Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Information Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves Department of Safety amendment adding texting and interfaces after questioning over roughly $8 million increase
Summary
The Fiscal Review Committee approved an amendment to the Department of Safety’s A-List automated license issuance contract, adding SMS-based two‑factor authentication and several interfaces. Members pressed staff for a detailed breakdown of the roughly $8 million increase and sole‑source change-order history before approving the amendment.
The Fiscal Review Committee approved an amendment to the Tennessee Department of Safety’s automated license issuance contract (the A‑List system) on June 4 after extended questioning from committee members about the scope and cost of the change.
Why it matters: the A‑List system is the agency’s record system for driver records, licenses and photo IDs; the amendment adds SMS texting for two‑factor authentication and several technical interfaces the department described as necessary to improve security and interoperability.
What the department said: Ben Vojtus, legislative liaison for the Department of Safety, introduced the amendment and Sonya Hadley, the department’s budget director, provided a line‑by‑line explanation. Hadley told the committee that the amendment adds about $8 million to the existing contract and changes the end date to Sept. 11, 2026, bringing the contract’s new maximum liability to about $20,392,500. She said the largest single addition — roughly $3.8 million — was for an interface with AMBA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators). Other items included a MDL project update (~$150,000), a possible “fast queue” fix (~$700,000), AMBA digital-image-access costs (~$38,000), an FMCSA NRI item (~$120,000) and monthly maintenance increases.
Committee concerns: Representative Bricken and other members pressed the department on the size of the increase, sole‑source procurement practices and the number of change orders during the contract’s life. Members said they were troubled by repeated post‑award change orders and asked why substantial maintenance costs and new functionality were not accounted for in earlier procurements. Agency staff said some interfaces and system changes were discovered after award and that maintenance is added at renewal.
Outcome: After discussion, a motion to approve the amendment passed by voice vote.
What remains unclear: Committee members asked for more specific documentation about change‑order counts and the maintenance cost increases; the department acknowledged it would provide follow‑up detail. Several members said they expect competitive rebidding at the next appropriate procurement cycle.
Speakers and attributions in this item are from the committee transcript; dollar figures and project names were those stated by department staff during the hearing.
