Committee on Contracts

Good afternoon and welcome to today's New York City Council hearing on Committee on Contracts. At this time during today's hearing, no one may approach the dais. If you would like to testify, please find sergeant-at-arms. No food or drinks allowed. Chair, you may begin.

Thanks so much. Uh, good afternoon. Um, my name is Lincoln Ressler. I have the privilege of chairing our Contracts Committee I'd like to acknowledge the attendance of our majority whip from the North Shore, Councilmember Hanks, and the newest member of the City Council, until that changes, friend from the West Village, Carl Wilson. Today's hearing is about Passport, the Procurement and Sourcing Solutions Portal.

If you didn't know Passport was short for something, it is. This system This system the city uses to run its procurement, and whether it's giving agencies, vendors, or this council the information we need to make contracting work, we all depend on Passport every single day. The city launched Passport in 2017 as an end-to-end procurement platform to replace the city's paper-based Vendex system.

I just want to say that again because it's less than a decade ago that we were relying on a paper-based Vendex system. Thank you. system. With over $30 billion in procurement every single year, this was a monumental step to bringing our contracting system into the 21st century. Passport was promised to be a user-friendly online tool to reduce the time needed to do business with the city and improve transparency.

Passport now covers the entire lifecycle of city procurements, from solicitations to awards to payments. In fiscal year 2026, the city procured about $36 billion in goods and services through more than 209,000 transactions, and Passport is where the record of that spending lives. While Passport has unquestionably been an upgrade from a paper-based system, 9 years and 6 updates later, questions remain on whether this is the best system to continue to meet our contracting goals.

The city has spent at least $120 million on Passport maintenance contracts and upgrades over the past 10 years, yet one— yet on-time processing of registration, budget approvals, invoicing, it all continues to fall far below our collective standards, especially as it relates to the nonprofit sector. And Passport has not offered the transparency or the insights we hoped it would in pinpointing exactly where those delays are happening.

Many nonprofits and city agencies have also continued to struggle with Passport. We've heard ongoing frustrations with the technology limitations and glitches. One nonprofit shared that it takes them half a day of work— half a day of work— to upload and submit a single invoice, time that should be spent on delivering services for New Yorkers. City agencies have also reported that this clunky system leads to unnecessary and administrative work instead of streamlining their processes.

In short, in Passport, we have an inefficient system that nobody likes. We not— we do not own the software, and upgrades are not CAFLI eligible, so improvements are hard to achieve and quite expensive. But with tens of billions of dollars in annual contract spending, vendors and city agencies alike deserve a system that works better. As we look to the future of procurement in New York City, I hope to gain a better understanding today of how MOCS is evaluating the performance of Passport and what options are on the table moving forward.

We will also hear 4 pieces of legislation today that all are aimed at making small capital projects faster, cheaper, and more predictable. Intro 991, sponsored by Councilmember Banks, would require— Deputy Leader, do I have that right? Yes. I struggle on titles. Deputy Leader Banks would require DDC to create a catalog of standard preapproved designs for small capital structures like park restrooms, field houses, storage buildings.

Intro 1064, sponsored by Councilmember Wilson, would require DDC to set timeframes for agencies to act on approvals and change orders on capital projects of $10 million or less. Intro 1065, also sponsored by Councilmember Williams, would require DDC to set cost benchmarks for each type of small capital structure based on what those projects actually cost. And Reso 619, sponsored by Councilmember Dinowitz, calls on the state to lower the dollar threshold for design-build.

Right now, most city agencies can only use design-build on projects of $10 million or more, which leaves out projects— which leaves out small projects that these bills are aimed at. I want to thank Councilmember Burnicoff, my neighbor in Brooklyn, for joining. And before we begin, I'd really like to just thank the team that does all the work to make these hearings possible, our distinguished Contracts Committee staff, Senior Legislative Counsel Alex Polonoff, Legislative Policy Analyst Alex Yablon, and Principal Financial Analyst Andrew Lane Lawless.

With that, I am going to turn it over to Councilmember Carl Wilson to say a few words.

Thank you, Chair. Too often capital projects go massively over budget and over time for no clear reason and with little proper oversight. The legislation I'm proposing today aims to establish cost benchmarks and timeframes for small capital projects, as the Chair alluded to. Intro 1065 would require DDC to publish cost benchmarks for each type of small capital structure defined as freestanding buildings up to 2,500 square feet, such as bathrooms and field houses.

The department would have to submit reports every year on the difference between those benchmarks and the actual cost of such projects. and would regularly reassess the cost benchmarks they put forward. Intro 1064 would require DDC to consult with the Mayor's Office of Contract Services and other relevant agencies to establish timeframes for completing agency approvals and change order requests from contractors regarding capital projects costing $10 million and under.

If the timeframe is not met, the relevant agency must explain the reason for the delay within 10 days, and provide a new approval timeframe. These bills will establish some much-needed chronological and financial uniformity when it comes to small capital projects and will help inform the public too. For example, the annual reports on compliance with cost benchmarks would be posted on the DDC's website, as would timeframes for agency approvals and change orders.

So thank you to my colleagues who have co-sponsored these bills, including Parks Committee Chair Hankerson, for sponsoring Intros 1064 and 1065, and of course, the Contract Committee Chair Wessler for co-sponsoring 1064. I appreciate the Contracts Committee consideration of these bills today.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Williams. And I am especially excited to recognize the presence of my colleague, Councilmember Stevens, whose, like, passion and commitment to the Contracts Committee Has led to the new designation of vice chair of the contracts committee, and unless the speaker tells me that I'm not allowed to do this, we're going to make this permanent.

And and I want to thank her for joining us today and for her for her really for her like impassioned and thoughtful advocacy on contracts issues, especially as it relates to the nonprofit sector. It's it's it really makes a difference. So I don't think she cares either. That's why it's going to be permanent. Vice chair. Stevens from here on out.

With that, um, my— I want to thank Councilmember Gennaro, who's on Zoom, and I really want to thank Commissioner Ochoa and Director Yu for joining us today.

And I'll invite the committee counsel to swear in our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Will all members of the administration testifying today please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony today, and to respond honestly to councilmember questions? I do. Thank you.

You may begin when ready.

Good afternoon, Chair Ressler, Vice Chair Stevens, Majority Whip Hanks, Councilmember Vernikoff, and Councilmember Wilson, and Councilmember Gennaro. I'm Kim Yu, the city's Chief Procurement Officer and the Director of the Mayor's Office of Contract Services. Thank you for your continued engagement and the opportunity to discuss how Passport has evolved, its role in city contracting today, and our work to improve the experience of the agencies, businesses, and nonprofit providers that rely on it.

The story of Passport begins with a challenge familiar to anyone who has worked through a complicated government process. Completing one step did not necessarily make it easier to reach the next. Before Passport, city contracting depended on paper submissions, manual data entry, and separate systems that supported different activities. These arrangements made contracting labor-intensive and limited the city's ability to identify where work was delayed and why.

Passport was developed to bring those activities into a shared digital environment and create greater continuity across the contracting processes. The goal was to make it possible for information and work to move from one stage to the next with greater visibility for everyone involved. A business seeking a city contract needed a clearer path from finding an opportunity to submitting a proposal and completing its contracting requirements.

Agency staff needed tools to manage reviews and approvals, and oversight offices needed a more complete picture of how procurements were progressing. Building a platform to serve those different needs required changes to both the technology and the way people carried out their work. That transition took place in phases. In 2017, the City replaced paper-based Vendex forms with an online system where vendors could enter and update their own information.

Later releases added purchasing tools and support for competitive bids. By 2020, agencies could handle the full process from posting opportunities to preparing contracts within Passport, and vendors could respond and complete the steps needed for registration. When MOCS last testified before this committee in February 2022, we were expanding the platform's financial functions. Since that hearing, Passport has taken on larger role in the ongoing management of city contracts.

Human Services financial activities previously managed in HHS Accelerator moved into the platform with added functionality that travel throughout the life of a contract. This growth has also brought the platform's limitation into sharper focus. Bringing activities into one system creates greater visibility, but with any scaling, it brings new challenges. as we work out how providers are interacting with the system.

Our focus today is on how we are responding to those experiences. The upcoming Release 7 is intended to remove significant barriers, and we are focusing on making the platform more effective in the daily work of the agencies and the vendors that depend on it. As of October 23rd, 2026, more than 87,000 users across city agencies and the vendor community had been active on the platform over the preceding year, including more than 31,000 agency users and 59,000 vendor users.

For agencies, a shared system provides greater visibility into contracting activities and the reviews they require. For vendors, it provides a place to respond to opportunities, maintain required information, and manage contracts and financial tasks. For MOCS, it supports monitoring across agencies help inform conversations about performance and accountability. The platform must also accommodate a wide range of procurement methods, contract types, financial activities, and oversight requirements.

Release 7 tackles a common issue in Passport. Work often gets held up because one financial task blocks another. Agencies regularly need to update funding, adjust budgets, and process invoices. But the current system can force these activities to wait, causing avoidable delays. MOCS has already reduced some payment delays by directing agencies to use partial payments so providers can be paid for approved costs while other items are still being resolved.

Release 7 addresses delays that occur even earlier by allowing invoice submission and other financial actions to proceed while eligible budget and funding changes are underway. supported by safeguards to ensure funding is available. The release also adds clearer guardrails on a new ongoing financial activities view so users can see what work is in progress and avoid conflicts, helping financial tasks move forward more smoothly.

Preparing users for these changes is an essential part of implementation. The Release 7 plan includes testing with agency users, development of updated training materials, preparation of the staff who will support the new workflows. That work is intended to identify problems before deployment and help agencies and vendors understand how their responsibilities will change. Our implementation approach must account for the continuity of contracting and payment activities throughout the transition.

In response to the feedback we collect from both our smaller and larger organizations, MOCS introduced vendor reporting. which gives vendors direct access to their sourcing, contract, and financial data within Passport and helps with their day-to-day management. Direct assistance remains equally important. The MOCS Service Desk supports agency staff and vendors who encounter technical problems, need help understanding a requirement, or are unsure how to complete a task.

Those requests vary in complexity, but each represents someone trying to move work forward. MOCS has made progress in improving service desk performance. As of October 22nd, 2026, average resolution times was 8 days, down from 21 days in 2025, a reduction of approximately 63%. The service desk had received more than 16,000 requests this year. These improvements help reduce the time users spend waiting for assistance and allow them to return more quickly to to the contracting and financial tasks they need to complete.

