Committee favors moving internet-access procurement to administrative procedures

The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee considered Bill 17-25, which would exempt the County’s acquisition of internet access service from standard procurement requirements and allow procedures approved by the Chief Administrative Officer to govern purchases.

Committee staff member Mr. Gorzalek told the committee that the bill was introduced on 06/17/2025 at the county executive’s request and that a public hearing occurred on 07/08/2025. He said Office of Management and Budget staff expect the bill to reduce expenditures and the Office of Legislative Oversight found minimal impacts on racial equity, social justice, climate and economic measures. “Bill 17 25 was introduced on 06/17/2025,” Gorzalek said.

Mr. Webster, representing the County’s Department of Technology and Enterprise Business Solutions (TEBS), explained why the exemption is being proposed: large internet service providers routinely decline to accept the County’s standard contract terms and instead require vendors’ own standard agreements, which prevents the County from entering contracts through the ordinary competitive procurement process. Webster said the County has been buying capacity at a major data center and then procuring internet access more informally; “we are buying Internet access service now at about 1 10th the price that we were previously on an apples to apples basis,” he said, and noted the County can purchase from dozens of providers at that location.

Committee members pressed staff on oversight and transparency. Several members urged that, if procurement rules are waived for internet access, the County should adopt written guardrails. Mr. Webster described a draft process in which a three-person working group — the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Broadband Officer and TEBS’s senior network engineering and operations manager — would jointly review pricing proposals and select vendors based on quality, reliability and price. Committee staff explained that administrative procedures are governed by Section 2A-16 and are typically transmitted to the council and made available to county employees; staff also noted there is not a separate statutory requirement to make such procedures publicly available beyond existing public-record processes.

The committee agreed it preferred translating the executive’s proposed approach into administrative procedures rather than changing the county code and asked staff to check with the Office of the County Attorney before the bill goes to full council. Members also discussed whether to make the bill expedited because one contractor already exceeded a $100,000 waiver threshold and a second contractor is expected to reach that threshold in fall 2025; staff noted a Chief Administrative Officer waiver expires on 05/04/2026.

The committee did not take a final full-council vote at the meeting; members recommended that staff amend the bill to use administrative procedures and to confirm legal and transparency implications with the county attorney before referral to full council.