Will the City of Austin Outsource Its Website Design to California?

False Outrage (5.00 / 1)

"Of the 228 notices sent out to prospective web development companies, the ABJ story said, three proposals were received back."
http://austinist.com/2009/03/2...

So...because 225 other companies didn't bother to offer a proposal, we're supposed to get up in arms because they chose a California Firm out of 3 options?

---

by: christoball @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 19:20:32 PM UTC

Statement of Value (0.00 / 0)

That point is completely irrelevant. That's like saying you ignore the needs of everyone in the state that doesn't vote, just because they don't vote.

If the City Council wants to put bottom-dollar above all else, they can. But that's their choice, and they can choose to put local-use priorities -- at a relatively small cost of other investments, awards, etc. --  first and foremost.

Same thing with union bugs -- why do you use union printers? Because it is important to support unions, and the support given fair outweighs the slightly extra cost of the purchase. The same principle of local-use is at stake here.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 19:28:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good (5.00 / 1)

Phillip,

You're completely off-base saying that it is irrelevant that the City only got three responses to its RFP.  There are many good questions as to why we received only three responses and why the top firm is from California.  I'd love to know why Austin web design firms weren't more interested in this project (though, maybe they stayed away because they have a good idea of the headaches involved).  Did the City staff's review process include extra points for Austin applicants (likely, but it'd be good to know for sure).

The City's web site badly needs updating.  I'm not sure why this project has languished so.  But still, now is probably not the time for this project.  Hopefully, the Council will consider retooling the RFP and reissuing it later when the budget is looking brighter.

---

by: Jeb @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:10:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Completely off-base" (0.00 / 0)

No I'm not.

Lee Leffingwell stated in the KXAN interview that he thought most of this stuff was going to be done "in-house." If our leading candidate for mayor thought, until recently, that this was going to be "in-house" then I have high, high doubts about how aggressively this project was marketed to Austin's companies.

I'm all for delaying this when they can negotiate a better contract. I'm 100% with you on that. And any good negotiation would take into consideration better strengths/considerations for Austin companies and businesses.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:17:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Said KXAN, meant News 8 n/t (0.00 / 0)

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:17:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes (0.00 / 0)

5 points out of 100 were awarded for local participation, which strikes me as appropriate.  Cignex got a 3 on that portion due to its 30% subcontractor participation.  See the link I posted below for the full evaluation matrix.

Oh, and I disagree with you that now's not the time to do this project, but now's not the time to get into that argument. :)

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:19:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few facts (5.00 / 1)

Since we're all interested in a fact-based debate, here are a few:

1. 228 notices were sent out to prospective companies.  Advertisements were placed in the Statesman as well as online.  3 bids were received, 2 of which were valid.  The winning bid was $704k, the other two were $1.3 million and $3.1 million.  In addition, The AustinGo project was also heavily publicized beginning in 2007 with a community-wide survey and six public Town Hall meetings. Perhaps more could have been done, but what was done was significant. At some point, we have to hope that entrepreneurial companies go out in search of business rather than waiting for a project to fall into their lap.  Would you support paying an additional $600k for a local provider for the same work?

2. There is local subcontractor participation in this contract. Austin company Jigsaw Solutions is receiving $111k of the money. Texas firm Advarion is receiving $130k. So about 30% of the money is going to local firms.  Both of those firms are women/minority owned.

3. This project consists of a lot more than just putting together some CSS and installing drupal on a server.  The city is a multi-billion dollar enterprise with many different departments all with their own unique IT and publication needs.  This project intends to unify the workflows of all these disparate departments, train city staffers, and create efficiencies that will save the city money in the long term. There are surely companies in the city that can do the project for the same price, but they did not bid.  

4. $700k is a lot of money, but represents only about 8-10 PYs.  That's really not a huge amount of money for the size of the project (as represented by the other quotes received)

5. Reissuing the RFP will delay this project an additional 3-5 months.  This project has already seen too much delay due to staff changeover and other problems.  What was supposed to take a year has already stretched out to 1.5 years.  The city needs to increase its transparency and provide online services to its citizens in a timely manner.

6. I support a short-term (2 week) delay to enable the city to respond to the questions raised this week.  Part of the problem is that the city department in charge of this project has not done a good job keeping the public informed of its progress.  Thus, we get a surprise like this two days before the Council meeting.

Omar Gallega has some additional information here:

http://www.austin360.com/blogs...

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:00:57 PM UTC

two other points (0.00 / 0)

7. The city isn't going "bottom dollar." Cignex won every category on the evaluation matrix except for local participation:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cou...

