New York City’s costs are approaching $50 million to custom-build an eProcurement system when the City of Dallas got one for less than $50,000. Spend Matter’s full-throated defense of the Big Apple boondoggle caused us to take a look at the influential industry website itself. We were surprised at what we learned.
Two years and tens of millions of dollars into a contract for an eProcurement system, there was no design.
Michael Owh moved to Los Angeles as the bungled, $30.5 million contract missed deadline after deadline. Now costs are approaching $50 million and the custom built platform intended for use by 40 city agencies still doesn’t work as promised.
At the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services, the responses to our public records requests make the staff look like they’re hiding something.
Two years after the $30.5 million contract was signed, the expensive project to custom-build an online eProcurement platform for use by City government agencies didn’t work as promised. But instead of cancelling the contract it was increased by $15 million.
It appears that KPMG used persistent lobbying to obtain the $30,515,448.83 contract. The Dallas system cost just under $50,000.
What Role Did KPMG’s Procurement Practice Leader Play in Securing a Lucrative Contract for the iValua-KPMG Partnership? Since Checks and Balances Project began an examination into the lucrative industry of selling e-procurement software to local and state government agencies, we’ve grown particularly interested in the way in which the software has been purchased by New… Read more »
In December 2016, KPMG and Ivalua announced an alliance. That same month, they were selected by the City of New York to use Ivalua’s e-procurement software and transform how some 40 agencies spend approximately $15 billion annually. The deal was subject to oversight by the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services. Did Ivalua’s superior technology win the day? Perhaps. Or was it KPMG’s persistent lobbying on procurement that stretched back to at least 2014?
An anonymous tip received by Checks and Balances Project suggests lobbyists and former officials may be persuading state government purchasing officials to buy expensive E-procurement software through questionable contracts.