Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Hi, everybody. Welcome to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Wednesday, April 22, and we are here with Lisa Gobin, IT Consultant for Joint Fiscal. And we're going to talk a little bit about a letter that we are going to be sending as a committee to Finance Commissioner Gresham as a follow-up to our discussions about the FY '27 state budget and changes to the way the EDS budget is structured. That probably won't take too too long. And then after that, we're just going to move into a conversation with Lisa about the ECMO dashboard and then the projects that she tracks as an independent nonpartisan consultant for JFO across state IT. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Greg.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, model two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Roland four. Territory, Washington two.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Graham Club, Dara Torre, 13. You are Sibilia, medium two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And joining us today, have an esteemed guest. Marty

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: Feltis from

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the Upper Raceland. Super. Alright. Lisa, for the record.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Great. For the record, Lisa Goggin, JFO, IT consultant. After the changes in spending authority in the ADS budget, there were some discussions that Emily Byrne and James Duffy had with Commissioner Gresham about how we would track IT projects with that changes with those changes. And this memo is acknowledging the commitment that Commissioner Gresham made to track projects and request that in addition to the IT specific cost, they track the business costs associated with IT projects. So this could be things like the business like for the ERP, there's the business process reengineering contract that they consider a business cost. It could also be costs related to staff augmentation, those types of things. So if they're the rationale is if they're making the changes that they need to track the IT portions, that maybe it would be a good opportunity to track the business portions. We're always looking for that information. And maybe, you know, you know, I'm not sure what they'll agree to. This came up in senate institutions and I wasn't under the impression that he was positive about doing it, but then when I mentioned those particular contracts, he seemed more open because they're they're very discreet. You know? So maybe you know, it doesn't hurt to ask, and I think it would be the benefit to the state as well to understand the full cost of the projects and what agencies might expect when they're undertaking a large IT project. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't have a question. I I can't access you you didn't attach this memo to the email. I don't think. I Listen.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: You lost I I can't find it. 857.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Was just

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: now. 857.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. It wasn't it wasn't attached.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Everyone else thinks it was.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Did

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you guys all get it? There it is. Okay. Oh, no. I haven't. We have reached an impasse.

[Unknown (Committee Member, addressed as 'Rep. Haley')]: Because of.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And what I had to go to Saint John's Prairie, think. Was it. Sorry.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's okay. It was down below.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I have a couple of basic questions, which I could have answered myself if I had reviewed this this morning, which I didn't. So I I think that just in terms of starting with the the really basic stuff and then moving to the more complicated stuff. I thought we had a a broader concern or just a more overarching concern that the cost of projects were gonna be hard to track period.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Right. I think I maybe I'm not sure. I think that's what Emily and James met with him and talked about how they would do it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: So I thought that was resolved and the question would be, can we ask, in addition to that tracking, could they also track these costs?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So in terms of just creating a public record and making a thorough memo, and I'm sorry that I haven't worked on this to date, but I think it should start. And if you give me notes, I'm happy to try to draft it. I'm not talking about written notes. Let's just talk it through right now.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'd like to start with after all of our testimony and conversations, our concern remains just the basic we're worried about the basic thing. From testimony with you, you know, from our conversations and committee, our understanding was that you agreed this could be a problem and that you were committed to working on it. I I think we need to reiterate the very basic fundamental underlying thing of, like, are we how are we gonna do this period and then get into

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: the more detailed level stuff? So that information I would have to get from James and Emily in terms of the description of exactly what I believe they had resolved with Commissioner Gretchen on how they would do it. Okay. So I think I need to get that language, but I had it suggested that these costs also be we request that these costs be included as well. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I'm gonna wanna start with the basic stuff. So I'm happy to reach out to James and Emily. Like, don't have to do I I appreciate the start you made on this, but I my work doesn't have to be. It Yeah. Already So I can look back at our budget memo maybe because I think I covered some stuff at a real one on So one level in I I might just FYI. I might be adding some really basic stuff. I'll reach out to James and Emily. Just just to recap, here were our concerns at the at the one zero one level. It's our understanding that you agree this is important, and this is a chart of accounts thing. Right? Because I remembered you said everything's gonna have

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: to be coded. That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So that we can easily pull it. That's correct. Okay.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think you do have that in the budget. It's a letter that went out. Okay. I remember you writing that. Okay. Remember, Marty? May I ask?

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: Yeah. In the house version of the budget, in the language section on the

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: back, it would be

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: E105 something

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: or other.

