Print 🖨

The House Committee on Appropriations met to hear invited testimony on and discuss the contract for Child Support Enforcement System Updates.
 
Ursula Parks, Director, LBB

  • Texas Child Support Enforcement System 2.0 (“T2”) Overview
  • Goal is to streamline system by transferring from mainframe system to web-based platform
  • 1st contract was with Deloitte who helped redesign business practices, Accenture helped implement and design the web system
  • Development cost is 66% federal and 33% state cost share, $223 million estimate
  • Actual cost is $300 million, about half is contract costs, the other half includes AG services
  • Rep. Burkett asks after data center costs
    • A portion of the data center cost is in the project cost
  • Chair Otto comments that there are other costs aside from data center cost,
  • Deloitte initial contract was $1.8 million, consulting contract to determine the scope of deliverables and contracts
  • Final price was $46 million
  • Chair Otto asks if this contract prohibited Deloitte from bidding on future deliverables contracts
    • Yes, basically correct
  • Chair Otto asks when the contract was completed
    • Awarded in 2007, last deliverables were in 2011
  • Rep. Giddings asks for clarification on how the $1.8 million grew into $46 million
    • The initial contract had 5 renewal options
  • Rep. Giddings asks if LBB has an idea if this was underbid originally
    • LBB is still looking at this issue
  • Rep. Burkett asks after the specifics of the contract program and if the renewals allowed for expansion
    • Contract was made to determine the scope of the project, renewal options were for potential expansions
  • Rep. Miles asks if any red flags arose during the renewal
    • The contract was largely handled by the AG, AG’s office does not have tight controls on flow of money, so it is difficult to monitor the flow of money
    • There were red flags during the length of the project
  • Rep. Miles worries that state needs checks for expansion on contracts
  • Chair Otto comments that this past session passed many measures that helped contract oversight, would like to keep rider in the budget
  • Rep. Munoz asks after the value of the renewal options
    • 1st for $4.2 mil, 2nd  for $7.3 mil, 3rd $18.6 mil, 4th $10 mil, 5th for $4 mil, to total $46 million
  • Rep Munoz asks if LBB has information on what each renewal added
    • LBB can get this information
  • Rep. Capriglione asks what the deliverables were, if this was just a consulting contract
    • Yes, mostly a consulting contract
  • Accenture contract was awarded in October of 2010, initial value of $70 million, AG’s office issued 30 change orders resulting in a $100 million contract
  • Project cost increased with contract cost, resulting in $310 million price point for the project
  • Rep. Burkett asks for clarification on the 30 change orders, if they were scope of work orders
    • Change orders happened between 2011 and 2014
    • Some orders were for scope, some were moving money between fiscal years, can provide a complete list
  • Rep. Burkett comments that it could be reasonable expansion rather than underbidding, would like information on the RFP and bidders
    • Had 3 initial bidders for the RFP
  • Project timeline has also expanded to 2018, 7 projects originally part of the contract, none are complete
  • Chair Otto asks for how many deliverables were in the amended contract
    • Still working on this, AG is investigating
  • Rep. Howard asks if everything has now been rolled into one deliverable to be delivered a year after the original completion date
    • Excellent summary
  • Rep. Howard asks if the AG’s office providing part of the workforce for the Deloitte contract was in the original contract
    • It was not, unsure where this provision entered into the contract, seems to be rolled into Accenture contract
  • Rep. Howard comments one of the issues is AG’s staff being unable to do what was required in the scope
    • State participation in programming work was an effort by the AG to keep the Accenture project moving
  • LBB will provide specifics on the change orders
  • AG is currently involved in completing new estimates and completion dates
  • A number of things contributed to cost and schedule bloat:
    • Changes to project scope, change orders, $30 mil difference
    • Increased data center costs, almost $100 million from AG’s office currently, these costs would occur regardless of contract costs
    • Need to hire external programmers to augment Accenture programmers
    • Schedule for the project for contract changed due to AG funding reductions, includes total overall budget decrease and lose of dedicated funds, not unusual to alter projects like this in response to budget reductions
  • Rep. Giddings asks after accusations of outsourcing programming jobs
