Assemblymember Rudy Salas, who wrote AB 971, pointedly cited some high-profile state IT projects as reasons for the new layer of scrutiny. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law last week after it won unanimous legislative approval.
“There is a long history of failed technology projects in California that have come in late and over budget,” Salas’ office said in a news release. “An example of one of these troubled projects is the Financial Information System for California, or FI$Cal, a statewide accounting, budget, and cash management and procurement IT system. In June, the Legislature’s budget analyst stated that the costs for the project increased to nearly a billion dollars – more than six times its original estimate when it began in 2005.”
A FI$Cal spokesperson on Monday declined to comment to Techwire on the measure.
Salas’ office told Techwire that Salas “was looking at the scope of IT projects in California — essentially how a lot of them are coming in late and over budget. He wanted to improve accountability.”
“For too long, taxpayers have seen their money wasted with boondoggled IT projects that have been delayed by years or have gone millions of dollars over budget,” Salas said in a news release. “With the passage of AB 971, we can effectively address these issues and hold contractors accountable to improve government services for all Californians.”
AB 971 is similar to what is already in place. Public Contract Code Section 10369 requires each department to conduct a post-evaluation of a contractor that provides consulting services totaling $5,000 or more to the state. AB 971 would require departments receiving IT services to conduct post-evaluations of each contract for the acquisition of IT services totaling $500,000 or more associated with an IT project.
Under the law, the California Department of Technology (CDT) and the Department of General Services (DGS) will work together to devise a form or forms for the evaluations, which will be done by the individual contracting departments using “objective post-evaluation factors or metrics, as specified,” the legislation says. “The bill would require a public official who signs a post-evaluation to confirm its accuracy. The bill would require an awarding department and [CDT] to keep post-evaluations on file, as specified, and would authorize a contractor to comment on a negative post-evaluation. The bill would provide that the post-evaluations and contractor responses are not public records.”
The evaluations will note:
— Whether the contracted work was completed within the time specified in the contract.
— Whether the contracted work was completed within the budget specified in the contract.
— Factors outside the control of the contractor that caused difficulties in contractor performance.
Other information that the department, CDT or DGS may require.
Despite the new oversight responsibilities, neither CDT nor DGS will need to add any staff, the agencies confirmed.
Salas' office said he worked with IT industry stakeholders and others in crafting the legislation. The measure provides an avenue for contractors to comment on an unfavorable finding. The results of an evaluation will remain on file with the state for three years.
Both CDT and DGS said they are not aware of any contractors’ having expressed concern about the new evaluation system.