Sustaining that progress requires continued attention to the quality of the response, the complexity of the outstanding requests, and whether the assistance provided results— resolves the underlying problem. Service desk requests also provide valuable information about the platform itself. Repeated questions about the same activity can point to unclear instructions a training need, or technical issues. Through MOCS Institute virtual and in-person sessions, vendor workshops, and written resources, MOCS helps build— users build the knowledge needed to navigate city procurement.

The Getting Started webinar series provides demonstrations of Passport functions and opportunities to ask questions, while MOCS in Your Neighborhood helps businesses and community-based organizations better understand how to do business with the city. Our near-term focus is clear. We are continuing to improve procurement transparency through vendor reporting, strengthen provider readiness through our budget readiness work, improve contract registration performance through our timely registration efforts, and prepare agencies and vendors for Passport Release 7.

New York City's procurement system connects billions of dollars in public funding to the services and infrastructure residents rely on every day. It also shapes economic opportunity for businesses and nonprofit organizations across the city. Making that system work requires sustained planning, strategy, execution, and oversight. Technology is an essential part of that capacity, together with clear rules, knowledgeable staff, and coordination among the agencies and partners responsible for moving contracts forward.

The measure of our progress is whether those elements work together to help agencies deliver effectively, and allow providers to operate with greater certainty. MOCSA remains committed to improving the reliability, transparency, and integrity of the city's procurement system. We appreciate the council's continued partnership and focus on these issues, and we look forward to working together to make the city's contracting system more effective for agencies, providers, businesses, and the New Yorkers they serve.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Thanks so much. And Commissioner Ochoa? Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Paul Ochoa. I'm happy to be back here exactly 6 months from when I last sat before you all. Which was your first week. First week. So have you appeared before the council any other times yet? No. Just us. So you just want to keep it that way?

That's right. All right. And you just— is this like your old CLA hat that you just— you miss this, you can't help yourself? I got it. Okay. Well, we're happy to have you. I've had the privilege of spending these past few months getting to know the dedicated architects, engineers, and project managers at DDC, as well as every sponsoring agency that we work with, including the libraries and every other agency.

Let me start by addressing the resolution being heard today, Resolution 619, to amend the New York City Public Works Investment Act. We have seen tremendous success in alternative delivery tools, design-build, CM-build, and progressive Design-Built. We appreciate any support the council can provide with our Albany colleagues on advocating for long-term extensions for the Public Work Investment Act. This is the umbrella organization that approves both of these tools.

This coming session is when we're going to be asking for your help. Both of these tools expire December 31st, 2027. I've said this before, I've had a— I'm going to have a much easier job than my DDC predecessors in making the argument for renewal since we already have proofs of proof of concepts. that these tools work. To put our request clearly, we need PWIA extended long-term or permanently without restrictions, including no limitations on CM build project types, which are currently only permitted for libraries and cultural institutions.

I would be happy to share additional thoughts on design-build projects and the threshold in Q&A. Now on to the bills being heard today. Introduction 991, requiring a catalog of standard design for small recurring capital projects. We agree on the importance of standardizing the design of small capital structures like boilers, roof replacements, and facades, which are vital for our public buildings and their service to the public.

We have worked with our sponsors to streamline the design— building designs, i.e., parks recreation centers, FDNY EMS stations, DSNY garages. The reality is that every building, even new ones with the set criteria, are unique based on the front-end user requirements. square footage, and the location. For example, the design of a boiler we installed last year will not be the same for another boiler installation in 2 years based on new technology and code requirement upgrades.

I'm happy to discuss further. Intro 1064, Timeframes for Agency Approvals and Change Orders on Small Capital Projects. Every capital agency recognizes that change orders are challenging and paying vendors is essential to keeping projects moving. Ensuring our union laborers are paid and avoid placing undue financial burdens on the industry partners who front the money to keep the projects moving.

DDC was the first agency to use Expanded Work Allowance, EWA, additional registered contingency from OMB at the beginning of a project that allows us to pay vendors at least partially while we finalize the change order process. EWA has now been expanded to all DDC projects, and we're looking at ways to add something similar for design contracts. The change order process itself can be challenging.

Once an unforeseen field condition is identified, we negotiate it with the vendor, Before a payment is processed, our Engineering Audit Office, EAO, ensures that the costs are reasonable and fully above board. If the change order leads us to exceed our Certificate to Proceed cost, essentially the budgeted amount that we have transferred from OMB to spend on the project, we must seek an amended CP from OMB.

On top of that, all change orders require registration with the Comptroller before they can be paid out. While we understand the purpose of the timeline and report, like the Standard Design Bill, no 2 change orders are the same. Regarding notification to contractors, our project managers and field staff already keep contractors aware of where they are in the process.

At DDC, we have worked closely with stakeholders to improve the efficiency of our payment processes, including the elimination of several forms and notary requirements. Introduction 1065, requiring cost benchmarks for all recurring capital projects. Before any project is officially accepted by DDC from our sponsors, the project includes thorough review by our front-end planning team to determine the estimated cost of the total project based on historical trends and factors.

We set on— we set standards on costs, but ultimately the benchmark for actual cost is set by the market. We look forward to continuous dialogue on the capital process and the council support for the alternative delivery legislation extension in Albany. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and we welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you so much to both of you for your thoughtful testimony. We will begin with our majority whip, followed by our vice chair, followed by Councilmember Williams— Wilson, excuse me. Jesus Christ. It's been a long day. Thank you, Chair and committee staff. So nonprofits have raised real frustrations. I used to run a not-for-profit, so I absolutely understand the frustration with Passport.

We're trying to feed families, we're trying to run youth programs, provide job training, and then a lot of these organizations feel neglected. And I worry that organizations may give up before they bring an opportunity to our neighborhoods, which means, you know, they are required by contract to do the work, and the city doesn't pay them in time, and they may not be very big, so we— were not— they're not able to stay small and wait on their payments.

So one of the— so how do we make this process easier to use? The Comptroller described in his April 2025 report of upload problems and repeated data entries. I worry that groups without technical staff or enough language support may be left behind. What are you seeing in the data? So that's my question. So what are you seeing in the data about where smaller and first-time applicants get stuck or stop applying.

Majority Whip Hanks, thank you so much for lifting this up. I'm going to take a moment to scale out from Passport just a moment because the Mayor's Office of Contract Services is so much more than just overseeing this technology project. And I will zoom in and talk about the Passport, the concerns that you raise. One of— just to sort of hone in on what you're raising about the smaller nonprofit organizations or maybe the community-based organizations, something that I'm very, very excited to do in collaboration with the City Council is the expansion of the discretionary grant pilot.

We are in year 2 of it. Chair Wrestler was— and Speaker Menin was there with Mayor Mamdani when we announced that we would be scaling the pilot from year 1, which was last fiscal year, to year 2, this current fiscal year. We are very, very hopeful of taking a group of these smaller city council agreements, $25,000 and below, and not treating them as traditional procurements.

And we're— we've re-engineered the process and we're going to be treating them as grants. And what that means is we are treating them in a more streamlined process. and we are eliminating steps in the process. And most importantly, we are able to have city funding go to these organizations quicker than we have traditionally been able to. The other benefit of this is taking these— this group of agreements and not putting them in the traditional procurement process means that We've historically seen that these types of agreements are the ones that bog our city agencies down and create the backlog.

And, you know, the nonprofit provider starts the services and it's months, sometimes years before the funding catches up. So not only are we having that group go faster and the funds to the organizations with less steps, but we are preventing them from clogging the system, as we like to say, because these are relatively low-dollar amounts on these particular agreements.

And they are— but the trend— but the number of them is very great that we can see in the data. And so we're very hopeful to come back in December, January and speak about that grant pilot. But Majority Whip Hanks, I think— Thank you. I want to also address the concern around Passport because that's what we're here to talk about.

What we do see is that the newer entrants to the procurement ecosystem, they do need a little bit more support and resources than our larger organizations that have been doing business with the City of New York for years and years. And so that's why We used lots of modalities to get to them because it is about the technology, but it's also around the resources that are available on the technology.

And it's also having folks who are on the other side, whether it's at MOCS or at the city agencies, who are knowledgeable about the processes and knowledgeable about the technology. And certainly we can sort of hone in on your particular question about like what's the data showing us on the newer organizations, we're happy to do that and follow up.

Well, thank you so much. You answered all my questions and the ones after that. So thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you so much. I will now pass it on to the Vice Chair of the Contracts Committee, Councilmember Stevens. Well, thank you, Chair Ressler. I guess you did make Fetch happen because he's been calling me his Vice Chair since he got this committee. But in all seriousness, I'm really happy to see you here, Commissioner. And as you know, I'm super passionate about this.

And one, I want to give you a shout-out and a kudos because we were very worried about the after-school RFP because that was the biggest RFP that was going to be going through Passport. And with all the glitches in the system, we didn't know if it was going to happen. And so I do want to make sure that as much as I yell at folks, I like to make sure that I'm giving them their flowers.

Thank you. where things actually happen and it works out. And so thank you for, you know, working through that and ensuring that it went out with no hiccups. But just to kind of piggyback off of some of the stuff that the WIT was just talking about, Camilla Hanks, especially in the human services sector, we know that they typically have a lot of issues.

And sometimes even when they're going through the process, when it's lit up on the bubble, that's not where the contract is, and it kind of gets— difficult to figure out where you are in the process. And so my question is, so just to start off, like, what are you— what improvements are you doing to make Passport do what it should be doing?

Because my pushback is always that, you know, we know that we need a system that is working, and it's not about just blowing up Passport. It's about thinking about if this isn't working, then what are we doing to make it work? But like specifically, I know one of the things that I've heard often is that like you— they'll go and they'll look into Passport and like the space where it says that the contract is, it's not.

And so even that function, sometimes it's difficult to find out like where they're at in the process. So what are some of the things that you guys are doing to improve that so that providers could use it in a functional way? Vice Chair Stevens, thank you so much. And thank you so much for recognizing that large, large procurement that we did on Compass.

It really was a All-hands effort in DYCD, the procuring agency. They really rolled up their sleeves, and we were happy to support that because it meant after-school for a lot of kids who did not previously have after-school. And that was a Herculean effort. Absolutely. And I gave them so many kudos, which I never do. They've been amazing.

So yes, yes, I wanted to give you your kudos as well because you played a part in that as well. Thank you. Thank you. So, to answer your question, there are gaps. I'm going to be very upfront. There are gaps. We have tried very hard through a technology solution to solve for many problems and answer to many people.

