Lawmakers hear national expert on reducing risk in major state IT projects

Waldo Jackwith, government delivery manager at US Digital Response, told the Vermont House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee on April 17 that states can sharply reduce the risk of large custom software failures by changing procurement and oversight practices.

Jackwith opened his presentation with a detailed account of Rhode Island’s unified benefits system — originally contracted to Deloitte as UHIP and later renamed Rhode Island Bridges — and described how the project’s rollout, cost growth and later cyberattack illustrated systemic problems in how government buys and oversees major IT work. "This was a big initiative for Rhode Island... It was a unmitigated debacle," Jackwith said, summarizing the deployment and its impacts on residents who rely on benefits.

Why it matters: Jackwith told legislators that failing IT projects do more than waste money — they can prevent agencies from carrying out the policies the legislature has approved. "If the technology fails, the legislation fails, the policy fails, the agency fails," he said. He urged lawmakers to treat technology as a controlled, ongoing operating cost rather than a one-time capital expense.

Jackwith summarized research and statistics to quantify the risk. He said government software projects over $6 million succeed only about 11% of the time under conventional contract measures, that Department of Defense data show many projects meet contract requirements but still fail to meet end-user needs, and that a broad study found average cost growth of about 310% versus original estimates for large government software projects. He described research showing large shares of written code are never deployed or used.

The presentation focused on five reforms Jackwith said reduce risk: adopt agile software development that delivers working pieces every two weeks; designate a single empowered product owner inside the agency; require user-centered (human-centered) design and user research throughout the project; build systems from loosely coupled, interoperable components (APIs) so parts can be replaced; and pursue modular contracting with short periods of performance.

Jackwith recommended specific legislative and executive actions: require live demonstrations of functioning software every two weeks for major projects, limit single-contract custom software awards to no more than $10 million over the contract lifetime and limit performance periods to three years before recompete, and shift budgeting for custom software toward operating expense models rather than capital appropriations. "I would simply not allow for contracts more than $10,000,000 for custom software projects," he said. "I wouldn't allow contracts with longer performance period... longer than 3 years."

Members asked practical questions about legacy systems, reuse and in-house work. Jackwith said modular, incremental work is particularly appropriate for mainframe modernization and that agencies should start with a "tracer bullet" module that touches the full system path so teams can learn how to break up the remaining work. On whether a state should consider reusing another state's system, he said reuse is worth exploring but cautioned many projects are highly bespoke: "I feel very strongly that's a great idea," he told Representative Brent Bailey, adding that reuse must be validated by technical review.

Jackwith also recommended strengthening in-state digital capacity rather than outsourcing oversight entirely: hire enough technologists to review vendor work, perform user research and validate proposals — "not just coders," he said — or delegate oversight authority to a small digital service team (he cited Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Jersey as examples). He proposed legislative staff attend high-risk project demonstrations or authorize ADS (Agency of Digital Services) to perform that oversight.

The committee discussed next steps, including seeking feedback from Secretary Riley Hughes and ADS and considering lessons from states with established digital service teams. Jackwith offered to share his slide deck and connect committee staff with peers in other states and at Georgetown’s Beck Center.

No formal votes or motions were taken during the hearing; the session consisted of testimony and questions.

Ending: The committee said it will follow up with ADS and invited additional witness panels and state examples before considering legislation or formal policy changes.