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: There's comment regarding the change in the accounting, not the accounting system, the budgeting system and the change in the three extra special funds and asking for an accounting of all of tracking of those. I think it was at six months and at twelve months or at least at the BAA, which was at months. And I think it, unfortunately, I don't remember that language, can dig it out, but I think it did ask for a tracking of those costs and how confident they were that that was helping them keep track of the costs and understanding the whole relationship to the underlying computer and model. So we were asking for a report in January, I believe, at that VAA time. Now I don't don't know if the senate has changed that, but I certainly will be in a conference committee with the Senate on the budget I'm sure and we can take a look at what the language is now in the Senate budget if they change it and incorporate perhaps if you have some different thoughts that

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's actually great to know. I I don't think I knew that that language had gotten put into the house passed version of the budget. So that's So I'll go find it. And I I think it's enough to say, you know, we can I can take a couple sentences from our letter if it's relevant? You say it here, Lisa, in in also and I just always wanna translate things to, like, super plain language. And I can also I will I will reference that language in the budget. Because whether it remains in or not, I think it's relevant that the house included that in its house passed version of the budget. Right. Okay. That's really good to know too. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Wondering about adding in to this letter some expectation about transparency. Maybe transparency is the wrong word. More articulation about the modernization fund. So where we've had that interest on the modernization fund get swept, but it also was not there

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: was no planned use for

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that articulated in the budget.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So one thing that I learned just very recently, which maybe everybody else but me knows, but I didn't notice. The rep felt this knows this. That in fact, to to spend that interest money, ADS actually doesn't have have authority to spend that. Mhmm. Did did everybody know that to me? ADS does not have authority to spend that money. They if they wanted to spend that interest money, for example, this year on ERP or on any other project, they need statutory language. They need approval from the legislature. Right. I didn't know. I thought it was just sort of if it was in the bucket, you know, they could they could use it, and they that that's not true. No. The fund was

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: set up with certain appropriations to it saying that interest would accrue to the fund. But in order to pull the interest out, which is what the appropriations committee did, ADS would also have to get authority to take the interest and use it for a specific purpose. Now I think the assumption was that it was gonna stay there in the budget and it couldn't be used, But they would have had to have had specific authority to use that interest money, not just the principal.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So they would have had to come to us either in the governor's budget request or in the BAA or at some point to say we'd like to use this money and here's what we'd like to use it for.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Did I mishear yesterday or misunderstand yesterday that there was a sense that they would that ADS was looking to use those funds soon.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Did I understand that correctly? That's what

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I heard. So so

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I just wanna offer for further enrichment of what we might ask. I think that this project is now how many years old? Oh, I think

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: four, five. Five

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: years old.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Two, three. I think we're approaching our fifth year. Yeah. And it's a ten year contract.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So it seems like it's probably I I guess my expectation would be that we would not that'd be something we would know coming into a legislative session and not something that we would be, like, not knowing when we're developing the budget. And so I don't know how to frame that. I guess the problem that I'm trying to solve keep us with you on the journey, and be thinking in advance of what the legislature will need to know in order to support you in these projects, for example.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, and this is a memo to Commissioner Gresham. Commissioner Gresham, but we could also copy some her to the OHUs.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. And JITalk, maybe. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So I'm gonna be inserting a new paragraph in the second place. So thank you for your testimony. It's my understanding that some of there's gonna be a new paragraph there reiterating the the basics that's gonna incorporate Lisa, your second paragraph with this shift, respectfully request. That'll be we respectfully request. Then I think we get into your the the additional level that you're that you're recommending. So project level tracking should include not only contracts with IT vendors, but also business side contracts that materially support project delivery, such as business process reenumerate tied to IT projects. Can you just translate that for me a little bit more?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: What does that mean? Oh, for example for example, business process re engineering. Is that where you were? Just that whole paragraph.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I'm just wanting to understand make sure I understand what that means or maybe have a few examples.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Starting with the project level tracking. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So it's it's business process reengineering staff augmentation, like when we there's an appropriation to allow, like, labor to add it hire additional people to supplement to to backfill while staff work on the project. Those types of costs are business specific. So they still might be contracts, they could be professional services contracts, but it's managed by the business of those costs. Because within EDS, they never included those contacts with cost of projects. They started to, and some of the ERP, because I think they were trying to get some money for staff logging patients, so they mentioned it. It's been an ongoing problem and I know Senator Mitchell, when she was here, was really determined to try and scrap that nut and understand what the business costs were. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So can you I what I'd like to say is, for example, and then just have a really basic example. I think staff business staff augmentation.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Oh, I guess that's not a c. You're looking for I'm just looking for for hiring temps to backfill Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. For example, hiring temps to fill in

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: To backfill program staff who are working on a project.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For pro okay. Yeah. Hiring temps to cover. So, this is where the old journalism training comes So, hiring temps to cover for For Agency staff. No. Hiring temps to cover for Agency staff. Agency employees. That are assigned to the project for significance. None of their time. If not all all of their time. For a significant amount of time. That's great. That's helpful. Okay. Okay. No. That's It's

