By Staff
September 6th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
Did anyone see this one coming?
It is on the Agenda for the Council meeting that takes place next Monday – as a Consent item – which means no discussion unless a member of Council pulls it from the Agenda.
Here’s the scoop on what $1,680,944 is going to get us:
Chad Macdonald, Top guy for the city in things technology – explaining why a software application is needed.
Approve the sole source procurement of the eCheck Automated Compliance solution as our fast-tracking online building permit assessment platform to Archistar Pty Ltd. (”Archistar”) for an initial term of up to five (5) years at total cost of $1,680,944 before HST for acquisition and ongoing licensing; and
After the initial term, authorize the Chief Information Officer to deem the software legacy should they see fit; and
Authorize the Manager of Procurement Services to approve change orders to the original contract value for necessary license or software expansion, pending such change orders are within budget; and
Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to incorporate the ongoing maintenance cost of this software into the multi-year budget simulation for 2026, and
Authorize the Manager of Procurement Services to execute any required agreement(s), with content satisfactory to the Commissioner, Legal & Legislative Services/City Solicitor and issue any required Purchase Order(s).
I honestly can’t imagine the hoops that I (in a very past life) would have had to go through to get a sole source of this magnitude approved. One of the first questions that would be asked is “why is this the only product that will satisfy our business requirements?” There are legitimate reasons for a sole source; compatibility with existing systems and technology; a need for expertise, standardization, quality, compatibility, and exclusive availability of products or services; when maintenance is required by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) without alternative service providers; when exclusive rights or intellectual property are in place; when products are patented and available only from the patent holder, or when a particular supplier is named in a funding source award. But, in each case, the ‘elephant in the room question’ often asked was “how did we allow ourselves to get into a position in which we are at the mercy of a single service/product provider? And what are the plans to remove this dependency for the future?
A sole source procurement of this size would be almost unheard of on a Provincial level. It would go through Procurement Review, I&IT Portfolio and Stewardship Review, Programs and Estimates Division Review and then – with the approval of the appropriate Deputy Minister(s) – would proceed to presentation at Management Board of Cabinet. There would be no such animal as a “Consent Agenda”. There would be active, heavy and involved debate.
Management Board of Cabinet, the prevailing authority, would have been very slow to believe that there was only one product. And then they would wonder – why is there only one? Why is there no competition. It would be a very, very difficult sell. One of the common and most fundamental objectives of the procurement policies of all levels of government, is to foster competition and supply diversity, grow business/industry and contribute to the economic health of the jurisdiction. Sole source procurements are not, generally, totally compatible with these goals.
There are almost always procurement/reengineering alternatives and some may require substantive business changes and improvements to implement. To Eric’s point, where is the business case and why is it not being presented for Council approval. Council should be asking how this particular permitting software allows the function to adopt a more efficient, cost-effective and customer-focused business model? As I remember, this was one of the CIO’s most mentioned justifications for increased allocations during the last budget cycle. The lack of apparent Council oversight to ensure that due rigour has been performed is disappointing.
Just checking as we had not heard of 2024 pier and lower pro deck repair and railing replacement for 10.6 m. Small part out for tender to replace one chain.railing o lower Promenade that likely won’t take care of .6 by end of 24.
I think this is the correct URL for the product.
https://www.archistar.ai/echeck/
And I stand corrected. A quick google does show a competitor but it’s not clear if civcheck has any customers.
https://www.civcheck.ai
More from the city here
https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/burlington-launches-technology-pilot-to-accelerate-permitting-process-for-commercial-buildings.aspx
I agree Eric.How and when will they report on “Value for Money”
Eric as something of a supply chain specialist I would suggest very little in the way of equipment or technology is unique.
Has the justification been communicated to council or taxpayers. Does the City have a bonafide sole/single source procedure?
I have similar questions about pay back and the seeming endless growth in staff numbers by the city and in particular as it relates to improvements in technology.
Editor’s note: The city does have a sole/single source procedure with as $$ value limit.
I had a quick look at the software. Many cities are using it and, from what I can see, the software is unique, which means, the city has no choice but to sole source it.
What I did not see is
– what is the payback
– how many people will be hired in IT to support it
– will the software lead to a staff reduction in the permitting department or faster permitting or end up being another white elephant, like workday, hanging around the necks of the taxpayers