Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It Governance Avaya topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances IT governance changes and approves Avaya contract payment after procurement gap
Summary
The committee accepted budget‑analyst reductions and moved two Department of Technology items forward: a retroactive Avaya contract amendment to cover the vendor gap (reduced to the analyst’s recommended amount) and COIT governance amendments that add CIO responsibilities, require a multiyear IT capital plan, and allow two non‑voting external COIT members for industry/labor expertise.
The Department of Technology asked the Budget & Finance Committee to (1) retroactively authorize payment under the Avaya telecommunications maintenance contract to cover the period after the old contract expired and before a new, lower‑cost contract went into effect and (2) adopt an ordinance revising COIT (the city’s IT policy body) to codify CIO duties, require a 5‑year IT capital plan, and improve interdepartmental reporting.
DT staff and the budget analyst explained the Avaya gap arose after contract staff attrition and the timing of a newly hired enterprise contracts manager; the department said it could negotiate a new contract that will save the city roughly $700,000 annually in maintenance fees. Committee members pressed DT on why the city had a contract gap, the size of the requested contingency, and for written assurances that Avaya would not block transition to the new vendor; DT supplied a written assurance and accepted the budget analyst’s recommendation to reduce the requested payment to the actual invoice/projected amount (removing a larger contingency). The committee approved moving the item forward with recommendation, with a roll call (4–1 with Supervisor Campos dissenting due to concerns about legal options and vendor leverage).
On COIT, President Hsu (Chiu) circulated an amendment package to require departmental IT budget transparency, impose performance and financial reporting obligations on DT and other departments, and to create mechanisms for enterprise contract coordination with the Office of Contract Administration. After discussion about outside participation, the committee agreed to remove a proposal to create a separate advisory committee and instead authorized two non‑voting external seats chosen by COIT’s permanent members (one seat to be filled by a non‑city industry expert and the other by a similarly qualified individual). The committee moved the COIT amendments forward with recommendation.
Ending: The committee asked DT to supply the Avaya procurement memo and the written vendor assurances to the record and to continue work with the City Attorney on any outstanding legal procurement questions before the full Board acts.