    • Agency met challenges hiring local programmers, response was to outsource further
  • Rep. Giddings asks if it is common for the state to outsource to foreign markets
    • LBB is currently looking to see how common this is for state agencies
  • Rep. Burkett asks how the outsourcing was approved
    • Done through a change order, which needs to be approved by AG
  • Rep. Burkett wonders if there is not legislation to cover this, remembers some legislation forbidding outsourcing
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if any legislative procedures would’ve contributed to contract delay
    • Legislative oversight was not part of the delay in this case as it was largely handled in house by the OAG
  • Currently there is federal oversight and monitoring of this project, some federal funds have been frozen
  • This necessitates IVNV reviews to release funding, OAG contracted with UT for this, found that current schedule was unrealistic, the project had a negative work environment, and Accenture code was not meeting expectations, federal funding is frozen pending these issues being addressed
  • LBB has a Quality Assurance Team that monitors contracts, and created a Contract Oversight Team to monitor contracts and implement Article 9 changes
  • Rep. Howard asks if QAT was in place before this issue arose
    • Yes, QAT is project-focused, not just the contract and QAT does not review contract issues
    • New COT is designed to review contracts, LBB believes this team would’ve anticipated problems with this contract
  • Rep. Koop asks how the LBB envisions the State Auditor’s Office participating in review considering COT
    • State Auditor’s Office sometimes gets involved with QAT for projects within their purview
  • Rep. Burkett worries over issues falling through the cracks and alternatively about overregulation hampering efficiency
    • QAT only looks at IT projects so the scope is relatively focused
    • In comparison, COT is focused only on contracts and is much broader, has very specific direction to identify risk associated with contracts
    • QAT has identified the T2 project as risky
  • OAG’s flexibility in transferring funding and control of projects allows OAG to operate efficiently, but also provides challenges for oversight
  • Rep. Howard comments that problems still exist even with the oversight measures in place, wonders why T2 issues were not solved given the complaints and risk assessment
    • The project director is generally supposed to manage this issue
    • With T2, it is clear that despite oversight, issues still persisted
  • Rep. Miles asks LBB to expand on the deliverable deadline pushback
    • Changes in the scope and management of the contract contributed, likewise budget reduction for OAG
    • Multiple pushbacks over the life of the contract
  • Rep. Miles asks for other justifications aside from budget reductions
    • Change orders typically add time to deliverables
  • Rep. Walle asks for a timeline of the change orders for the Accenture contract
    • LBB can provide this
  • Recent changes have allowed LBB to roadmap contracts like this for the legislature, should be able to do this for a number of procurements state wide and track appropriations
  • Chair Otto asks how well other state agencies have cooperated with this rider
    • All agencies are working toward coming into compliance with the rider, overall response has been positive and good progress is being made
  • Chair Otto asks if agencies would benefit from IT contract specialists being called in to review IT contracts
    • Most state agencies are at a disadvantage with negotiating IT contracts with large vendors
    • Some resources are currently available, contracts management guide dictates standards
  • Rep. Howard asks if this is a contract issue, management issue, oversight issue, etc. and if this needs to be consolidated under one oversight body
    • LBB is looking into this, state does not seem to have protection in some cases
    • New legislation requires attestation form to say that someone has looked at contracts, SB 20 provisions also help guard the state
    • LBB will be able to come to legislature in the coming session to present on effectiveness of measures
  • Rep. Longoria asks if there are any other comparable IT projects in recent years
    • Huge IT projects exist in Article 2, TEA has very large projects, IT projects typically run over budget and overtime
    • QAT has issued a set of criteria that point to success for IT contracts, include short, clear deliverables
  • Rep. Bell asks if the current Accenture contract has punitive consequences
    • LBB is evaluating this currently
  • Rep. Dukes asks after state ownership of the product of the contract
    • State does own it, Accenture has the ability to use parts of it in other contracts
