Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Tracking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI says vendor can meet most needs but 70 of 2,077 requirements remain out of scope
Summary
DBI project manager Sean Buhlen told the Building Inspection Commission that a fit‑gap analysis of the department's new permit/project‑tracking system found 2,077 requirements and about 70 that Exela cannot meet; staff expect a negotiated statement of work and cost estimate by next month if negotiations remain on schedule.
Sean Buhlen, the project manager for DBI's permit and project‑tracking initiative, told the Building Inspection Commission on Jan. 18 that a recent fit‑gap review identified 2,077 business requirements and about 70 of those are currently out of scope for the vendor Exela.
"We took all 2,077 requirements and had Exela tell us exactly which ones can be met and which ones cannot be met," Buhlen said, describing the work that department staff are doing to document gaps and options. He said the department has accepted a governance model and is negotiating the draft statement of work and associated costs with the vendor.
The commission pressed for a timeline. Buhlen said a recommended path — including schedule and dollar figures — should be available by the next meeting "assuming the statement of work negotiations don't become protracted." He added the department is trying to keep dollar figures low to reduce approval hurdles.
Public commenter Gerry Dreggler asked whether any of the roughly 70 out‑of‑scope requirements are critical to DBI operations and whether DBI should deploy an 80% solution sooner while delivering harder components in later phases. Buhlen said initial review suggests none appear critical, but staff will confirm with business owners and weigh whether a phased go‑live is feasible without compromising essential functions such as complaint processing or permit types that must remain active at cutover.
What happens next: DBI staff are finalizing negotiations on the statement of work and expect to present a recommended path and more precise cost and schedule estimates at the next meeting if the talks remain on track.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to return with a more detailed timeline and cost estimate. No formal action was taken at the Jan. 18 meeting on the contract or statement of work.
