June 25, 2003
Water Bureau Billing Mess Continues To Stir Controversy
As if the debacle of the City's new billing software for the Water Bureau weren't bad enough as it is, KGW reports on concerns with the procurement process to fix the issue:
A review of the bidding process found two potential pitfalls that could have tainted their efforts: A reliance on a consultant with possible conflicts of interest, and an apparent failure by the city to scrutinize the track records of contractors on their finalist list.
One of the main issues appears to be that the City's consultant is a former employee of a firm from Bend, Oregon, whose bid was rejected. The consultant, according to the article left that firm on "bad terms" -- which creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Water Bureau commissioner Dan Saltzman said Crapeau never shared his employment history, which left Saltzman unaware of the potential conflict of interest as Crapeau advised the city against considering Orcom's proposal.
Crapeau denies rejecting his former employer out of bias. He said Orcom's approach of only leasing, as opposed to selling, its billing software would leave the city in a position of giving up too much control.
What baffles me most here is that the City would take on a consultant without knowing their employment history. I'm sorry, wouldn't requiring an employment history be considered more or less no-brainer standard practice? Who the Hell had the bright idea to bring on a consultant without knowing his history?
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that it was a wrong decision to reject this firm's bid. It means that the decision to do so is tainted. Although, as you'll see if you read the full story from KGW, there does appear to be evidence that Orcom's solution is worth considering, especially when examined in the context of apparent negative opinions on the part of other clients who have used systems by firms whose bids are still being considered by the City.
I admit, I haven't really followed the entire Water Bureau billing story. And it is, of course, possible, that this KGW piece is only the first part of this new chapter, and later discoveries will mute its assertions.
At this stage, however, it would certainly appear that at the very least the City seriously bungled whatever process it used to bring on the consultant.
Posted at 11:57 AM | PermalinkComments (1) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
The Portland Water Billing fiasco continues on its merry ways on 26 Jun 2003
As many people in the Portland area are aware, the Portland Water Bureau has been having difficulties over the last few years or so with consultants, software, spending money on useless computer programs, and getting water bills somewhat correct (at le...
Comments (1)
Dave Lister on 25 Jun 2003
I have been developing business software for over twenty years. I contacted Commissioner Saltzman in December of last year when it was publicly announced (in the Oregonian) that a replacement system was being sought. At that time I warned him to "beware of the RFP (request for proposal) process. Presumably it was an RFP which resulted in the Severn Trent bid award and a similar RFP will most likely produce similar results".
The Commisioner thanked me for my input and invited me to review the RFP. I found it to be severely flawed and so advised him. My criticisms were rebuffed by Richard Hofland of OMF who assured me that the City "knew what they were doing". The entire story spans six months and is too long to post here, but more will be appearing in the media over the weeks to come.
The bottom line is that the KGW assessment is correct. In my professional opinion, water bureau billing software "round 2" is another boondoggle in the making. If folks have not already read the KGW report they should get on their website and check it out.