Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House panel probes Vermont web portal contract, fee disclosures and RFP timeline
Loading...
Summary
Members of the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee questioned Agency of Digital Services officials on April 30 about the Vermont web portal contract with Tyler Technologies, revenue flowing through vermont.gov, confidentiality of fee reports and the status of an open RFP to renew hosting and payment services.
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on April 30 pressed Agency of Digital Services officials for details about the state's web portal contract, the fees that pass through vermont.gov and the status of a currently open request for proposals (RFP).
The committee heard from Jim Lipinski, director of shared services for the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) and chair of the Vermont Web Portal Board, who described the web portal as essentially vermont.gov and "95% of what is under vermont.gov," with a few exceptions such as the Secretary of State's site and the marketing site vermontvacations.com. Lipinski said Tyler Technologies currently hosts the portal and is paid from transaction fees collected through the portal.
Why it matters: The portal handles a large volume of fee-based transactions that pay for state services and, in fiscal 2024, produced roughly $114.5 million in gross transaction volume. Lipinski told the committee that Tyler received about $3.6 million in FY24, approximately 3.1 percent of that total, and that the state is looking to renew the contract through an open RFP. Lawmakers said the percentage and the confidentiality of detailed fee breakouts raised oversight concerns.
Committee members asked whether the state could review a detailed fee report from the vendor. Lipinski and ADS staff said a report that breaks out transactional detail is currently marked confidential under the vendor NDA and the master contract with Tyler and that general counsel is reviewing what can be released. ADS said it wants to make as much information available as possible while complying with PCI (Payment Card Industry) requirements and the contract terms.
Lipinski described the payment flow: the vendor processes payments, forwards agency shares to the respective agencies and bills for vendor fees. ADS staff told the committee they do not receive transaction-level payments in ADS business offices; agency business offices handle receipts and reconciliations. ADS said most agency invoices are monthly, and that automation via Workday should improve visibility.
On procurement: ADS confirmed the RFP is active, responses have been received and evaluation is underway. Lipinski said the state hopes to have a decision by summer. He said the original portal contract traces to an earlier vendor (Vic), later acquired by NIC and now owned by Tyler, and that the existing agreement dates back to the early 2000s and has been periodically extended.
Board duties and structure: Lipinski said the web portal board typically meets three to four times a year but has met more often while the procurement has been active. The board's statutory role includes oversight and setting guardrails; Lipinski compared the board's governance relationship to a school board's relationship with a superintendent. He said the board has included legislative members, and that seats for one house and one senate legislative member are statutorily required.
Open questions and next steps: Committee members asked whether the self-funded model that ties vendor pay to transaction fees constrains innovation and vendor choice and whether a statutory change or a different contracting model might expand competition or permit separate hosting and payment vendors. ADS said it is exploring options in the RFP, including accepting bids that separate hosting and payment services to increase competition, and that it is preparing recommendations for the board and legislature once procurement confidentiality allows.
The committee did not take a vote or issue any directive at the hearing itself. ADS staff said they will continue to work with general counsel about what contract and fee information can be released and will brief the committee further once procurement confidentiality rules permit.
Taper: Lawmakers asked for more specific detail on which fees are covered and how the money flows to agencies. ADS said it expects to provide additional information after the current phase of the RFP and after legal review of the confidentiality markings on vendor reports.