  • Rep. Dukes comments that the state is paying for a product that is over budget and over time and Accenture will be able to use this product for profit
    • Yes, state has no royalty provision for this use
    • Contract management guide specifies that state must own the final product
    • Currently state is in a position to identify these issues easier and earlier
  • Rep. Dukes has concerns over the LBB’s ability to monitor contracts
    • New staff exists to combat contracting issues, COT will allow LBB to look at protection of state interests from technical and legal perspectives
  • Rep. Dukes asks if the state actually knows where the problem is with T2, comments that OAG defended Accenture in recent news
    • T2 is an important project that needs to be completed, part of this hearing is to determine where the issues arose
    • LBB is still looking at all of the documentation
  • Rep. Dukes asks if there is substantially more authority afforded to OAG for this contract than usual
    • Yes, funding transfer ability in particular
  • Rep. Bell asks if this contract has performance or payment modifications in place
    • Unsure as of now, looking at this issue
  • Rep. Giddings thinks that job outsourcing and state ownership would need to be handled by legislation, asks if LBB is able to look at these public policy issues under their Strategic Fiscal Review process
    • COT will definitely work with SFR, LBB will leverage all of its resources to provide recommendations to the legislature
  • Chair Otto asks if state is allowed a royalty or state ownership for these types of products given federal funding involvement
    • LBB can look into this

 
Herbert Krasner, IVNV Project Manager, UT

  • Wrote the reports to the federal government for the project
  • Some of his reports have leaked to the public via the media
  • Central project manager and investigator for the T2 IVNV federal review process
  • Does not report to the state, child support system, etc., reports to the federal government
  • Focused on whether the right product is being developed and whether the product is being developed in the right way
  • Reports tend to be deficiency and problem based, no good comments are typically included
  • Has conducted semiannual review of T2 with 8 senior IT experts, reports are based upon this review, 9 reports total so far since 2011
  • IVNV compares the project to best practices in the industry
  • Looks at project management, resource allocation, development, testing, deployment, etc.
  • IVNV does not look at contract management issues
  • T2 is very large and very complicated, this has not been tried before in any other arena
  • Chair Otto asks if the Deloitte roadmap is even valid anymore given technological advancements, would the state have been better off compacting the project instead of spreading it out over years
    • Absolutely
    • However, Deloitte roadmap was not worth the money
  • Chair Otto asks if the project is following this roadmap
    • Project is trying to which has probably led to problems
  • Chair Otto asks if the best way to do this is then focus on very short timespans before technology advances
    • Yes, many of the decisions made with T2 are based on outmoded technology
  • Chair Otto asks after the maintenance issue
    • It will be enormous and the only people who will be able to maintain the system are the developers
  • Another way to address this is to make the process agile, aka expect deliverables ever 2 months or so
  • Rep. Dukes asks after issues with the roadmap and whether the IVNV brought issues to the attention
    • Initial report included 40 specific deficiencies with the information available including the roadmap
  • Rep. Dukes asks who reviewed the final version before it was published
    • Everything is delivered to contract manager at OAG who disseminates it from there
  • Rep. Dukes asks if it is sent to child support team then reviewed then brought back
    • Yes, they review and comment; sometimes they agree and sometimes they disagree
  • Rep. Dukes asks if their response is published
    • Yes
  • Rep. Dukes asks for the report to be emailed to her office
  • Rep. Giddings asks if the roadmap was ever relevant
    • Deloitte listed 20,000 requirements for the new system that would be built, completely over specified, typically requirements should be in the 4,000 or 5,000 range
    • Requirements issue has been a consistent thorn in the side of system development
  • Rep. Giddings asks if the project has been “under water” since the beginning
    • Absolutely
  • Chair Otto asks how this was allowed to happen, why these issues were not brought to the attention of authorities
    • It was likely assumed that Accenture would understand Deloitte’s outline
  • Rep. Bell asks if the contract included any ability to ensure compliance
    • Unsure as to the answer, outside the scope of IVNV