And as we evolve the project, it really is about taking a moment and seeing how far we've come, but then also seeing where are we falling short to some of our providers, our nonprofit providers? And what is that gap attributable to? Is it the technology? Is it change management? Is it something else? You were not the first to lift up and raise that there are user experience issues.

It is a very common issue that is brought up. And it's something that in this moment where we are with the project, system stability along with payment predictability and contracting predictability, those are our north stars. And the system stability You okay, Chair? Yeah, I'm good. Okay. The flags are attacking you. So the system stability is very critical.

I'm also not going to be shy about that there were times where the system experienced a little bit of turbulence because of the changes we were doing to the system in a very short amount of time. And what we have observed having the benefit of looking back, when we change the system, sometimes we shake the system a little bit.

And that— our users experience it. Our nonprofits experience it. Our construction firms experience it. Our agencies experience it. So one of the things that we are trying to do is we're going to focus on Release 7, which I spoke about in the testimony, but we're also going to really try to be very thoughtful about not introducing new things into the system that maybe compromise payment predictability and contracting predictability.

But yes, there is work that we need to do to get in there and hear from the users what it is that they are experiencing and their needs are not being met. How are folks able to give you back that feedback? What does that feedback process look like? Because again, it gets really hard, and this is one of the things that I try to explain to the city, it's really hard for groups to be able to tell providers and people who are giving them money that they're messing up.

So what is the expectation and how is that supposed— like, how, how are you guys collecting that feedback? Because, you know, that is always a struggle for me because everyone's like, no, we were working with— and I'm like, you know, the providers are telling me different stuff that they're telling you because they can't tell you that because you're giving them money.

Mm-hmm. Yes, it's, it's a, it's, uh, it's a fair point. There, there are a few ways that I think, um, We pick up the signs. In addressing that, maybe they're not as direct as like raising a direct complaint. We look at the tickets. So, a vendor is experiencing an issue on the procurement system and also on Passport.

Mm-hmm. And we are reviewing the tickets and are there patterns that we can discern from what is— what we're getting? The other thing we do is we do proactively try to survey our vendors on particular pieces of the Passport functionality. Most recently, we did it for the vendor reports that we turned on earlier this year, and we're trying to see if we can— what we can glean from there.

And then also, at certain moments, we will convene particular industries or particular groups, and we will ask them to tell us how we're doing. And they are not shy about it. They do not hold back. I was supposed to ask some of Lincoln's questions, but I'll just leave that to him. Thank you so much. Thank you for the time.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I will now kick it to Councilmember Wilson, followed by Councilmember Brewer.

Thank you, Chair. Um, just want to ask a couple questions about my 2 pieces of legislation, uh, starting with 1064, which would require DDC to set time frames for agency approvals and change order determinations. Um, does the administration support Intro 1064? I feel like there's a way to pass this bill that is beneficial to both what you're trying to get at and what the agency is trying to do.

And I'll tell you, I get really frustrated with change orders, but the main delay that we see in change orders is not the process itself of putting a change order together and sending it to the controller for registration. It is agreeing with the contractor that something is a change order. And this is what our project managers and engineers do.

Essentially what happens is The contractor may say, that's outside the contract, change order, because that's automatically where they would go to. We then say, no, no, it is definitely within scope, it's within the contract, you should do it, and there's no need for a change order. And so that back and forth, which is very, very common unfortunately, is what soaks up the most time, and it's hard to put a clock on that.

I'm happy to put a clock on when we agree to a change order. Nothing should be delayed. We usually take about a month internally to put a package together and then send it to the Comptroller's Office for registration. The Comptroller then has a month. So we're talking about a 2-month period, which to me sounds pretty reasonable, but it's this back and forth that where we spend the most time, and I think where the frustration usually lies.

Do, do any agencies currently set internal deadlines for acting on change order requests other than request or other contract approvals? Yeah, it's a really good question. You know, the last administration had a capital reform task force that was looking at a lot of these issues. We're going to be restarting it soon, and we're happy to share that information when we're finalized.

But it is something that we can look at. I think we set— the city set times on payments, so invoicing timelines. I don't believe we had an agreement on change order timelines, but I think it's And on average, how long does DDC take to act on a change order request? Well, on a project of this size, of the— When we agree there's a change order, it's usually about a 2-month period.

It's agreeing to the change order that I think takes the longest time, and sometimes it can take, you know, 4 or 5 months of just back and forth. I would say though, most of these instances, the work is continuing, and a change order shouldn't stop the, the actual construction. There are times when we are discussing change orders for work that will happen, you know, 9 months from now, just in anticipation of that.

So it is frustrating and we could do better. But it's also our job to make sure that the contractors are doing what they're supposed to be doing. And then for 1065, which is the cost benchmarks. Yeah. Does the administration support that? I am happy to do anything backwards looking. So essentially our contracts are public, right? And so whenever we put out a contract for a boiler replacement or a roof replacement, we can absolutely publish that.

I'm a little worried of putting what we think is the estimate of what a future project would look like, just because the economics of construction change very frequently. And so, for example, right now the construction elevation costs are about 8% a year, and that can change at any given time. because of factors outside of New York City.

Data centers are soaking up a lot of the raw materials that we would normally use for construction, steel, concrete. And so that price, we've seen the prices of those materials increase, and it would be hard for me to put a benchmark there and then something like this happens and the numbers are outdated. But I think it's a good idea to have a, sort of a list of items that we've paid for, for all these small capital projects.

So I feel like there's a way to achieve what you're aiming to achieve and what we feel comfortable doing. Does the city have data on the actual total costs of completed small capital projects? And which system does that data come from? Yeah, we definitely have the data. It is something that we look at too when we are estimating projects in our front-end planning.

I don't think it's a easily available or searchable for somebody in the public, but all our contract data is available. We just haven't packaged it together, I think, in the way that you would want it. And would benchmarks under this bill be consistent with the benchmarks in the Mayor's Management Report? Yeah, the MMR has benchmarks not on cost.

They have benchmarks on commitments as a whole. So we essentially essentially have capital commitments that we are aiming for on any given year. We also have timelines, construction timelines that we include. So if the goal is to align it, I believe we can. Right on time. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks so much, Councilmember Wilson, and thank you for the thoughtful legislation. Next up, Councilmember Brewer. Thank you very much. I was next door at the childcare small business hearing and must admit Every other word is contracting, contracting, contracting. So, you might as well have been there. They were quite concerned about payment, as you can imagine. So, just so you know, that's where I've been.

And so, this question might have come up. Payment and insurance seem to be the 2 issues. Do you get the same insurance even though you're not in charge of insurance? Questions? You're not in charge, but it's a mess. Councilmember Brewer, thank you. Yes, I am aware of the— I think the topic of the hearing is the business of child care.

Yeah, but guess what the real topic is? You. Yes. Well, no, so I'm asking just 2 things, though. Just so you know, that's what was happening. But also on the insurance, which came up here and everywhere else, does that play into any discussion in terms of the contracting? I know it has nothing to do with you per se, and it is a state issue, but it is constant.

Do you want me to take it? Sure. Councilmember, if I may, from a construction perspective, we hear about insurance all the time. There's 2 programs that DDC is working on with the administration. There is a program called CCIP, which is the Contractor Controlled Insurance Program, that we're using for our entire borough-based jail program. Essentially what that means is the design builder has the insurance for everyone working on that project.

That means that they can negotiate better prices. That means it's— they're not having burdens of smaller firms trying to get insurance. And then we're also looking at OCIP, which is an owner-controlled insurance program, which would be the city holding the insurance program to essentially erase those barriers. But it is something that we're working on because we do hear it a lot.

And could you transfer that all to the nonprofit childcare Human Services community. I'm serious. They are— that's where it's also hit so hard. No. It's a great question that we're happy to send back to our— All right. I know what that means. And Social Services. I know what that means. All right. My question— I'm just saying, just we all need to work on insurance.

The question is, uh, my staff, lovely to do the program with, uh, that you got compliments on about from Councilmember Stevens, love to have money as a grant as opposed to blah, blah, blah, fine. But God forbid that the November deadline comes, the paperwork isn't there, and they would lose all of their money, or could they go back into what I would call the traditional contracting process?

My staff is hysterical that they would lose all their money. Councilmember Stevens, you're not alone in bringing up this concerned. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Brewer. That's okay. She's cool. She's cool. I'm sorry. She's very cool. That's okay. Don't worry. We do look alike. Yeah, a little bit. Yeah. Go ahead. Yes. So what about their money? We are very much building this plane and flying it at the same time.

We just— It's gonna crash if you do this. Well, I welcome the council's help and support on this to make sure that this does not happen. And if we are seeing signs that something like this should derail, we will get right in there and work with Council Finance on— I mean, I just think, I think at least at this round where there's been no out front, upfront, you're going to lose everything if you don't do X, obviously you're going to try to get them to help them with the paperwork and so on.

I got it. But I mean, my staff was like hysterical, the fact that they would get no money having done the contracts and done the work if in fact they don't know how to do the paperwork. So I'm just saying, I think then they could go back into the regular, so-called, as opposed to the grant, but they shouldn't have to forfeit everything.

Is that something— is it written in stone that they have to port in everything? Oh, then kill that plane. And start with a new airline. Okay. Noted.

All right. Thank you. And the other question is, you have— maybe you talked about this, but you have a lot of 7,000 unpaid invoices. How much has the back— maybe you discussed this, that the backlog is completely erased and you're fine. But how far are you in terms of the backlog? Councilmember, the I would say Controller's Report.

So, it's a while. Oh, the April 2025 one? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, I am happy to, and I'm happy to sort of rerun the data and share it because it has been over a year since that Controller Report was released. Yes, it is. Yes. So, let me start big picture, contract registrations. Yep. So, contract registrations, we are at the moment, I can keep going, right?

Yes. Don't listen to the bell. Okay. So for contract— unregistered contracts and unregistered contract amendments, we are currently doing the work to clear out— we're calling it Clear the Queue. Okay. And we're asking the agencies to go in and everything that predates October 1st, 2026, okay, we're asking them to identify what roadblock exists— Okay. —that prevents them from moving those actions to the Comptroller's Office for review and registration.

And if they identify it's an oversight roadblock, whether it's MOCS, OMB, or Law Department, we're going to— we're going to remove those— help to remove those roadblocks. If it's a passport issue, we will help remove that passport issue and try to find a workaround. Right now, the numbers are very, very high level, and if you bear with me, I can get you the numbers.

So, that's on unregistered contracts and unregistered contract amendments. Right, yep. For invoices that are in the queue, as of October, there are about 1 billion unpaid invoices that we can see in Passport. Well, that's what I had here, yeah. That does not mean that that those are late. That's just what's sitting in the queue. Okay. For what we count as late, as the invoice has aged 30 days and beyond.

