Committee reviews bill to require ADS to publish original budgets and timelines for large IT projects

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 13 discussed a draft committee bill that would change reporting requirements for ADS and require a publicly accessible project dashboard for large information-technology projects.

The draft would amend 33 0 3 to require the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) to report the original and current estimated date of completion and the original and current estimated budget for any IT project with a total cost of $500,000 or greater. The language also would require ADS to report whether such projects have met their "business goals" and to disclose any use of the chief information officer's waiver authority for independent reviews of projects that otherwise would require them.

The change follows recommendations from the deputy auditor after an audit of ADS. Committee members and staff described the proposal as an effort to increase transparency and make it possible to see how project scope, schedule and budgets have changed since a project's start.

Committee staff walked members through the ADS statutory chapter and the proposed edits. The draft would alter subsection 4 of 33 0 3 (reporting and records) so that ADS must retain and publish both original and current estimates for completion date and budget for projects meeting the $500,000 threshold. The bill text also would require the agency to maintain a public project dashboard that lists the status of all projects at that threshold and includes those original and current numbers.

Members raised a set of definitional and implementation questions. Several said the phrase "business goals" is not defined in statute and recommended the committee consider whether to define that term in the bill or ask ADS for its definition before finalizing language. Members also asked for clarity on what counts toward a project's "total cost" and whether staffing costs borne by client agencies should be included; the draft adds the phrase "client entity staffing cost" to the list of items ADS must retain but does not define the term.

The draft relies on an existing independent review requirement for projects with a total cost of $1,000,000 or greater; the bill would not eliminate the CIO's authority to waive that review but would require disclosure to make use of that waiver transparent. Committee members discussed whether waiver notices and the grounds for a waiver should be published along with the dashboard entries.

Staff and members noted ADS already publishes a project dashboard that shows estimated completion dates and current estimated cost. The bill would require ADS to also keep the original cost and original estimated completion date in the dashboard so the public and legislators can see project evolution. Committee members suggested additional features that would help interpret dashboard status — for example, a revision history showing each material change to budget or schedule and a comments or reason field explaining legislative or scope-driven changes versus in-house underestimates.

Committee staff reported that the technology internal service fund contains projects and that, historically, the legislature placed about $23,000,000 into that fund for specific projects; staff said only a handful of projects currently exist in that fund. Members asked ADS representatives whether funds appropriated for a large project are always placed into the internal service fund or whether appropriations sometimes are made directly to ADS; staff said it depends on the appropriation language and that the committee should ask Secretary Riley Hughes for clarification.

Next steps: committee staff said Secretary Riley Hughes has been asked to appear at the committee's next meeting to provide feedback on the draft language and to answer the definitional and budgeting questions the committee raised. The committee discussed coordinating editorial changes with the Legislative Drafting Editor's Office and holding a markup session if members wish to move the draft toward a committee vote.

The committee did not take any formal votes on the draft during the Feb. 13 meeting.