DBI pauses Accela roll‑out, orders third‑party assessment after years of defects and rising costs

The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on Nov. 18 pressed staff and city technology managers for concrete answers about a temporary pause and “reset” of the Accela permit‑tracking system, a project that officials said has accumulated defects and cost increases over four years.

Department of Technology project manager Henry Bartley told the commission he and DBI staff had extended an RFP deadline to secure a third‑party assessment and that the pause was intended to prevent further spending while gaps in business requirements are filled. “My name is Henry Bartley. I’m with the Department of Technology, project manager for the Accel implementation at DBI,” he said during the presentation.

Commissioners repeatedly asked for more information about the RFP scope, the vendor’s role during the reset and an explicit timeline. Commissioner Walker pressed that the Commission needs a limit on the review: “This whole thing isn't acceptable... we have a vendor that's that's committed to us, and we are hanging this project up I think because of our own lack of process,” she said, noting the project has reached roughly $8,000,000 in spending over five years.

DBI and DT told the panel they have identified multiple categories of issues: unstable or incomplete requirements, true software bugs, and configuration that does not align with DBI business processes. DT said it had found 141 critical and high defects and 70 critical data‑migration items still open, and that testing continues internally in the vendor’s absence. Sean Buellen, a DT project manager, said Amendment 7 had been proposed as an additional funding tranche but was later judged insufficient; he described Amendment 7 as “$1,875,000, close to $1,900,000,” and said the dollar amount alone did not resolve underlying requirements gaps.

Vendor representatives urged collaboration to finalize requirements rather than restarting the work from scratch. Leanne Slinkard, senior vice president of services for Exela (the implementation partner identified in the record), said the vendor remained committed: “We do this every day... we remain committed so that’s the main point — we’re not letting go; we want to really see this through to the end.”

Public commenters and a former city grand‑jury representative urged written deliverables and a clear plan: city resident Jerry Dretler said DBI “has spent about $8,000,000 in 5 years implementing the system” and asked whether the pause signaled termination or a temporary, strategic reset.

The Commission discussed who should manage the independent assessment; some members suggested involving the Controller’s office to avoid any appearance of conflict, while others said a project‑management expert — not a DBI subject‑matter specialist — should perform the assessment. DT said the RFP would require a roadmap that identifies gaps and a plan to fill them.

The Commission asked staff to provide the RFP and to return with a firmer timeline and cost accounting at the next meeting. No formal vote was taken on cancelling or terminating the contract; the action recorded in the meeting was the Commission’s instruction to follow up with more detailed reporting and to schedule the Accela/Acela discussion on the next agenda.