More backup information:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cou...

8. If you look at the guy behind the twitter petition (@sameder), he has been coordinating this campaign with the losing bidder.  I'm sorry, but that strikes me as unethical.

Please folks, I know we want to keep this type of business in Austin, but let's not engage in this type of high-tech, fact-free lynching.  There may be weaknesses with the way the RFP process was handled, but let's get some solid evidence first.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:17:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good points, all (0.00 / 0)

6. I support a short-term (2 week) delay to enable the city to respond to the questions raised this week.  Part of the problem is that the city department in charge of this project has not done a good job keeping the public informed of its progress.  Thus, we get a surprise like this two days before the Council meeting.

I agree with that, especially. But I could care less about who started the petition -- at least someone raised awareness on the issue. As someone who often is forced to raise awareness and sound an alarm from a losing position, I see nothing unethical about rallying people to his point. That he is so much better able to get his point/story across -- compared with what (I now know) is 1.5 years of the Austin City Council's efforts on this -- is rather pathetic.

I have yet to see, though, any solid evidence about how any RFP process is ever handled by the city -- and, I hate to repeat this again, but if Lee Leffingwell thought this was in-house until now, then it could not have been handed that well at all. Our City Council members and Mayor should be directly involved in these kinds of projects; if they weren't so surprised at the last minute, then people like me probably wouldn't be either.

That being said -- thanks for providing the additional context. If you know of any documented review of the RFP process -- either for this or any other contracting effort -- let me know. With each and every proposed contract before the Council, I get annoyed with the process and it always appears like they are getting a bad deal. That's either bad PR on their part (which is dumb), or just bad deals on their part (which is worse).

Someone needs to do a case study on the contracting process of the Austin City Council. That's something I'd actually put some time, money, and energy to help create.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:24:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RFP (0.00 / 0)

This particular project has seen a lot of delays for various reasons.  They originally planned to do it in house, which is what Lee is probably referring to.  Then, after doing the internal and public requirements phase, they found out the project was too big to do in house and they would need assistance.  As I mentioned in another post, the dept. hasn't done a great job of communicating project status to the public or to the Council.

Then over the summer, both heads of the coordinating departments, CTM and PIO, were sacked.  I don't know quantitatively how exactly this impacted the project, but I do know former CTM head Pete Collins was enmeshed with the project.

The first attempts to RFP for the project received no qualified bidders.  In November, they tweaked the requirements in order to get some bidders and were able to get the three we see now.

Here are my notes from a meeting with city staff late last year:

More implementation delay. The RFP for an external contractor ended on November 4 without a successful bidder. A new RFP was issued yesterday and will close on December 17. Due to the city's requirement for a bond, they only got one bidder and that bidder didn't include a bond so was disqualified. The thinking is that the economic climate makes it difficult for small and medium-size firms to obtain a bond. The new RFP will not require a bond, which opens up a little more risk into the contract. To mitigate the risk, staff will aggressively solicit companies who have performed this type of work for other cities, request a "pay-for-performance" style contract, and closely look at the financial health of bidding companies.

Clearly, city staff tried to get qualified bidders.  I have sent a list of questions to various Council members regarding the RFP process and other issues that I think need to be answered before a vote is taken on this contract.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 22:05:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keye reports delay (0.00 / 0)

via twitter (gotta love it!)

http://www.twitter.com/keyetv

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 22:59:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

statement from the city manager (0.00 / 0)

I got this via email, sorry no link.

"We've made a decision to defer Council action on the web redesign contract in order to allow time for our new Chief Communications Director and Chief Information Officer to fully review options and offer the best solution based on their professional expertise. We've brought these professionals on board in part because of their specific strengths in web development and citizen engagement, and feel that the most prudent course of action is to give them the time to analyze all options and offer a solution that best meets the needs of both our residents and of the organization."

I'm trying to get some information on how long they think the delay will be.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:56:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2-4 weeks postponement (0.00 / 0)

Council indefinitely postponed the item today.  City Manager Marc Ott says he wants to give the new CTM director some time to analyze the RFP.  He says it should come back to Council in 2-4 weeks.  Council Members Leffingwell, Shade, Martinez, and Cole spoke out in favor of the project and the short-term delay to give the director more time to analyze.  Brewster did not speak, which is surprising since he's the self-styled "tech candidate."

Owners of both local contractors Jigsaw Solutions and Advarion testified on the item, saying that the work will all be done locally and there will be no outsourcing to India.  They partnered with Cignex due to their expertise with Plone and existing relationship with the City of Austin.