  • Rep. Bell asks for expansion on IVNV’s opinion on Deloitte’s roadmap
    • Deloitte did not ask over actual requirements, put together a “wishlist” and over-specified requirements
    • Other component is the “playbook,” aka development methodology that would produce the T2 system, this “playbook” is onerous and almost impossible to implement
    • “Playbook” was roughly $38 million itself
    • Technology selections were made haphazardly without thought to how software packages integrate
  • Rep. Miles asks for an explanation of the timeline of the IVNV findings over Deloitte’s roadmap
    • Started in July 2011 with 40 specific findings, including
      • Project charters deficiencies, “playbook” was not based on industry standards, field office was not involved, risk buffers were not sufficient, T2 schedule was not “real” (has been shifted constantly), quality focus was missing, “playbook” was deficient
  • Rep. Miles asks when this was reported to the OAG
    • Takes several weeks for writing and federal review, OAG likely received report in August or September of 2011
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if Accenture agreed to follow the roadmap as written, if all bidders knew of the “playbook”
    • Yes
  • Rep. Capriglione asks how many people would need to approve a change such as hiring
    • 5 or 7 levels of review
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if some project modules have been delivered
    • Yes, some have, IVNV determined them to be deficient and Accenture is reworking them
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if some of it has been tested
    • No significant testing has occurred
  • Rep. Capriglione asks what the state has if funding stops
    • Nothing
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if the data meant to go into the system is being given out to outsourced developers
    • Unsure
  • Rep Capriglione asks if the project could be completed one year from now
    • Unsure, situation has changed drastically since last report was made, project has been reorganized and development control has been given to Accenture
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if the system of one group drafting the plan and another developing the product is workable generally
    • In this case, it did not work
  • Chair Otto comments that federal requirements dictated the process be separate
  • Rep. Dukes comments that no one seems to know who is at fault, has concerns over why no red flags were raised and that this is a very new program, perhaps no industry standards apply
  • Rep. Dukes comments that Accenture likely stated they could implement Deloitte’s roadmap after reviewing the roadmap
    • Believes this to be the case
  • Rep. Dukes asks who the other involved contracting parties are
    • Many independent contractors are acting as experts
  • Rep. Dukes asks who hired these individuals
    • Prior to IVNV involvement, would assume OAG made those decisions
  • Rep. Dukes asks if these contractors coordinated with project management
    • Likely OAG child support personnel
  • Rep. Howard comments that state auditor gave assurances that project could be completed on time and within scope during 2011, this paints a very different picture from the initial IVNV report
    • Time has shown who was correct
  • Rep. Howard asks if OAG knew of the deficiencies during 2011
    • Yes
  • Chair Otto comments that IVNV reports only report negatives
  • Rep. Howard asks if the negatives were severe
    • Yes
  • Rep. Capriglione asks who else, aside from federal interests and OAG, receives the IVNV reports
    • No one else to his knowledge without a PIR
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if Accenture receives copies
    • No
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if there is ever a report with no problems
    • Not in his experience
  • Rep. Walle asks if federal funds are in jeopardy
    • Yes, regularly meets with the federal side of this issue, continued funding would likely need more scrutiny (more frequent IVNV reviews)
    • If federal government decides to continue funding, additional requirements and constraints will be place on organization
  • Rep. Walle asks if the federal government would want their money back
    • Has not heard anything on this
  • Chair Otto will invite Deloitte in the spring Appropriations meeting

 
Chip Roy, OAG
Mara Friesen, OAG

  • OAG has been “very forthcoming” with some of the issues surrounding T2
  • Regardless of problems, a new system for child support payments is desperately needed
  • Scale has increased from $900 million to $4 billion in child support payments since 1990
  • Federal rules require that implantation planning organizations cannot also develop the system
  • Accenture asked OAG in February to purchase servers in India for development
