Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Acela Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI pauses Acela permitting rollout, seeks third‑party assessment amid defect dispute
Summary
DBI staff told the Building Inspection Commission it has paused vendor activities on the Acela permit-and-project-tracking system and asked for an independent assessment after end-to-end testing uncovered about 204 severity‑1/2 defects; vendors disputed that most items are defects rather than new requirements.
The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection said it has paused vendor work on the Acela permit-and-project-tracking system and will hire an independent assessor to define what is required to finish the project.
At an informational session Wednesday, Henry Bartley, the project manager, said the project team and city leadership agreed to pause vendor activities because, after end-to-end testing, “we don't have budget to deliver the project as currently scoped.” Bartley and colleague Sean Buellen told commissioners the project encountered a substantial spike in high‑severity defects — about 204 items — that staff consider critical for a safe go‑live.
Vendors pushed back. Linda Short, vice president of professional services at 21 Tech, and Maury Blackman, chief executive officer of Exela, said users are identifying new requirements as they spend more time with the system. Blackman told the commission he was “100% behind getting this thing live” and urged a collaborative approach to sorting which items are bugs and which are scope additions.
DBI staff described examples they say are unacceptable for go‑live: incorrect fee calculations, missing enforcement of contractor license classifications, multi‑slot inspection and long‑duration inspection handling, and a public‑access bug that allowed a contractor to view documents not assigned to them. Vendors said some items are configuration choices, not code defects, and recommended tighter user‑acceptance testing tied directly to written requirements.
Commissioners debated whether a formal pause would risk losing vendor resources. Several members — while acknowledging the need for an independent assessment — urged that vendors remain engaged during any pause and that the commission be given oversight of the review’s scope and timeline. Jerry Drattler, a former civil grand juror who testified during public comment, recommended a reset to produce a complete business requirements document before moving forward.
DBI did not set a firm duration for the pause at the meeting. Staff said the immediate next steps are to identify an independent consultant (the Department of Technology is assisting) to assess the scope, cost, and schedule necessary to reach a stable go‑live plan, and to report back to the commission on proposed oversight mechanisms.