Some guy named John Carlson spoke against it.  Apparently, he ran the w3c validator against Cignex's site and found markup errors.  He offered his expertise free to the city to "train up" city staff.  thanks, dude!

Given the irrational exuberance that has accompanied this item in the boosterphere, I think a short delay was warranted to let the facts emerge.  If there was a problem with the RFP, we'll find it.  If the bid was won fair and square by the Cignex/Jigsaw/Advarion team, I expect Council to proceed with the contract in a month's time.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 16:14:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kedron's #7 gets it for me (0.00 / 0)

The purpose of this RFP was to procure a service. Keeping the money local was rightly a consideration, but was (and IMO, should be) secondary to procuring services from the best vendor.

It seems to me that if there is an issue here, it is a higher-level one about the bid process generally (ie, how points get allocated to the local participation category versus other categories for all RFPs). Based on what little I have read of this particular RFP process, I wouldn't support pulling the RFP and starting over, particularly since so few bids were received - although the answer to Jeb's question (why were so few received) might persuade me otherwise. But if the city decides to do so, I would think other active RFPs might also need to be pulled as the issue would apply to them as well.

Not sure I agree with Phillip's assertion that directing contract dollars to Austin-only firms is the same as going union for printing. The rationale for supporting unions goes to fairness in employment, which is quite different for the local-use rationale (supporting the local economy). I am not feeling apples-to-apples on that.

---

by: hopemorrison @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 22:34:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comments on Omar's Blog (0.00 / 0)

Reading the comments on Omar's post makes you think that the City needs to redesign its website to better publicize RFPs like this.

Wait . . .

---

by: Jeb @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:20:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's the fuss, Keep Austin Non-Discriminatory (0.00 / 0)

The city just saved taxpayers' money, that affects everyone in Austin. If they would have picked the Austin-based company (almost double the cost) that would have only benefited a few Austin jobs, yet doubled the cost to every single Austin taxpayer. And who knows, this might allow the losing company to work on other projects, it's not like they won't be completely without work now that the city didn't accept their bid.

We need to get away from demanding local preference in the bidding process for City of Austin work. It's discriminatory and really doesn't amount to much more than grandstanding on the part of the "keep Austin Biz in Austin" crowd. If you want to "Buy Local" then go ahead and be my guest, that's your money. But if the city is doling out our tax dollars then it should find the most competent, qualified, and most importantly, the most economical source for the job.

And one final thought, can we please fire the develop staff in the IT department of the City of Austin and replace them with people qualified enough to create, database and maintain a website for the city that has hired them. Explain to me why, other than in internal investigation cases, does the City regularly hire outside sources for matters they currently pay staff for (lawyers, tech etc.)

---

by: nowayjose @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:46:40 PM UTC

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

Leffingwell pointed out that most of the $700,000 will come from city departments that actually make the city money, like Austin Energy.

Taxpayers aren't buying into any of this.

I don't know about the IT staff for the city, though, so I don't know whether that's a valid point or not.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:51:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

in house vs. external contractor (0.00 / 0)

The question of whether to hire in house expertise vs. an external contractor depends on the nature of the work that needs to be done.

Clearly we should maintain an in house staff for work that is recurring.  Only republicans disagree. :)

For one-time projects, it is less clear whether or not we should do in house or external. If the project can be done with existing staff resources, it should be done in house.  If it would require the hiring of several staff members that would be let go at the end of the project, it makes sense to hire an external contractor.

In the case of this project, I believe external was the right approach.  It's largely a one-time cost (there is recurring maintenance, but that can be staffed with less people than the original build out), we don't have the capacity or skill set required currently in house, and we will not require this large level of investment on a recurring basis.  Plus, there is the advantage that an external contractor will have a team that is used to working together.  If you hire new people, there is a problem of training and integration.  With the city in a de facto hiring freeze, that is also a consideration.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 22:14:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Politics (0.00 / 0)

A large number of voters who Leffingwell, at least, is counting on for support in the mayoral election voted for Prop 2, based on "keep our dollars in Austin", essentially.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 15:45:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes, definitely (0.00 / 0)

this is 80% politics, 20% valid policy concern.  That's why I support the short-term delay.  Information and time have a dampening effect on animal spirits.  If this project and RFP was conducted in a proper manner, it won't convince the hard core to change their opinion, but the majority who are willing to listen to reasoned argument will accept it.  That will lessen the political impact.

Incidently, on this issue it is Leffingwell who has taken a reasoned approach while McCracken is the one doing the pandering.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 16:20:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]