Council Nears Decision on Software Procurement
The issue of purchasing new software for the City is coming to a conclusion following some vicious, inaccurate attacks in the blogosphere and some discussions at meetings of the City Council. Some of the attacks contain blurbs of information known only to the Council and staff. Is Innoprise the lowest responsible bidder as required by the Charter?
A month before I became a member of the Council, a resident informed me that Innoprise had some serious issues with city staff. In a phone conversation, Mr. Harward said that he was told that he would lose the contract on the Sales Tax software if he talked to anyone about why he was not being considered further for the entire package. On February 4th, Brent Worthington cancelled the purchase as threatened in an email.
The second allegation is far more serious. I have verified the following from two separate, unrelated sources. A department head member of the team selecting the software company stated that, Innoprise will not be considered for the contract if Scott S. comes anywhere near the City. He made the statement to staff before the selection process began. Who is Scott S.? He is an employee of Innoprise who formerly worked for the City.
Not surprisingly, during the selection process, the team members compiled over thirty “concerns” they developed during Innoprise’s demonstration. Many of them were misleading and inaccurate and others begged for the question to be asked. Nevertheless, they were submitted to the Council without review or correction. I personally verified with the staff’s consultant this last Friday that the compilation had inaccurate and false allegations and that she had so informed staff members of the same at the time.
On April 17th Innoprise had an opportunity to demonstrate the software at the request of Council in a study session. The staff sat almost at a right angle to the screen and showed their disinterest. The Council had, after all, ordered the demonstration after they had submitted their recommendation.
Several days earlier I asked the City Manager if the staff was going to participate in the demo by asking questions or for clarifications. He said they would only be in attendance and it turned out that they were bumps on a log. It was a shame because Innoprise demonstrated programs that refuted many of the false staff “concerns” one by one.
Is Innoprise the lowest responsible bidder as required by Charter? Based on information submitted by the City Manager to the Council on May 1st; he stated that Springbrook had the lower price. WRONG. In reality Innoprise is lower by over a hundred thousand and that does not include the $105,000 discount offered by Innoprise earlier in the week but not detailed to Council in the email or in a separate email hours after the details were received.
Furthermore, the Innoprise proposal is one all inclusive price. The staff’s recommended vendor’s contract (Springbrook) has a slew of additional charges and limits that have not been shared with the Council. Additionally, Springbrook could not provide the required sales tax module but the Manager did not take that into consideration in his email.
What was staff’s reaction to the missing module? We’ll go without a new one and let the present program “stand alone.” In his email, the Manager did not inform the Council he was comparing apples to oranges or include the additional costs required to maintain a dual system of servers. That cost alone is over $15,000 per year until the sales tax software is replaced.
Is Innoprise the lowest “responsible” bidder? The one module that Innoprise did not have ready last November, and which was not required by staff until February (Award Date), was Payroll/HR. Starting in February the complete software package, including Payroll/HR is or has been purchased by the Councils of Broomfield, Erie, Greenwood Village, Loveland, Louisville, Sheridan and Cheyenne. Brighton is following suit.
The Councils of the following neighboring cities have also purchased individual modules: Boulder, Littleton, Lone Tree and Greeley.
The Council has leveled the playing field for Innoprise and now we will debate the merits and true costs of both bidders.
A month before I became a member of the Council, a resident informed me that Innoprise had some serious issues with city staff. In a phone conversation, Mr. Harward said that he was told that he would lose the contract on the Sales Tax software if he talked to anyone about why he was not being considered further for the entire package. On February 4th, Brent Worthington cancelled the purchase as threatened in an email.
The second allegation is far more serious. I have verified the following from two separate, unrelated sources. A department head member of the team selecting the software company stated that, Innoprise will not be considered for the contract if Scott S. comes anywhere near the City. He made the statement to staff before the selection process began. Who is Scott S.? He is an employee of Innoprise who formerly worked for the City.
Not surprisingly, during the selection process, the team members compiled over thirty “concerns” they developed during Innoprise’s demonstration. Many of them were misleading and inaccurate and others begged for the question to be asked. Nevertheless, they were submitted to the Council without review or correction. I personally verified with the staff’s consultant this last Friday that the compilation had inaccurate and false allegations and that she had so informed staff members of the same at the time.
On April 17th Innoprise had an opportunity to demonstrate the software at the request of Council in a study session. The staff sat almost at a right angle to the screen and showed their disinterest. The Council had, after all, ordered the demonstration after they had submitted their recommendation.
Several days earlier I asked the City Manager if the staff was going to participate in the demo by asking questions or for clarifications. He said they would only be in attendance and it turned out that they were bumps on a log. It was a shame because Innoprise demonstrated programs that refuted many of the false staff “concerns” one by one.
Is Innoprise the lowest responsible bidder as required by Charter? Based on information submitted by the City Manager to the Council on May 1st; he stated that Springbrook had the lower price. WRONG. In reality Innoprise is lower by over a hundred thousand and that does not include the $105,000 discount offered by Innoprise earlier in the week but not detailed to Council in the email or in a separate email hours after the details were received.
Furthermore, the Innoprise proposal is one all inclusive price. The staff’s recommended vendor’s contract (Springbrook) has a slew of additional charges and limits that have not been shared with the Council. Additionally, Springbrook could not provide the required sales tax module but the Manager did not take that into consideration in his email.
What was staff’s reaction to the missing module? We’ll go without a new one and let the present program “stand alone.” In his email, the Manager did not inform the Council he was comparing apples to oranges or include the additional costs required to maintain a dual system of servers. That cost alone is over $15,000 per year until the sales tax software is replaced.
Is Innoprise the lowest “responsible” bidder? The one module that Innoprise did not have ready last November, and which was not required by staff until February (Award Date), was Payroll/HR. Starting in February the complete software package, including Payroll/HR is or has been purchased by the Councils of Broomfield, Erie, Greenwood Village, Loveland, Louisville, Sheridan and Cheyenne. Brighton is following suit.
The Councils of the following neighboring cities have also purchased individual modules: Boulder, Littleton, Lone Tree and Greeley.
The Council has leveled the playing field for Innoprise and now we will debate the merits and true costs of both bidders.
posted by Gene Wieneke at
6:05 PM
|
0 comments
