Bryce Eggleston defends Agile Analytics contract amid scrutiny over qualifications and scope

The Montana Legislature convened on March 15, 2025, to discuss Senate Ethics, focusing primarily on the contract awarded to Agile Analytics and the qualifications of its employee, Bryce Eggleston. The meeting addressed concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and the scope of work outlined in the contract.

The session began with inquiries into Eggleston's employment relationship with former Senate President Senator Ellsworth. Eggleston clarified that he is employed by a business owned by Ellsworth, not by Ellsworth personally, and denied any promises of benefits or advantages to Ellsworth in relation to the Agile Analytics contract.

Eggleston faced scrutiny over his qualifications to fulfill the contract, which involves a comprehensive post-implementation analysis of legislative bills. He defended his capabilities by citing extensive business and leadership experience, including project management and legal oversight. He emphasized that the contract's deliverables would require significant effort, including hiring additional resources or subcontracting work when necessary.

The discussion highlighted the complexity of the contract, which includes evaluating legislative history, analyzing the impact of bills, and compiling reports with recommendations for legislative adjustments. Eggleston acknowledged that he would need to hire legal expertise to navigate the complexities of unintended consequences in legislation, estimating costs for legal services could reach upwards of $50,000.

Concerns were raised about the feasibility of completing the work without compensation, as some suggested that similar analyses could be conducted for free. Eggleston firmly rejected this notion, stating that the work required extensive resources and could not be done without financial backing.

Senator McGilvray questioned how the failure of several bills during the session would affect the contract's scope and compensation. Eggleston explained that the contract was structured on a per-bill basis, allowing for adjustments in invoicing based on the number of bills that passed. He reiterated that if the scope of work changed significantly, it would necessitate a mutual agreement to amend the contract.

The meeting concluded with Eggleston detailing his professional liability insurance, which he purchased specifically for the contract, ensuring that the state's interests were protected in case of errors or omissions in the deliverables. He confirmed that the insurance remains in effect despite the contract's termination.

Overall, the meeting underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in government contracts, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest and the qualifications of those tasked with significant legislative analyses. The discussions will likely lead to further scrutiny of the contracting process and the qualifications required for such roles in the future.