  • OAG had concerns over timeline and quality of coding, alerted legislature that overrun would occur on this path and requested for $34 million for additional servers
  • Only $11 million of this has been spent to keep the project moving while reviewing the project entirely
  • In June, Accenture sent a new team to look deep into the project, concluded that without changes project could not be completed within contract timeframe and that costs would increase
  • OAG is responsible for building out infrastructure for the project and requirements ballooned, Accenture also burned through hours allotted for project completion
  • Punting the project is not a good idea given that child support payments must be collected, rebidding likewise would cost the state much more
  • Thus, OAG began working with Accenture to launch the new system, jointly restructured project organization which included removing some contractors and changing bureaucracy
  • Virtual case file system is in effect and is saving state money, 40% of the code has been developed and design is complete (mix of Deloitte requirements and revisions by Accenture)
  • T2 project is progressing, it is now streamlined and set to succeed
  • Accenture is working despite the federal funding freeze at their risk
  • OAG has restructured contract with Accenture to ensure payments are tied to milestones

 
Steven Gratto, Accenture
Ben Foster, Accenture

  • Responsible for Accenture’s work on the T2 project
  • Any large scale system replacement includes scope and timeline changes to keep up with rapid technology changes
  • Accenture’s original contract value was $69 million, DDI work stands at $79 million currently, difference represents 10% of program variance
  • OAG asked for incremental work totaling roughly $20 million
  • Accenture has been paid for roughly 50%, looking forward to working with OAG to complete project
  • Accenture was responsible for developing the previous T1 system

 
Questions for OAG and Accenture

  • Chair Otto asks if Accenture performed a similar function for California
    • Yes, similar migration from mainframe to web-based system
  • Chair Otto wants the timeline and cost information
    • Can provide this to the committee
  • Chair Otto asks if California spread the development out
    • It was a multi-year program
  • Chair Otto asks if Accenture had similar technology problems, if it was federally funded, and if there was a roadmap in place
    • No roadmap, unsure if it was federally funded
  • Chair Otto asks how many of the 30 change orders have been related to technology changes
    • 15 orders are related to increased capability of system, 2 or 3 have been related to technology changes
  • Chair Otto thinks this is not a big number
  • Chair Otto asks OAG for a schedule of payments
    • Can provide this, there is a monthly ongoing cost and deliverables-based payments
    • Should the plan proceed with Accenture then there are specific milestones
  • Chair Otto asks if Accenture used any of the programming used in California in Texas
    • Generally no, infrastructure was completely different
    • Ben Foster, Accenture, comments that California had no roadmap, but that the program was federally funded
  • Chair Otto wonders why Texas required a roadmap and California did not
    • OAG comments that there is a difference between roadmaps and requirements for bid
    • Requirements for bid can be done in house and meet federal requirement
  • Chair Otto asks if the California system is owned by California
    • Ben Foster responds that system is federally required to be owned by the state
  • Chair Otto asks if federal government would authorize Texas’ system for use in other states
    • State can apply and federal government can give licenses to use the system
  • Rep. Giddings after outsourcing of jobs to India
    • Gratto responds that he can only respond to DDI work
    • Development has been augmented by delivery network which exists in India
    • This was done to allow development around the clock
  • Rep. Giddings asks how much of the work has been done by the outsourcing
    • Accenture is not comfortable answering this
  • Rep. Giddings is concerned that tax payer dollars are not being spent in state
    • Work can be done more efficiently with 24 hour/7 day a week development
  • Rep. Giddings asks if Accenture pays more for stateside programmers than overseas programmers
    • Yes
  • Rep. Giddings asks how many of the development dollars have been spent on overseas development
    • Accenture can provide this information
  • Rep. Giddings asks if the overseas programmers handle any confidential information
    • Absolutely not, all data is “dummy data” for testing, production data does not go overseas
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if Accenture has seen the IVNV reports
    • Yes
  • Rep. Capriglione asks after cost variance due to change orders
