Redding council approves two‑year extension for Oracle/Graviton support after heated debate; some members call for RFP
Loading...
Summary
After lengthy debate about reporting gaps since the Oracle go‑live, the council voted 4–1 to authorize a professional‑services extension with Graviton to continue Oracle ERP/HCM support; several members said they preferred a short extension and a request for proposals to seek other vendors.
The Redding City Council voted 4–1 on Oct. 23 to authorize a professional‑services extension for Graviton to provide continued implementation and support for the city's Oracle ERP and HCM systems, after an extended discussion about delayed reports and the project's complexity.
Robinette, the city's Financial Services Director, described the implementation as a large, multi‑year effort and urged caution about switching integrators. "To go with a new one at this point would seriously create more cost because they're gonna come in. They're not gonna know exactly the way the system was designed by Graviton," he said, noting the city's July 2023 ERP go‑live and the October 2024 HCM payroll go‑live.
Several council members faulted the rollout for failing to produce specific budget‑to‑actual and cash‑flow reports in the form the council had expected. Council Member Audette said she wanted the city to send the work out to a request for proposals so another consultant could be considered to finish the reporting work. "I would make the motion that we go out to RFP with our budget and see if we get anybody as interested in fixing this since we know Graviton has failed," she said.
Robinette and other staff said replacing the integrator would require time and additional staff bandwidth to bring a new firm up to speed and offered that the current vendor retained institutional knowledge needed to address complex configuration and bargaining‑unit payroll calculations. Other council members said a shorter extension plus an RFP might be a compromise.
The council ultimately approved the extension for professional services and related contract items by a 4–1 vote. The meeting record shows the council discussed but did not adopt a separate motion to immediately go to RFP. Some council members asked staff to return with options for a short extension and an RFP so the council could reconsider procurement strategy within a shorter time frame.
The contract extension discussed at the meeting was described verbally by staff as a two‑year authorization; staff said the work would include continuing fixes, report development and HCM support.
