaaS SI and PVS vendor contract amendments described in SPR 6 before the amendments are executed. -- Satisfied. In August 2023, the CDT IPO team reviewed the new WOA Management Plan, which included updated WOA templates. -- Per IPO request, the WOA Management Plan was updated in October 2023 to include recurring activities, deliverables, and org readiness details for Implementation WOAs. 7. The CWS-CARES project must submit a new SPR if one or more of the following occurs: a) Estimated One-Time Cost increases by $15 million. b) Estimated Project End Date is extended by three months. c) Product scope or requirements vary by 10 percent. d) Service Delivery Lifecycle (SDLC) undergoes major changes, as determined by the CDT. -- Condition has not been triggered
Corrective Action Green	Not currently applicable

• Special Project Report 6 (pdf)
• Special Project Report 5 (pdf)
• Special Project Report 4 (pdf)
• Special Project Report 3 (pdf)
• Special Project Report 2 (pdf)
• Special Project Report 1 (pdf)