Okay. And what we are seeing in comparison to last fiscal year is a reduction in the overall cycle time. It used to take agencies on average 41 days to pay an invoice. Now we're seeing about 22 days, which is under the 30-day benchmark for a Procurement and Policy Board standard for 30 days prompt payment. Okay. So, overall, the numbers are trending in the right direction.

I'm happy to do a snapshot of what is— we are tracking on, because right now what we are doing is performance management of the city agencies on contract registration and payment, and the numbers are in the, in the right direction. Okay. I mean, it sounds— because people have a lot of respect for you, the office is doing the best they can, but it is a constant at every single hearing about this topic.

If you're talking about Social Services, DOE, blah, blah, blah, everything. So, I don't know how you get the word out that you're actually getting somewhere. But something, just a suggestion, so people feel hopeful about getting the contract— registered, signed off on. I don't know. But thank you very much. And I know that you're working on the passport.

We get people all day long, can't do passport. We spend like— we all spend a lot of time working them through it. So, but thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you very much, Councilmember Brewer. I want to just begin with a couple questions for the— that are kind of either for the DDC Commissioner or for both of you. And then I'll jump in more to Passport stuff. The question I want to— I really want to go back to the hearing we had 6 months ago, where, if I recall correctly, basically what was explained was that we're not effectively tracking capital projects.

We're not tracking capital projects in Passport, that we're not tracking spend and understanding how we're doing. through that system. And that was the goal of the system, was for it to do that. I think in previous testimonies— and Alex was here for all of the hearings, so he knows— administrations have previously testified to that being the goal, one that we still have not achieved.

Is that— does that remain the goal? Do we have a timeline to accomplish it? Is this something that is on our— that is an objective that— With a timeline associated? And if you think I'm misrepresenting, please— No, that may have been the case. I don't see Passport as a project management— as a construction project management system. It is a procurement system.

But for tracking spend? Right. And so we're processing some of the payments through Passport, but not all the payments. Right. And so— so not— I don't— I think that if I misstated that, I don't mean it as a project management tool, but I think as a tool for effectively tracking our spend. And when we're severely over budget, it's a way for us to know that and see that and be able to course correct or adjust accordingly?

Yeah, you wouldn't be able to see the over budget because the way that we see that we take on DDC projects— so say the Parks Department has, um, let's call it a roof replacement of a rec center. They give us a project, they say— and I'm making up the numbers, I'm not picking up on, on the Parks Department— they think it's a $5 million project. when we go through front-end planning process and we look at everything, we say, well, yes, the roof is at the end of their life, uh, you know, useful life, but then there's also the HVAC that sits on the roof that's nearing the end of useful life.

And so we're recommending that we do both. So what started as a $5 million project may end up as an $8 million project, but that's not cost overrun, that is just a proper scoping of a project. And so we won't take the project until the $8 million are funded, right? And so by the time it gets to Passport, we already have the full funding.

And so the only thing is you may be able to track our potential change orders on any given project, but not the cost increases, I think, in the way that people think about cost increases, because that happens on the front end to make sure that we're lining up with, one, actual construction costs, and two, proper scoping of projects.

So, and just to And I do want to dig in a little bit further, but just to— I wanted to just cite this appropriately so we had it. MOCS' February '22 roadmap for Passport included bringing capital project management into the Passport system, and this was according to then-Director Flores' testimony from 4 years ago. And so is that— that is no longer an ambition that you all share?

You don't think it's a viable— kind of utilization of Passport? No, we are looking— listen, construction project management systems are incredibly important, and we are actually looking at DDC at updating our construction project management systems, one that includes precisely what you're saying, tracking costs, tracking timelines, tracking steps. But that would be done inside DDC and ideally an off-the-shelf solution so that we can better utilize the technologies that are already out there.

And by the way, every other capital delivery agency uses the same type of construction project management system. MTA does it, DEP does it, right? And there was— this was— and I was, you know, I thought the report that Comptroller Lander put out just, I think, before he shut the lights off in December of last year, you know, highlighting that the— I think his critique was that there was a lack of a comprehensive project management tool to track TTC projects and that it was happening in multiple places.

I believe this is what you testified to 6 months ago as well. That is correct. You were relying on multiple systems to track things, which is just unacceptable, right? And has to change. And if Passport isn't the solution— and Passport, I don't know, I mean, is clunky, right? Um, then understanding what is the solution I think is really important.

Yeah. You know, one of the One of the first things I've done and I did as commissioner was looking at all our technology systems. You are correct, Councilmember, that we have a project management system, we have an invoice system, and we have a timeline system. There's no reason for that. So we are looking— we have— we do have a really good technology roadmap to update all those systems into one that makes sense and that's easily user-friendly for the project manager, but also for the contractor, and eventually for the public. we want to do that.

And if I was following you right a moment ago, I feel like I totally appreciate you have said to me several times over these 6 months, you know, the agency will anticipate the cost of something is X, and then when DDC actually looks under the hood, cost is X plus Y plus Z. But what I'm concerned— and I get that that's going to happen once, you know, the architects and engineers analyze something, costs are going to be different than whatever, you know, city agency might have anticipated.

But what What I want to make sure of is that when we have an estimate on a project, that we know the spend is happening, that we're staying within budget. I think, you know, what we really highlighted at that hearing 6 months ago is that I think too many vendors get away with submitting a bid at a lower price and then making adjustments along the way and submitting mods that don't end up being that lowest price.

Correct. And we could have gone with a better vendor that has a better track record and we get sucked into those bad decisions. And so, you know, we continue to want to see reforms in these areas. And I, you know, I maybe to— well, I'll give you a second if you want to respond. Yeah, yeah, it drives me crazy too.

We have seen that sometimes the lowest bidder, we don't feel like they can do the job that they're being— that they're bidding on. So what we're doing is a couple things. The thresholds for finding them not responsive or not responsible is pretty high, understandable. But what we're doing at DDC is changing a culture of evaluations to make sure they're writing fair and true evaluations of every single contractor, because the evaluations is essentially what the city determines as a basis for potentially finding them not responsive or not responsible.

And I don't think historically the agency was taking that seriously. So that's one piece. The other piece is alternative delivery doesn't bound us by the lowest bidder. It is the best value. And that does not— obviously prices are taken into account, but we also look at experience. We also look at the type of quality that they've delivered and the teams that they're putting together.

To me, best value ends up being cheaper on the long run than just following lowest bid contracting. I agree. Those are reforms I think we should pursue together. I'm happy to hear you reference a plan to kind of revisit the Capital Reform Project Task Force that Director Soliman led with then First Deputy Mayor Grillo, you know, some 4 years ago.

You know, we hope the council will be a partner in that effort. Sure, absolutely. And, you know, look forward to more information and updates on that.

I have one more question for you, which is, You know, just relating to Councilmember Banks' legislation, I understand that, you know, we need flexibility, that every project is different. And at the same time, I would think that standardization could improve timelines and reduce costs. And so, you know, I think that you were testifying against the bill today, although you were diplomatic and nice.

Could you just give a little more? To me, there's a difference between standard designs, which the bill is asking for, and design guidelines. And I'm a huge fan of design guidelines. And so, for example, let me, um, we're doing, uh, 5 bathrooms for the Parks Department with very strict and clear design guidelines. Do you want to tell us how much they each cost?

Uh, $3.6 million each. Yeah, $3.6 million. They're going to be done in a total of about 18 months. 2 times faster than they would have done their traditional design-build. And but I do want to address that because it's not just a structure. So for example, we were at Casino Park in Flushing yesterday, and the bathroom that we're building is in the middle of the park.

There is no sewer connection, there's no electricity connection in the middle of the park. So I know the price tag can sometimes be daunting if you're just looking at it at face value, but there's a lot of work that needs to happen for that building to be actually functional. And from the park, from the bathroom where we are, that we're building to the public right-of-way, that's about half a mile of just deep sewer and electricity infrastructure that we have to build.

So those tend to drive up the cost significantly. But how close is it to the velodrome? It's actually very close. Okay, good. Yeah, it's right next to it. It's beautiful. Did you know about the velodrome in Kissimmee Park? No, it's cool. It's very cool. Queens, you know, there you go. I know I'm Brooklyn, but this the you should know about the velodrome.

It's cool. It is. It's very nice. We were just there yesterday. You can see my video next week. But you're really popping those out. How many videos a week are you doing? The type of infrastructure that a new bathroom inside a park requires is pretty significant. It's not something that the New Yorkers see, but I do think it's important for them to understand so that they know. why the costs are so high.

Okay. You have one more question for Commissioner Ochoa? Okay. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. When you talk about the infrastructure issues, is there a space where parks have those capital plans laid out so that we know what these costs are going to be before they happen? It happens very often in school construction authority to where there's no real forethought.

And sometimes agencies can become in their bubble, and, and our goals are very different. We want to say, hey, we have the funding, we want to do X, Y, and Z. Um, and then you have your goals and, and what the funding actually looks like, and there's a huge disparity between the two. Mm-hmm. So is there anything that we can do to kind of do, which is not something that the city does, which is proactive work?

Yeah. Just a little bit, because then we wouldn't be here, right? And so we, you know, we're the Borough of Parks and we have tons of parks and whatever, but it would be great if there would be some sort of anticipation that there are certain parks and spaces and capital projects that we know that we're going to have to do, that yes, a chair costs $1 million and no one understands, you know, And I see the guys who work for the city nodding their head.

Of course you have to. But I think that there is a space where we must have some of the same language and some proactive work so we're not daunted. Because what ends up happening is that we will say, this is what we want to do as elected officials. We ask you, you come back with something, but we get blamed.

I don't want to get blamed anymore. Thank you. It's not just a parks issue, it's a library issue where an elected official will give $2 million for what the— let's call it NYPL or BPL or QPL thinks is a $2 million project. We take it, it turns out to be a $3.5 million project, and then the library system will go back to you and say it's a $3.5 million project.

But by the time you add the other $1.5 million, it's been one fiscal year. And so then when they give us the $3.5 million, it's now actually $4.2 million. So it's really, really frustrating. But we do have a pretty good solution in the works. It's called Advanced Capital Planning. And what that means is we're going to be sending inspectors to all city-owned buildings and a couple of cultural institutions to do a full assessment.

It's like AIMS on steroids, a full assessment of the building to see what they need and what they will need in the next 5 to 10 years. so that the agencies can do better planning ahead of time. And so we're going to go in and say the facade looks okay, but we think you're going to have to replace it in the next 5 years.

