Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Past Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SPO corrects cost estimate for contractor past-performance database; committee hears concerns about timing and scope
Summary
On Feb. 4 the State Procurement Office said updating the contractors past-performance database will cost up to $30,000 (not $7,500 as earlier reported). Committee members questioned who will input assessments, when updates would occur and whether a one-year post-completion review should be required.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations heard testimony Feb. 4 on Senate Bill 1175, which would add state contractor performance assessments to information required in the State Procurement Office's past-performance database.
Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator of the State Procurement Office, told the committee the office stands on its written testimony in support but that a previously reported development cost of $7,500 was incorrect. "In actuality, that cost is $30,000," Kahakui said, correcting the figure for the committee.
Committee members pressed the office on who would enter performance data and on the timing and utility of the assessments. Kahakui said agencies would be responsible for completing assessments at the end of their contracts and that the system allows the contractor to respond to the assessment. She said the database currently captures limited signals (on time/on budget) and the proposed additions aim to provide more useful performance data for future procurements.
Several committee members asked whether the database could support a follow-up evaluation about one year after contract completion to surface defects or operational problems that appear only after occupancy or long-term use. Kahakui said the system, under current statute and practice, records assessments at contract completion; she acknowledged challenges with capturing later-emerging quality issues but said the proposal is a "start" that would provide agencies with useful historic information. She also said the $30,000 figure is a one-time development estimate and that ongoing maintenance funding is a separate, existing budget line.
Committee members discussed applicability to software and modernization contracts; Kahakui confirmed the past-performance database is required for IFBs, RFPs and similar solicitations, which can include software procurements and modernization projects.
No final committee decision on SB1175 was recorded during the Feb. 4 hearing; the committee took testimony and asked staff to consider suggested amendments, including proposals for a one-year post-completion review for certain procurements.
Ending: The committee will return to decision-making on measures heard Feb. 4 at 3 p.m. on Feb. 6, 2025.
