House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2438 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs
Short Title
Prohibiting state agencies from using the same vendor to plan and build certain IT projects, exceptions.
Minutes Content for Wed, Jan 17, 2018
Chairperson Barker opened the hearing on HB2438. Jason Long, Revisor, provided an overview of the bill (Attachment 3). He stated that under current law when a state agency proposes to carry out an information technology project, it must submit a project budget estimate to the Chief Information Technology Officer (CITO) for that agency's branch of government. That estimate includes a project plan that provides a detailed description and justification for the project, a description of the tasks and a schedule for the project, a financial plan, and a cost-benefit statement. Approval must be made by the head of the agency and the Chief Information Technology Officer of that branch of government. HB2438 adds an additional condition of prohibiting the state agency from contracting with a vendor for implementing a project if that vendor had any involvement in the preparation of the IT project plan documents that went to the Chief Information Technology Officer for approval. In other words, if a vendor designed an IT project and it was approved, that vendor would be disqualified from contracting with the state agency to implement that project. The prohibition only applies to IT projects with an estimated cumulative cost of $5 million or more. The prohibition can be waived if the agency gets written approval by the Chief Information Technology Officer prior to entering into the contract.
Chairperson Barker gave the history for this bill. A few years ago there was a problem when the Drivers License Bureau purchased a several hundred million dollar IT contract that the counties were not able to access. The project had been designed so that only the company who designed it could implement it. As a result, other companies could not bid on it. This bill would put a separation between the design phase and the implementation phase and keep designers from developing projects that only they can implement.
Chairperson Barker recognized Scott Frank who provided neutral testimony on HB2438 (Attachment 4). He stated that what he provided in lieu of formal testimony is the IT Project Monitoring Report of the OSCAR IT Project at the Department of Labor. Legislative Post Audit is neutral on the bill, but feels that agencies should develop their own needs assessment and then have someone else build it. The OSCAR project was a two-phase project. DigiComp was the beginning phase, the planning process. A plan was designed with what they wanted. The second part of the project was finding someone to build the project for them at a fixed price, which eliminates the problem of going over budget. The person who approves the project is the Chief Information Technology Officer. Each branch of the government has a Chief Information Technology Officer. That person is responsible for approving and overseeing all IT projects within that branch. Questions were asked by Representatives Houser, Awerkamp and Highland.
Chairperson Barker asked if there were other conferees. Seeing none, the hearing on HB2438 was closed.
Chairperson Barker asked if there were any other requests for bill introductions. There were none.
Chairperson Barker asked the Committee to let him or Vice-Chairperson Highland whether they want to work either HB2441 or HB2438. He would also appreciate knowing if they plan to offer any amendments.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