The boiler looks okay, but we think you're going to need to replace it in the next 3 years. What do you think it'll cost to do the assessment per building? We're gonna— it's gonna be about a 2-week assessment per building. Right now it's about a 3-hour assessment. And so it's a much deeper assessment of the buildings. This was something that was Partially funded a few plans ago that were rolling.

We're almost done with the application, and it's going to be great because then it will allow sponsor agencies to be able to ask for money if they need it, but to just do better capital planning to make sure that doesn't happen. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Well, I think that I'm going to do something that's unusually nice and dismiss Commissioner Ochoa. So I just hope this is remembered in the future. I feel like I'm going to get back. And you could stay all afternoon and not have to remember it. But I, you know, I'm just kidding. Thank you for joining us today. We really appreciate it.

The last chance, council members, if you have anything for the commissioner. I just want to say, as great as you are, the libraries don't like you. They don't like DDC. It's not that they dislike Paul particularly, right? Yeah, but he's in charge. He's in charge. I like you, but— and I like the libraries, but y'all don't get along.

We were— we had a large meeting yesterday with Councilmember Williams that she hosted with the cultural institutions and the libraries, all systems. I think we've made a ton of progress over the last 6 months. I think we're doing much better. And a lot of it was just communication and making sure that they understand our expectations, their expectations, and then involving them in the process.

So I think we're doing much better. You should check with Iris. and to see what she says. Always listen to Iris. Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner and team. And I just want to say we appreciate your reference to AIMS on steroids. We look forward to advancing our AIMS legislation. Hopefully, OMB will be as cooperative as GDC is in that endeavor.

Nice to see you, Director. We will now dig into Passport Fund. So our review found that the city has spent about $100 and at least $120 million on Passport since its inception and kind of design back in 2016, including $97 million with Invalua on creation and updates and $20 million plus with Accenture Could you just give us a kind of very quick overview of the costs and the services that are provided under the Ivalua contract and the Accenture contract?

Chair, I'd be happy to. So our number is actually a little higher. The number that we like to— the price tag we put on the Passport project so far is $151.4 million. And the other price tag that's readily handy is the Release 7 work, which is $6.5 million. But just to, again, take a step back, and I'll go into the weeds a little bit, so please indulge me.

So 2 contractors, 2 contracts, we've got Ivalua. Ivalua is the software provider. The City of New York licenses the software from Ivalua, and we pay around $2.5 million per year for that license. We also have a relationship with Accenture. Accenture is what we call, for just shorthand, our systems integrator, and we pay about $7.5 million per year.

So Passport as a system per year as a baseline is $10 million. That's just steady state. The cost will go up, or you will see costs go up year to year if there are changes to the functionality, which we call releases, or there are upgrades to the system. So that is when you will see peaks of increased funding. over the life of the contracts and over the life of the project.

Thank you. And so just so I— those contracts, are they— what is the renewal timeline on those contracts? The current contracts are set to expire April 2027. And then you have a renewal option on them? We do not. Oh, so does that mean you'd have to put out a new solicitation at that point? Or what are your options?

We could, and we did earlier this year. We did not see that through. Most likely we will do what we call a negotiated acquisition. And did they kind of, Both of them? Well, okay, fair enough. How many staff positions at MOCS are focused on Passport? You know, it's an interesting question when we try to parse out how much of our PS budget goes to the Passport project.

And I wanted to go back to just sort of your prior question just for a moment. This extends beyond just the Passport Project. This extends to all vendors who have a relationship with the City of New York. Ivalua and Accenture are our partners in providing this citywide enterprise system, and they've been our partners for 10-plus years now.

Right. And we have had some ups and downs in our relationship with our vendors. And I hope that going forward in our negotiations, they— we are a valued partner to them just as we are entering into those negotiations. But on your question around how many of our team members support Passport, it's hard to really parse out because— and I'll give you a little bit of an anecdote or example.

We have a team called our Procurement Operations Team. Our Procurement Operations Team maintains a relationship with our city agencies. And for example, Commissioner O'Toole was here at MOCS. There is a MOCS Procurement Operations Team member assigned to DDC. And so as DDC is moving its procurements, contracts, and payments through Passport, they will work with their MOCS Procurement Procurement Operations Liaison.

So, that person is over helping them project plan their procurements, helping them, advising them which procurement method is best, and then from time to time, if there are Passport issues, they will help on Passport. So, is that person designated to the Passport project? It's hard to say. A portion of their time is designated to it, but it's not a clean one-to-one, that person is assigned to the Passport project.

Okay. Do you have any way of kind of thinking about full-time employee equivalence or anything that could give us some sense of scale? Or do you have a way of how you— if— I mean, like, how would— yeah, how would you think about it if— We could certainly parse it out. Or— I'm not— maybe a less exact answer.

Could you give us, like, a ballpark sense? Ballpark? Let's see. I would want to give you a precise response, Chair. I really would. So if I could, I'd take this one back. All right. Or maybe a different question would be like, how many folks are just on the technical side of managing the Ivalua and Accenture contracts that just like you have on a team there?

On our technology team, it's interesting because we also have what we call our mock service desk team. And our mock service desk team, in some— owns the relationship with our vendors. And so they are helping our vendors move through city contracting and procurement, and a part of their responsibility is Passport. And so roughly maybe 30 to 40 people, but again, I would really want to come back to you on that number.

Right, because your headcount total is a few hundred? 170, yes. Less than it should be, but we should talk before— but so it's a significant portion of your headcount is focused on this, and, and a significant portion of MOCS operations are dedicated to this technology management? Yes. Roughly, roughly, could be as high as 20 or 30%? Even higher, potentially.

So, that's a lot. Could you just articulate, is OTI involved in managing Passport? Are they directly engaged in the day-to-day here? It's a— thank you, Chair, for the question. We are, you know, OTI's involvement in the Passport project has ebbed and flowed. Initially, at the inception of the project, it was an OTI project. Through the passage of time, there have been handoffs from OTI to MOCS.

MOCS will always be the business owner of this project. We are the procurement subject matter experts. More recently, we have asked OTI to come in to have some more strategic conversations about Passport, some of which you mentioned at the top, Chair, around what is the future of Passport, what is the future of e-procurement. How do we improve the user experience?

So, more recently, we were having conversations with OTI and that team on those bigger, larger questions, not on the day-to-day, so to speak. Okay. Should they be more involved? I mean, I think generally OTI is pretty directly involved in most technology management, most management of most critical technology infrastructure for the city. I'm a little surprised that they're less involved here.

What do you think? They could be an asset? Do you think it could free up MOCS capacity to potentially do other important work if OTI was more involved? I would welcome it. I would welcome it. It's a, it's a big project. It's a big undertaking. And, um, right, having those who have something to contribute and offer is welcomed.

Yeah. I mean, it's just, it's worth remembering it's a system that moves tens of billions of dollars annually, has tens of thousands of users and hundreds of thousands of transactions, right? I mean, like, it's a big complex technology endeavor. You would think that our technology agency would be centrally engaged in it. So maybe that's a future thing for us to raise with Councilmember De La Rosa and our friends over at OTI, which is based in District 33, just noting.

Adoption of Passport. Oh, I do want to— just want to dig a little further here. One other thing that has been a bugaboo of mine is capital eligibility of Passport improvements. Could you just help us understand why improve— the kind of updated releases and improvements to Passport are not capably eligible? And I guess relatedly, Is there any mechanism that we could take over this system and have it be city-owned?

Councilmember, thank you for raising this. This is something that also frustrates our MOCS finance team. The way that the Passport project is structured and the way the contracts are set up, as I mentioned, we are licensing a software. So essentially, we rent, we do not own. Right. And so, for capital eligibility, that makes it a nonstarter under the Comptroller directives.

I think my— I know this very, very generally, not deeply. My understanding is that the Comptroller has revisited the capital eligibility on software. I do not believe— This Comptroller? This Comptroller, or no, don't hold me to that. Okay. It might have been the last one. It may have been the last one. I will say that I don't believe it will ever be backwards-looking.

It will likely be forwards-looking around capital eligibility. Okay. So you don't think there's any way to get it— to shoehorn it in? There is one idea, and this is a very conceptual idea, and it would take a lot of folks to buy in. purchased the intellectual property. The— Ivalua provides an off-the-shelf solution. We have customized and configured the solution to serve— Extensively.

This— the specificity of the City of New York. All of that work is owned by Ivalua, and are they willing seller? Are we a willing buyer? We are very early. That is just one of the myriad of options. Now, if we were to sort of blue sky or whiteboard, you could have an e-procurement system that is owned by the City of New York, which is City of New York technologists, City of New York coders, they build a system.

And we would— that— but that is something that is far out and just— That's a new system. Right. That would be a really different system. That would be if we— yeah. That's if we're moving on. Okay. Look, that's all interesting and helpful. I think that if there are any conversations for us to try to have with the Comptroller's team, we'd be happy to participate in them and try to help push, as well as with Law and OMB.

And I think that— I imagine, you know, the— there's an interplay between some of the ideas that you just laid out and the expiration of the contract. And so, we're thinking about all these things together and appreciate you laying out some of the moving parts that you're considering.

I just, you know, it's been— it was a gradual kind of rollout of Passport, I think delayed by COVID. HHS Accelerator finally kind of incorporated. back in 2024, just a couple years— HHS Accelerator, I should say, was finally decommissioned just a couple years ago, back in 2024. Are there any stages of the procurement process or certain contracts that are processed outside of Passport at this point?

Anyone we should beat up? There are bits and pieces. But certainly all the mayoral agencies are in. The non-mayoral agencies are not in. Organizations such as the Department of Education, School Construction Authority. Right. No, among the mayoral agencies only. Right. Among the mayoral agencies. There are, there are some folks who maybe are out, but for the most part, everybody is in.

Okay. Yeah. So there's nothing that comes to mind that you would highlight or flag for us of folks that are continuing to operate outside of the system? No. Among mayoral agencies. The— are there any— the 2022 nonprofit task force of kind of getting— I think it was like getting nonprofits paid or something like that— reference other old contract legacy systems at certain agencies forcing users to enter duplicative information.

Are there any of these legacy systems still in use, to your knowledge, among the mayoral agencies? Not to my knowledge. That's not to say that it doesn't exist, and it might be underground. But for the most part, you know, we have done a lot of work to make sure that everybody's in. Cool. How much is still happening via email and not captured in Passport?