    • 10% cost variance to taxpayers, Accenture has incurred more costs
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if Accenture would be able to complete the project within the year
    • Revised plan devised together with OAG has a “go live” date of July 2018
  • Rep. Capriglione asks if Texas can develop requirements in house for IT procurements
    • Yes
  • Rep. Capriglione asks what the biggest problem has been in getting the project done
    • Requirements for the project were incomplete
    • “Playbook” has been a problem, but Accenture acknowledges they knew about the “playbook”
  • Chair Otto asks if “playbook” was a requirement of the federal government
    • Accenture says yes
  • Rep. Bell asks after ongoing payments for the project
    • OAG responds that there is a monthly admin fee and the state pays for deliverables
    • Moving forward the contract would have very specific milestones and incentives to meet the date
    • Texas is responsible for infrastructure, Accenture has shouldered some of the responsibility
    • OAG plans to out the remaining portion of the infrastructure out for bid, timeline would need to be reworked if the winning bid is not Accenture
  • Rep. Bell asks what infrastructure means in this conversation
    • This refers to the operating system for the program not related to the collection and organization of data
  • Rep. Bell asks if skillsets and manpower were unavailable in Texas
    • Overseas development is where some skills exist within Accenture’s company
  • Ben Foster, Accenture, clarifies that roadmap was required by RFP, unsure if it was required by federal government
  • Rep. Burkett asks if the overseas developers were contracted or not
    • No, they are Accenture employees
  • Rep. Burkett asks how Accenture ensures Texas will get a quality system
    • Accenture does extensive tests and checks on quality for the program
  • Rep. Burkett comments that Accenture built the previous system, asks if there will be cross-training for state personnel to do maintenance
    • OAG says a big portion of the contract is training and knowledge transfer
    • OAG has had to contract for system maintenance programmers because the state could not pay a competitive wage to keep FTEs
    • OAG has published 15 jobs for infrastructure, 8 of these have been filled in 6 months and it is difficult to find these personnel
  • Rep. Howard asks after lost benefits to Texans over the delays on the project
    • OAG responds that delays are mostly in deliverables along the way, final implementation date has not slipped as much
    • Phase slippage has negatively impacted case initiation and location
    • Deloitte predicted $336 million in benefits to state government between 2020 to 2028, including improvements to staff and disbursements
  • Rep. Howard asks how many more children would benefit from this program
    • OAG can provide this, would definitely be an improvement
  • Rep. Howard asks after releasing federal funds
    • Looking to submit the corrective action plan by next Friday
  • Rep. Howard asks what the root cause of the delay is
    • Corrective action plan needs a detailed program schedule update
    • Some delays involve the complexities of the project that Accenture is trying to deal with
  • Rep. Howard asks after OAG’s notice to the legislature of potential problems
    • In 2013 and 2014 OAG started to notice the significant problems with the project and the DDI
  • Rep. Howard has concerns over lack of oversight on this project, but recognizes the OAG attempted to notify the legislature
    • OAG is currently involved in determining the development of the situation between Deloitte’s roadmap and Accenture’s beginning work
    • Problem may be partly due to federal requirement to have two vendors, also a misunderstanding of the costs in the Deloitte roadmap
  • Rep. Howard asks who the Deputy Attorney General for Child Support
    • Roy says that it is a federal requirement to have Deputy AGs respond to the first assistant
  • Rep. Longoria asks after the “playbook,” whether Accenture knew of the playbook, wonders why any issues were not addressed at the front end
    • Accenture knew about the “playbook,” initially thought they would be able to implement the roadmap
    • Accenture says that they were proven wrong eventually
    • Accenture is focused on using the good portions of the “playbook”
  • Rep. Longoria asks if Accenture could have done things initially to prevent the current situation
    • Foster responds that Accenture should have raised alerts earlier, also could have used more time and effort getting an understanding of the “playbook”
  • Rep. Longoria asks if the contract allowed Accenture to make changes to the “playbook”
    • Yes
  • Rep. Greg Bonnen comments that the requirements were stated to be incomplete by Accenture and 20,000 by the IVNV
