iLab tells House subcommittee APD needs new client-data system; recommends procurement-ready requirements, three vendor options, $33.5M planning estimate

The IT Budget and Policy Subcommittee heard on-the-record recommendations for replacing the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (APD) client-data management system on January 1, 2026. iLab, the independent consultant contracted by the committee, presented a December assessment that, it said, translated client and provider needs into a curated set of 306 business requirements and a market study that narrowed a field of more than 80 vendors to three finalists.

The consultants told lawmakers those requirements are designed to be verifiable and procurement-ready so APD can ask vendors to demonstrate they meet specific business needs rather than compete on feature lists alone. “In the absence of requirements, success cannot be measured,” iLab’s presenter said, underscoring the project’s emphasis on testable deliverables.

Why it matters: APD’s current platform, commonly referred to in committee discussion as iConnect, has long-standing performance and interoperability problems that affect clients, providers and agency staff. The committee heard that continuing to extend the current system would perpetuate inefficiencies and could impose avoidable long-term costs for providers who now consume extra labor to work around system limits.

Key details from the presentation and committee exchanges:

- Requirements and vendors: iLab reported producing 306 detailed business requirements after 17 stakeholder workshops and statewide provider outreach. The market review reduced an initial universe of more than 80 vendors to a shortlist of three that the team judged most aligned to APD’s technical and regulatory needs (modular architecture, interoperability, HCBS/waiver support). The team recommended moving to procurement with requirements that will allow measured evaluation of vendor proposals.

- EVV consolidation question: The assessment evaluated the feasibility of aligning APD’s electronic visit verification (EVV) with the state’s EVV aggregator (named in the presentation as ACA/HHA Exchange/Akka). iLab said consolidation could simplify provider experience and produce operating-cost savings but noted integration complexity, contract expirations, and strategic trade-offs that require agency-level decisions.

- Cost assumptions: iLab’s cost model used assumptions including roughly 36,000 iBudget clients, about 500 APD and partner staff, and approximately 58,000 service providers. The model estimated ongoing annual operations and maintenance at about $4,100,000 and included a 10% contingency. The presentation included a planning-level implementation estimate frequently discussed in Q&A (~$33,500,000); iLab characterized the figure as intentionally flexible and subject to refinement during vendor selection and contract negotiation.

- Funding sources: APD’s Sean Buchanan, identified as director of quality and accountability for APD’s CDMS program, said the current system funding relies primarily on federal matching funds; he reported the agency currently receives what was described in committee as a 90/10 federal match and said staff would follow up to confirm how that split would apply to implementation and O&M.

- iConnect contract runway: Buchanan told the committee APD has roughly $2,500,000 remaining under its current contract with WellSky (iConnect), plus an available renewal option; that balance gives the agency some runway during procurement and transition planning.

- Procurement approach: Committee members pressed whether the assessment’s recommendations were procurement-ready. iLab said the deliverable produced high-level procurement-ready requirements and that the next phase is detailed design and preparing verifiable specifications for solicitation. The presenters also discussed options that include subscription (SaaS) models and custom builds; iLab warned that fully custom builds would require APD to significantly increase in-house IT staffing to maintain and operate a custom solution.

- Usability and change management: Lawmakers repeatedly raised accessibility for clients with limited internet access, provider mobility and offline needs, and the central importance of change management. iLab and APD said usability and stakeholder involvement were central to requirements collection; program assurance in the planning estimate includes QA, project management and some change-management activities, while extensive training and full change-management execution will be part of implementation phases.

Committee follow-up: Members requested additional budget and federal-match detail; APD committed to provide the fiscal split and to return updates on both vendor selection and the retirement plan for iConnect. Representative Blanco asked that WellSky provide an update to the committee on enhancements it is delivering under the existing contract.

The committee will use the assessment and APD’s amended Legislative Budget Request to shape the House budget recommendation and any provisos tied to a replacement system.