For example, we've heard the need to adjust budgets because of indirect costs and COLAs and contracts that need to be amended because of new needs that are handled entirely by email, and the Passport would not actually reflect those issues. Is that a common practice? That's hard to quantify, I would say. It's hard to quantify. The idea is that If you have everything in one system and there's one source of truth, it provides the visibility and it provides all the advantages of everything being in one place.

I'm sure that there are some offline processes that are happening as a result of just, you know, ease, necessity. It's hard for me to quantify that offline activity. And this is something we've heard from the Comptroller's team over the past year. Could you help explain to me the interface between PIP and Passport, and have there been conversations to more kind of closely link these systems, or integrate these systems, or having the Comptroller be a user of Passport?

Is any of that stuff on the table right now? Certainly, there have been prior conversations around And the relationship of PIP and Passport. And you worked in the Comptroller's Office. I did. So, you have seen— A number of years ago, yes. Both sides of this. I have, yes. Yeah. So, most recently with Release 6, which happened 2024, I believe, a portion of PIP was decommissioned and a piece of functionality was stood up in Passport, and this is around the subcontract. reporting.

Okay. PIP still exists, however. PIP exists. It's jointly owned by the mayoralty and the comptroller, and it involves city vendors needing to disclose information so that they can effectively be paid electronically. Those are some— that would be quite the lift if we were to ever completely subsume PIP into Passport. But so, those conversations are not on the horizon.

But better linking or integrating the systems? No. Is that something that we should be thinking about? Because do the systems talk effectively to one another today? That I would have to take back. And certainly, I would have to take that one back. Okay.

Release 7. I think Mox testified back in 2019 when Justin Brannon chaired the Contracts Committee that Release 2 would be the final major release on Passport. So I don't know. I'm back. Wow. Yeah. There we go. This is— you can thank Alex. He was here. And asked Alex to— and asked Justin to ask the question back then. 7 years later, we're on Release 7.

Could you explain— I know you did in your testimony, but just once again succinctly— the functions that will be added through Release 7? And in particular, nonprofits will now be able to submit invoices while budget mods and budget approvals are still pending. Councilmember, you essentially said it in that last part. And I can— to add, I can give you a sense of scale.

So last fiscal year, we count 10,000 budget modifications. So during the pendency of those 10,000 budget modifications, which on average maybe were in the system for 5 days, so 10,000 times for those 5 days, there was an inability to submit an invoice into Passport for review for payment. But fast forward, we hope for everybody to to have a smooth delivery of Release 7, that will no longer be a stop.

A pending budget modification will not stop invoice submission. Great. I will say, I think this is probably the number one complaint we've heard about Passport, and so it's really great that that's being fixed. It's not the only complaint we hear about Passport, but I know that my Vice Chair and my colleague, do often get a lot of passport complaints, so I'd be interested if they have other items on their list of needed passport changes.

I think that— and just to confirm, you continue to be on track for an early 2027 release? Yes. Great. Do you keep a running list of kind of reforms, requests of reforms or improvements, modifications, that agencies, nonprofits, your own staff have identified kind of like a wish list of changes to Passport? We do. It's very long. We cannot do all of it.

Okay. Well, it's good— Please don't ask us to do all of it. No, it's good to know it exists, because, I mean, look, it's the— as far as I understand it, and the Vice Chair can clarify, but I think the Council really pushed for paying for these changes, and we continue to want to be a strong partner in advocating for updates if this is the system we're using.

Have you done a cost analysis of the changes on these— on this list? Is there any more you can share? So, Chair, in thinking about this and what is the right approach about this going forward, there is an instinct to want to instinct to say that let's change the system to make it better. But there's also— there are other options.

And let's not change the system. And maybe let's think about maybe we could take something out of this system, deprecate pieces of the system to make the experience better. Hmm. I'm not saying that that's where we are. But we are in a— after R7, when we catch our breath, we are going to take a moment and pause and think through what does make sense.

Does it make sense to continue to build? Does it make sense to stay the course? Does it make sense to maybe take out pieces of functionality and have them somewhere else? Those are the types of conversations that we'll be having, you know, soon. R7 is our priority, but sometimes it is underappreciated. It's— what's the saying? Addition by subtraction.

So we're open to exploring that as a potential path forward also. Okay. Any shortlist of potential modifications that additions by subtraction or just updates that you want to— you might share that you think are some of the priority things to consider post-Release 7? So, Councilmember, one of the things that we will have to confront is what is the technology solution for the grant pilot?

What are the technology solutions for the COGE initiatives should they pass? Election Day. Those are things that we have to grapple with, that we have to do, versus what we want to do. So, those are things that we'd love to come to you in partnership and think through how we, how we solution that through the technology.

I think that, you know, we'd love to join you to have some conversations with stakeholders of like, what are they thinking, and create an opportunity for some, you know, constructive feedback as you kind of move beyond Release 7. So maybe for next year. I was struck— my Chief of Staff Molly and I— I didn't recognize Molly. I didn't recognize you in my opening remarks.

I forgot to do that. take a moment to thank Molly, who's the best, belatedly, but Molly is the brains of our operation, and I'm grateful all the time for the opportunity to work with her. Molly and I had a chance to sit down with a local nonprofit in our district earlier this week, and they're a medium-sized nonprofit.

They have lots of city contracts. They're very competent. And they told us it takes their staff member half a day to submit an invoice in Passport. And I don't know if that's similar to the kinds of things that you both hear from nonprofits in your communities, but does that shock you? Should it? I mean, I don't— you know, like, how do you respond to that?

It should not be the case, and I have heard it before, and it goes to what I spoke of earlier, that we do know that there is room, there's some room for improvement and there's some gaps. And anecdotally, I think there could be a spectrum of reasons why it is taking that amount of time. It could be that there could be a system issue.

There really— there could be a system issue. It also could be we've got to do a better job training the users. It could be that there is— there are team members who are in the system for periods of time, and once you're in the system for a period of time, you sort of know where to go, how to navigate, and then once you step away from the system and haven't been in the system for a bit, a little bit of that muscle memory has, has been lost.

Um, uh, but yes, I have heard other providers, uh, share that things that, um, their expectation of how long certain tasks take in Passport is beyond what, um, is, is, it's longer than they hope for. I, just to share, you know, when we sat with them, you know, they explained to us and showed us they have all the information neatly organized in an Excel spreadsheet.

There's no mechanism for a bulk upload of an Excel file or, or kind of recognition of prior information, so they have to find the right contract amid 7 kind of nearly identical entries in the same contract to create a new invoice, upload the budget again even though it hasn't changed, then go through each line item entering the same service dates in every one of them, enter entering the invoice amount, the unit, the quantity price, dozens of fields that have to be transcribed from existing documents into the right boxes, all in Passport.

And each contract is different. Agencies flip what info goes where, and it's just easy to make errors as a result. And so it just— it was surprising to me how unfriendly a user experience it was and how hard it was. And it's like— You know, these are nonprofits that are spread thin and trying to do their best, and it just— I was, like, really empathetic to just the challenge that that staff are dealing with to get these— this information submitted and submitted correctly.

So, you know, I think that— I know that, you know, MONS is here to offer technical assistance, and you guys have a help desk to try and help people through this stuff. But it just struck me that this is a lot harder than it should be. So— oh, please. I just want to add to that. I didn't want to go through because I know this is a topic that Chair brought up, but it's just tons of emails to that effect.

And I don't know how to address it, but it doesn't help people who want to work with the city. And I have a horrible feeling some groups say, I don't want to work with the city, I'll just stay in a private. And they could be some of the best programs. So I don't know how to— like I said, I don't know how to do it.

But they don't know whether their submissions are complete. That seems to be a big issue, as an example of something specific. And they don't know whether it's user error or technical glitches. It's very— it's very— opaque. So, and I don't know whether you have— do you have like a 24-hour? I assume some people do this off hours.

We do have some off hours. You have some off hours. Okay, that's great. But all of that is still not addressing this problem. So thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Brewer, as always, for just kind of having her finger on the pulse of the issues.

How is the system supposed to work for frequent documents like budget docs or insurance forms? I think we had, if I recall correctly, I didn't, I don't remember, um, but that I think Councilmember Juan created the legislation around the document vault. Yes. And it sounded really good to me. It doesn't sound like it's working as maybe envisioned.

If I, um, could you speak a little bit to like To that, we hear from different, from like vendor, from nonprofits of like, we have to submit different insurance forms with different agencies for every single contract, because every agency wants the name of their agency on the contract, not just the City of New York, and that we have to resubmit the same documents all the time, and it's just frustrating, and as explained, it's just kind of a slow process.

Is there, I guess the question I'm trying to ask is like, Is how are— like, how should things work with documents that need to be submitted time and again? Chair, I think there are 2 issues. There is the variability around what agency to agency is expecting from the providers, and from the provider's perspective, it likely can seem a little bit like whiplash or, you know, getting bounce back and forth when they're potentially providing the same services or this, the same insurance coverage documentation.

So there's, there's that issue, which, yes, there is a need to standardize to the extent that we can the document requirements that the city agencies are putting on our providers. The other thing around the technology on the document vault itself, and I like to explain document vault is like a Google Drive. It's supposed to be a vault.

It's supposed to be somewhere where you upload your documents and you're able to readily retrieve it. And I do know that there have been issues. There have been issues throughout the time that we have introduced Document Vault into Passport. I will say that we, over the Indigenous Day weekend, we did do an unnecessary upgrade to the document vault that Councilmember Juan legislated around.

That was a necessary upgrade. We were a little bit behind on doing that, but we are on the other side of that, and it was a successful upgrade. And I've learned in overseeing this technology project, even though I'm not a technologist, that a quiet upgrade is actually a good upgrade. We don't want to hear about an upgrade So, we are on the other side of that.

Yes? Thank you. The— that's helpful.

The help desk, I think that you testified today to a reduction in average response times on the help desk, significant reduction, which is great. Could you just elaborate a little about prioritization for urgent requests and kind of how you do that? Yeah, just speak to that a little more. Happy to do that. So, we're talking a lot about technology today, but really, when it comes down to it, we rely on our people to do this.

We rely on our people to identify the priorities and actually prioritize the work. We have a really great leadership team overseeing the service desk. She leads this organization, and one of the things that will help prioritize how the work gets triaged and what gets worked on first. For example, Councilmember Brewer, you mentioned there's some anxiety at the City Council around the discretionary grant process and whether or not all of the agreements are going to get into the pilot as we're hoping for.

I'm going to be very transparent about it. There was an issue with Passport around uploading some documents to the prequalified list, and because we know that the discretionary grant pilot is a strategic project of ours, all of the work— all of the technology issues that we were observing in Passport, resolution of those issues was prioritized. Because we know we are in a short window to get this right.