    • Gratto believes the requirements were overbroad and some key requirements were missing
  • Rep. Bonnen asks how the OAG and Accenture would do this differently in the future
    • Gratto responds that Accenture would work with the OAG to discuss the requirements needed to run the program and determine the right plan for the product
    • Roy hesitates to lay out solutions to the problem, but notes federal requirements are difficult to deal with, involved parties overestimated abilities, DIR costs were larger than expected, and integrating Accenture’s efforts with IVNV feedback is challenging
  • Rep. Miles is concerned that Deloitte is not present and that fingers are being pointed at them, asks Foster if this is the first time Accenture has had the federal government and the state as clients involving a third party, such as Deloitte
    • Foster responds that no, it is not the first time
  • Rep. Miles asks if there were similar problems in these previous deals
    • Generally yes, it is always a challenge, but has never seen anything this severe
  • Rep. Miles asks if Texas has gotten its dollar’s worth yet
    • Foster responds that no, Texas has not received value from Accenture
  • Rep. Miles asks if Texas will be billed for the time that Accenture needs to fix the issue
    • No, fixed fee contract stands
    • Accenture has not approached Texas for additional dollars for the efforts Accenture has made to fix the issue
    • Increased costs not associated with Accenture’s missteps will not be absorbed by Accenture
  • Rep. Miles would like a dollar amount for fixing the problem
    • Accenture can get these estimates to the legislature
  • Rep. Miles asks if Accenture reached out to overseas development based upon skills and talent rather than cost
    • Accenture had a project behind schedule, and when that happens Accenture moves to 7 day a week and 24 hour development
    • There is a price difference, but overseas is where Accenture’s talent exists
  • Rep. Phelan asks after the virtual case file and if it is satisfactory or if any tweaks were necessary
    • Friesen responds virtual case file has been in effect since 2013
    • Tweaks have involved access to information
  • Rep. Phelan asks what the cost for fixing any deliverables would be
    • State has a one year warranty period, but state will not accept deliverables unless they meet performance specifications
  • Rep. Phelan asks if federal freeze has affected child support payments
    • No
  • Rep. Phelan asks for expansion on IVNV reports
    • Some issues such as complexity of the system are unavoidable, some finding include morale issues which are expected
  • Rep. Phelan asks when OAG expects federal dollars
    • Unsure, working on getting corrective action plan submitted
  • Rep. Munoz wants to know who initially negotiated the contract for the state
    • OAG will provide this information to the legislature
    • Personnel have changed a lot since the start of the project
  • Rep. Bell asks what changes would be needed to more effectively implement contracts in the future
    • Accenture would like a process to submit vendor comment and integrate vendor plans to complete the project
  • Rep. Bell comments that in construction there are strict requirements and punitive measure and that vendors will not be able to “drive the ship,” but it would be good to be able to incorporate vendor comment
    • OAG has worked with Accenture to modify the implementation plan
  • Rep. Darby asks if OAG has the expertise and contracting knowledge needed to handle the T2 system, if they collaborate with DIR
    • OAG does have regular contact with DIR and frequently has question fielded by DIR
    • OAG would like to hold conversation of best practices until the problem is fully understood
  • Rep. Darby wonders if it might be better to have one organization to handle most of these issues and if there are ways to combat regime change in involved agencies, how does the state “maintain continuity”
    • Roy would like to reserve judgment on solutions until problem is further explored, but each contracting issue needs specific knowledge of the subject at hand
    • DIR does not provide continuity services
  • Chair Otto is glad to hear there are performance milestones being implemented, asks after the remedies and dispute resolution clause in the original RFP and why it was removed from the final RFP
    • OAG will get that answer to the legislature
  • Chair Otto requests a copy of the corrective action plan when it is finalized
  • Chair Otto asks after phase 3, wonders if it is a $3.5 million new contract
    • It is new, works toward curing requirements in the “playbook,” was not part of phase 2
  • Schedules for interim charges are being worked on, no hearing dates have been finalized, likely will not start until late March or early April