The other example I can share about how we prioritize the service desk work, I'll pick on Commissioner Ochoa again because he was here. DDC, let's say, has a bid that is set to close tomorrow on Friday. Because we know that those who are interested in competing for that opportunity are in the system, and there is a time sensitivity around getting their bids in, we will prioritize the issues that those who are interested in competing for DDC's bid.

So, that's— those are some examples of how we prioritize the work. That's helpful.

We've heard a healthy amount of feedback from agencies on changes. They want to see the passport. I'm sure you're keeping that list. That's— I'm sure their input is on your list. My favorite division in the Law Department, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to have favorites, but is the Contracts and Real Estate Division. They're my favorite too.

They're great. I just— so many smart people over the years that I admire so much, like Steve Steinkushman and Howard Friedman and Amrita. Like, just very impressive group of folks. No disrespect respect to the other divisions in the Law Department, but, you know, we all have favorites. Something we've heard from them is that they would love to have simultaneous OMB and Law Review in Passport.

Is this something that is on your radar? Do you think it's something that we could consider incorporating into a future release? How could— how could we make our friends in the Contracts Division at the Law Department happy? Yes. It's something that is on our radar. It's something that law has a particular set of things that they would like to see in Passport.

We have identified it. We've tagged it. We've cataloged it. Yes, I'm open to having those conversations. Do you have any sense of a— I'm sure there are other reforms they would want to see as well, but any— is it possible to even provide a ballpark sense of cost for us to try to make a change like that?

I do not believe we've estimated the cost, but I will take that back. Okay. Cool.

Some questions just on metrics and performance. In FY26, the citywide— in the FY26 citywide indicators report showed that the median invoice processing payment was 14 days. In 2019, the invoice payment timeline in the Accelerator in HHS Accelerator was reportedly 6 days. Is any ability to identify, is this more of a platform issue or an agency user issue?

Any ability to kind of help diagnose the cause of those delays if I have— if the data points I'm using are— if I'm comparing apples to apples? Sure. I'd have to take a deeper look. Yeah. You don't have the 2019 HHS Accelerator data tattooed into your brain? That's fair. But any— if it is accurate, any guess for why we might be looking at that, or is 14 days as a median invoice payment, is that kind of a reasonable timeframe?

At a very high level, I'll say that the scale of city contracting and nonprofit contracting in particular has grown exponentially over the COVID years. That could— and this touches upon a piece of legislation that you've introduced— the procurement and also agency staffing capacity has— Not kept up. Open question. Something worthwhile for us to look at. Yeah. Fair.

That's why we introduced it. And I think we are looking forward to having a hearing on it. The share of contracts registered in FY26 that were registered after their start date, do you know that data point? We have the FY25 data, just wondering if you have updated. We do have the FY26 indicators. I want to say that We have some room to improve.

I think, I believe, just off memory, on-time registration was 69% citywide. On time was 69%? Because I thought what I was looking at for FY25 was that 72% were registered after the start date. But we can dig in. If you— I don't know, if it's something we could follow up on in writing, I think that would be helpful to just have the FY26 indicators and how we're comparing to previous years.

Okay.

I wanted to ask about the median cycle time for competitive sealed proposals. I did look back since, you know, Alex was highlighting 2019 City Council Contracts Committee hearings. We did look back to what Dan Simon said then when this question was asked, and he basically said that the number of days doesn't really matter. There are RFPs for bids, so they could start the RFP process 2 years before the contract is going to begin, or 9 months, or whatever.

And what actually matters is if someone's getting paid on July 1st when the contract starts. That was his argument. You should tell me if that's the same argument that you would make. But the data on kind of the timeline for the competitive sealed proposals rose from 386 days in FY25 to 527 days in FY26. To be fair, the median time— median length of time for competitive sealed bids declined year over year.

But just wondering any further, is Dan's explanation of this the right explanation? Do you think this is an irrelevant data point that we shouldn't worry about and that what matters is when people are getting paid, not how many years an agency plans preparing for an RFP? I think multiple things can be true at once, and I think the context will matter.

And I do understand Dan's point when— because it's really about predictability, and if the provider is expecting July 1st, let's say 2027, to have a contract in place, and it's in place, I'm not sure how impactful it is that the agency in their planning activities initiated it maybe 18 months ago. So from that perspective, that justification does continue to hold. to resonate.

Okay. It's— I think that's fair.

I do want to drill down on something that we've discussed a bit over the course of the year, which is just Passport as a management tool. And I think one of the greatest— one of the kind of most promising elements of Passport from a decade ago was that it would serve as this management tool that would help us improve cycle times and identify and track specific issues that are causing delays.

And it seems to me like the reporting capabilities of Passport are just very clunky and hard to— hard for us to benefit from. Could you explain, like, could you walk us through the reporting capabilities of Passport, if that isn't too broad a question? And then, kind of, do agencies have access to those functions, or is that just a MOCS?

you know, is that just MOCS's purview? So, on the reporting front, the amount of data that is in the system is vast. And with so much activity happening in the system, being able to to extract what you need and have a report to either tell you a compelling story or provide operational support. There is a, there's a whole discipline around reporting and developing reporting and what you wanna do with those reports.

Are they to be, are they to provide insight? Are they to prompt action? And so that practice— is one that it requires a lot. There is— there's a lot of reporting capability in Passport. There's a lot of— there are a lot of things that MOCS itself has pulled out of Passport, and we've prepared our own reports. We've also asked, you know, iValue and Accenture to make some reports readily accessible. in Passport.

So, it's a— there's a lot to unpack there. But I think from the Council's perspective, one of the things that I would lift up, we do have Passport Public, which is a database that is open to the public. Right. We also have, you know, for those who are interested, interested, and I'll lift up the Comptroller's Office checkbook database that provides a lot of information.

And for the agencies themselves, we, we do work with them to develop reporting tools that will move their work, that are appropriate for the agency's work, not appropriate for, you know, public consumption. I recall from conversations with Roman and the leadership team at DCAS that they had worked with you all to pull some reports on spending on master contracts, and my recollection was that it took a few months to pull it.

Could you help us understand, like— and my recollection from them at the time of the conversation was that they had not been able to get a report like this previously. So I imagine it was a relatively heavy lift. On your all's part, it took months, a bunch of staff time, not an easy thing to do, but important.

Could you just— I guess you've spoken to this a little, but could you elaborate a little further on, like, why it's so hard to get these reports out of Passport? And did— do you know if the data that was ultimately provided to DCAS was helpful in kind of understanding master contract spend and— if there were insights that have helped shape better policy as a result?

Mm-hmm. I am familiar with that particular DCAS request for a report and information pulled from Passport. The— I'll have to just, again, based on memory. I— so, big picture, MOCS is responsible for lots of required reporting. from a variety of sources. Council required reporting is a batch of them. We also, we produce a lot of reports on not just procurement, but on spending and also on NWBE utilization.

So we do prioritize our legally required reports that we have to, that we have to do. For ad hoc requests, sometimes they fall into a queue, and that may have— I'm not saying for sure, but just generally speaking— Sure. Sometimes that attributes to the delay on how fast we can turn around a report. On this— the DCAS report, I do remember seeing that particular report, and what is beneficial for reports in that particular instance and in others is when you can see patterns emerge from the data.

And because there was enough information in that particular report, that pattern was very informative, but the pattern is also informative to maybe be predictive in how we move forward. So that one, that's my memory on that one without— Yeah. going too deeply into that one. I think that— is there— does Passport allow for kind of real-time tracking of key metrics that are priority, kind of priorities for you, like contract registrations, budget modification approvals, Invoice payments, like, does Passport serve as an effective tool for you to be able to run reports and get good answers on, like, how efficiently you're doing your processing these things and getting this work done?

In part. In part. Certainly, the information is there. The data is there. We do rely on some supplemental tools to help us do what you're describing. Also, there are, you know, one that's very common is there's a tool, Power BI. Power BI is a very well-known tool for taking a lot of data and visualizing a certain way that's very easy to consume.

So, from time to time, we do do Power BI reports. Okay.

I'm just going to do a few more topics, and then we can call it a day. I'm just interested in how you evaluate Passport, especially as you think about kind of looking ahead to a contract deadline. Are there ways— do the EvaluA and Accenture contracts have performance metrics connected to them? or a performance component. Are there metrics for Passport as a whole that you evaluate the system's functionality on?

It's a great question. It's a great question that is worth continuing to evolve our thinking around. Certainly, some of the things that we focus on at a very rudimentary level is is we want the system to be up. You know, when you try to log into it, it's responsive to you and you can log into it. In preparing for this, we took a look back.

The system was up, I wanna, it was up 99.1% of the time. Wow. Or even more than that. So the system wasn't out, it wasn't down. So that's certainly, that's positive. The other thing that we track, and that's on the technology itself. The other thing that we are continuing to count, you know, I'll rattle off some stats.

So to date, the registered— the number of registered contracts is 35,330. The number of amendments, 22,605. Overall contract value on those $187 billion. The amendment value, $27 billion. The number of invoices disbursed, 472,000. For fiscal year '26, the number of invoices created, 135,000, and that's a 12% increase over FY '25. So we certainly see that the, that the workload of the City of New York is being supported in the system.

Yeah. We're also tracking on the number of vendors who are in the system, the number of agencies who are in the system. The number of vendors filed is about 34,000. The number of active agency users, 123,000. And we see that the traffic in the system, about 87,000 used the system last year. So, those are some of the metrics.

And those are around the technology itself. And I will say, what is more important to me is some of the things we were speaking about earlier, on-time contract registration, on-time payment, and the technology should be supportive of the business. That's priority. That's helpful. I mean, I think that broadly, it's— the system works. We're processing a phenomenal amount of activity through it.

It's just, I think, the question of, like, does it work as efficiently as it should, and does it meet our multiplicity of needs as efficiently as it should? So— but appreciate that it is effective, and we are— executing on the things that we need to as a city. And the data points that you just referenced are quite remarkable.

Just briefly on DOE kind of announcing a new procurement system, did they consult with you and the MOX team on this decision to procure a separate contract rather than finally adopting Passport or becoming a Passport user? I certainly knew of those conversations. There were some prior conversations in the last administration of potentially having DOE come into Passport.

At that time, there were some governance questions that we— there will always continue to be governance conversations around The technology solutions serving the mayoral agencies versus DOE. And we did not resolve those governance issues. I do understand, or do have knowledge of that there's some space to modernize the procurement and contracting systems at DOE. Yeah. I just wish that we were all working together on the same page on it.

They're the biggest agency in the city, and it just— if they're going to be taking a whole new direction, did it make sense for the city as a whole to take a direction with them, or are they going to continue to kind of operate in their own silo?

And then I just briefly would like to ask about the ballot questions since they feel timely. Ballot Question 2 has several measures that would impact MOCS. It would let the Procurement Policy Board set the contents of the vendor question And allow certain vendors, like small businesses, to file less paperwork. Good thing. Can you expand on what impact this would have on vendors, and if approved, how would MOCS implement this?

So, Chair, thank you for raising this because Election Day is around the corner and early voting has already opened. So on this particular question— Have you voted yet? I have not voted yet. I'm waiting to get my sticker on actual Election Day. All right. You're not doing more research onto the ballot questions? That's not the outstanding piece of work?

I'm going to follow all the social media on it. Okay. Well, maybe your testimony today will help educate people about Question 2 and whether they should support it. Yes, yes. So, on that, overall, the procurement rules and the policies, it's been a collection and layer upon layer. And often what happens is something bad will happen in the contracting space and in the procurement space, and folks will, with well intentions, will put a policy in place that served a purpose for a particular set of circumstances and a particular time and place.

However, what the government and we all struggle with is doing a look back and Does that still serve us? Something that was put in place 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. I want to say that the Vendex, or the vendor questionnaire, the principal questionnaire, it's probably been around for 30 years, if not more. So it is time for us to take another look, and it just makes sense that we are not a one-size-fits-all approach.

There are lots of different organizations that contract with the City of New York, and it does make sense to have a little bit more of a tailored approach and different risk allocation measures for what we're seeing in the contracting activity. And the proposal would allow the mayor to delegate to agency chief contracting officers, to ACOs, the approval of contracts over $5 million that are awarded without competitive bidding, which the mayor cannot delegate today.

The commission estimated that the delegation could save 1 to 2 weeks on On a procurement. Do you have an estimate of how many contracts this would impact? Like how many contracts we're looking at that are over $5 million without a competitive process? And if approval is delegated to an ACO, what role would MOCS play in reviewing those contracts?

I can come back with the number. The number is not great. It's not large. I think it's in the thousands. Oh, you think thousands of contracts over $5 million without a competitive process? Maybe depending on the year. But we can provide some numbers. We can provide some— look back and provide some numbers. I would have guessed smaller.

What did you guess? I guessed it was— Molly, what did you think? Molly doesn't know. I would have guessed a couple hundred. A couple hundred? You may be closer. That, but— Yeah, yes. And when we're confronted with this question around delegations and this applies to question number 2, but then even beyond. Delegation is not abdication. Delegation is a controlled tool to allow some things to move based upon the circumstances.

We will still retain oversight, and we will still try to— we will try to ensure the accountability. We'll do spot checks. And the other thing is, we always want to position our agency Chief Contracting Officers well, and we do that through professional development, and we will still maintain that. Great. The proposal would also make the permanent— would make permanent the use of a public comment period in place of a public hearing for contract awards and would allow the Procurement Policy Board to raise the contract value that requires public comment beginning in 2030.

The Commission estimated that the proposal's reforms together could save up to 30 days on a procurement. Do you agree with that estimate, and how often are hearings currently held now? I do agree with it. I— and I— Was it your estimate? No, it was not my estimate. Oh, okay. I appreciate that, though. I also, going back to sort of my earlier point about procurement being this collection of things that have evolved over the passage of time, public hearing, public comment have had their moment in time.

And so much of what we do now, putting information on— publicly available on the website, sort of satiates this public notice. And so, doing away with some of the more rigid requirements that exist in the Charter, those are all welcome. Thank you. sort of evolution of— in modernizing procurement and contracting. And just tell me again, how often are these hearings held?

Is it more than once a month? I think it's less than once a month. Oh, really? It's less than once a month. But we will come back. Does anyone ever come? Yes. It depends on the topic. Mostly for the shelter contracts? Yes. It's for the shelter contracts people show up and less for other stuff? Or a particular procurement that happens to be controversial, as much as that happens.

Right. Because I felt like when I was involved in shelter siting, people would have those contracts on their radar as, like, a way where they could just, like, go and scream about something that they didn't like. Yes. A little bit of NIMBY happening. Yes. Yeah. Okay. You okay?

I think that that covers all of our questions for the day. Thank you for making yourself available and for your thoughtful answers. And I think the informative conversation. We really appreciate it. So thank you so much, Director Yu. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I'm good. Thank you. The— I have to now read something out loud that says In advance of a public comment period, I just need to find my notes.

Here we go. I now open the hearing for public testimony. I remind members of the public this is a formal government proceeding and that decorum shall be observed at all times. As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recordings to Sergeant of Arms for inclusion in the hearing record. If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out a period. card with the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to be recognized. When recognized, you will have 3 minutes to speak on today's hearing topic.

If you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to the Sergeant-at-Arms. You may also email written testimony to testimonycouncil@nyc.gov within 72 hours of this hearing. Audio and video recordings will not be accepted. We will now call up the first panel, which involves Charles Diamond, and online we have somebody else, and they can testify as well, Jessie Faye Parrott.

Thank you both. Thank you. We'll start with Mr. Diamond and then go online.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chair, to the entire Council. How are you doing? I'm going to repeat a stat you've heard me say many times before, but regarding how much we're spending on Passport and given what we're doing. We talk about, I think, $40 billion annually is a good estimate. This year, with the report that was just released, it was $36 billion.

The year before that, we were closer to $45 billion. $40 billion annually, and our benchmark is $10 million for maintenance. That's 0.025%. The total OTPS spending for MOCS, the only agency responsible for any of the spending on Passport, is $14 million this year. That's down from $22 million the year before. As I said it before, we're not going to get better procurement outcomes unless we invest in it and we actually care about it.

I think, I think Director Yu spoke incredibly honestly and powerfully about maintaining the system. and the importance of doing that. But you also mentioned the list, which I think we've all seen at various different times. It is very long. We know what to do, and I would really urge the council to get the administration to take this more seriously, where they're going to put the money, not just into MOCS, but also into the staffing at the different agencies, into more dynamic standardization, into all the change of management that that requires, not just spending on Passport.

So really, I just wanted to point out once again the disparity between what we're asking the system to do, which is $40 billion a year of transactions, and what we're willing to spend to maintain it. So I think we need to be realistic about that, in particular when we talk about these persistent problems that have not gone away.

I want to bring up a couple of things that came up. You mentioned the DOE collaboration. Of course, we've been, we've been going through a kind of 2019 history time. I remember back then as well, when I was with the Comptroller's Office, there was an agreement made based off of some DOE scandals that DOE would work work closely with MOX and basically take a lot of MOX advice and do things like that.

That and DOE would send some money to MOX to observe that. That's even before the potential incorporation into Passport. Those efforts are clearly no longer there. And I think when we see DOE again saying, we're bringing every resource to bear, we're going to create a new system, these are problems that we've known about for a very, very, very long time.

So I do think connecting the issues of how much are we spending to support procurement versus what's going on at DOE is very important. It would be scary if they end up spending $25 million on a solution when we're not willing to spend that on something that's the whole thing. Ballot Proposal Number 2, briefly, I would mention with the public hearings process, I was part of the team that made that happen.

Back in the day, we got public comment on less than 1% of all contracts. That was the official line. My estimate, which I testified to the state legislature of, many, many years ago is 25 days that we saved by going to online notice and comment compared to the old process. But it's what we're doing right now. We have to do it.

I certainly think everyone should vote yes on their fantastic proposals across the board. I would note, Chair Ressler, on the idea of the approvals, I would— of those contracts over $5 million, as I've mentioned in other hearings as well, that's a bit of a red herring. That all, frankly, can all be done. The really, really most fantastic thing I think is mandatory quarterly meetings for the Procurement Policy Board, which will really make sure that we can't ignore reform.

Thank you.

Thank you. I will note on the record that it's up to the administration to choose to have as many Procurement Policy Board hearings as they want. They don't need a ballot amendment to charter revision— a charter amendment to have quarterly meetings, but mandating it is a welcome thing. And with that, I will kick it to Jesse Faye Parrott online.

Welcome, Jesse. You may begin.

Hi everybody, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much for having me today. My name is Jesse Faye Parrott and I'm a policy analyst at the Human Services Council. We are a membership organization representing over 180 human services providers across the state. HSC serves as an advocate and intermediary between the sector and the government.

We take on this work so that our members can focus on providing critical direct support for New Yorkers. Historically, the procurement process has been rife for nonprofits with chronic delays that cost significant time and money. Passport is no different, with chronic delays at every step of the process. Passport lacks an accessible user interface, and many providers report preferring HHS Accelerator for its accessibility and design in partnership with the sector.

The nonprofit provider is the end user of Passport and should be part of the conversation in fixing it. There is no centralized city policy on agency use of Passport and information management. Some agencies use other systems in addition to Passport, such as DYCD Connect. Doubling document submission time is a significant burden on providers who are already stretched very thin when they have to work in more than one online platform.

Issues with Passport also put financial strain on nonprofit providers. In Passport, once you submit a budget mod, you can no longer submit invoices until the mod is approved. I know that Dr. Yu spoke about this earlier, and I really appreciate the upcoming release of Passport 7. However, this is not a city procurement policy, but a quirk of Passport.

Providers are put in impossible positions having to choose when to submit budget mods, as that will directly impact their cash flow since they are not able to invoice for however long the budget mod approval takes. These delays pile up and providers can be owed years of retroactive budget add-ons like the COLA and indirect cost rates. The city has promised to fix this issue and has yet to roll out a solution, but hopefully soon I will be corrected.

Late payments to providers are not an accounting hiccup. When reimbursement lags by months or even years, providers cannot respond to crises and end up in crisis themselves. As providers take on debt to meet needs when the city doesn't pay, staff burn out and programs close. Although the city has taken on reform efforts to address the procurement challenges that nonprofits face, the primary technological infrastructure in the procurement process is inaccessible, inefficient, and contributes to massive delays.

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify. I am looking forward to working further with you to support our life-saving essential human services providers, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.

I really appreciate you both taking the time to testify today and share your insights and expertise. It is greatly appreciated, and I wish we had a few more people here to share their opinions about Passport, but I really appreciate each of yours. So thank you both for taking the time today. Hope you both have a great afternoon.

And with that, I am going to adjourn this hearing. Thank you, everybody. Actually, the sergeant-at-arms.