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: like it it it gets so in, you know, ingrained these terms that, like, what do you mean? Yeah. It's hard to translate like that. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sure. So consistent charted accounts code in

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And and and you meant also you probably said this, but I just missed it. That includes dedicated staff time. Sure. Yes. That is being doing these projects to guide the the implementers who are the who are the people who are figuring out what the project's going to do.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Just like ADS assigns their staff and bills,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: you know, tracks that cost.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But it's not but, I mean, what I'm saying is it's not it's not only tenants to fill in or something. That's right. It's also it's also staff time.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And that's where I think it's gonna get interesting to see, you know, how how they react to that. Yeah. Because it's what it's easier to track a contract

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Than it is

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Sure. It's just like, at the end of the day, where did you spend your time?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yeah. Right? Exactly. That's exactly

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: right. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I could where you say associated state staffing and operating costs should be tracked, is it accurate to say this information is not currently

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: it's inconsistent,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I would say. It is

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Like, either not available or inconsistent? Yes. For example, I've

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: been told some staff have counted their time towards the project, like the ERP, but others haven't.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, hang on. I mean, it's always gonna be consistent because it's always it's hard to know. It's hard for a person to say, I spent two hours on this and an hour and a half on that today, but but at least needs to be an attempt Yeah. To to try it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. And then consistent coding. Mhmm. Thank you so much. And then maybe some more and then maybe some language that's more for commissioner and all involved that clear articulation around the use of the IT mod fund would be really helpful, like in the governor's budget recommend.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: Rutland, is anything to add? Yes. I do wanna correct what I had said before. The language in the house version of the budget is it directs the agency of digital services and consultation with finance and management to come back with a plan on how they can mitigate the deficit in the information technology fund.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: I sent that one. With with the plan of how I sent

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that to you.

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: What they might do if they need more revenue or how to change expenditures or that kind of thing, which ties into the the reorganization of those three additional internal service funds. But it does not specifically say report on the outcome of having the three separate internal service funds. Okay. Well, we can still add. So your memo would be problem at issue Okay. For for them to have.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Alright. So I think I know what I need to do. Does anybody have additional thoughts? Obviously, I'll send a draft to everybody and to you, Lisa, to make sure everything's accurate. Sure. Okay. And it sounds like I should copy Emily and James. Yes. Okay. Alright. Good.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So we have time for

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: a quick follow-up to yesterday's conversation on ERP while we have Lisa here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we do because we have Lisa here for another, like, hour to talk about all the state IT projects she's tracking.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And that's one of them.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And that's one of them.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Included in Yes. In the FM. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's well, that's what we're doing Next. So if we're done with the letter, the memo. Okay. Alright. Lisa, thanks for getting us started on that. I Sure. I wouldn't honestly, if I would have struggled to start, but now I think I can get a

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: second draft ready for everybody to look at. Okay. I'm just jumping to the next one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So now moving along, we are going to talk with Lisa about the EPO dashboard specifically, but then in a larger context, all of the projects that she is tracking for JFO whether on or off the dashboard. So

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: So do you want me to jump to the dashboard?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Do

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you wanna start with ERP? What do you wanna how do

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: you wanna do it? Well, here's my thoughts. I know Stacy's coming in tomorrow to talk about it. I gathered I used the information from what we gathered for DiveTalk last fall to so you had so each project also has a lot of the cost information and appropriation information that we had already gathered, and then I give a current update on what's happening in that project as of today. I know you're meeting with her. We could look and see how these are reflected in the dashboard on in prep for her meeting Okay. If you want. I just have to get there because I was having bandwidth problems here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, jeez. Well, we have plenty of time. I mean

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: So so do you wanna just go through the projects now, and maybe we can talk about the ERP, and then we can look Yeah. At the dashboard.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Does that sound okay to everybody? Great. And Lisa, you do turn that in, right? Yes. Okay, great. Okay,

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Okay, so this is the summary of the broad as you know, I only have monitoring a sub small part of the IT projects that are out there. And then there are some that we have planned coming up for reviews. So I'll go through all of those. The first one is the unemployment insurance modernization. And you'll note that I included all the appropriations that were authorized from the mod fund. The fact that I did the JFO review in January 2024, which approved the release of 30,000,000. And then we have the total funds for the project is 52.3 millions based on appropriations in FY '22 and '23. And there was also an increase in the Vermont Department of Labor operating budget to support the project. That was permanent, I believe. And the total cost for the twenty five month implementation over three years was 45,300,000. There's been a contract amendment and that was done after they consolidated the phase one and phase two. And they said they had savings based on that consolidations, but they were gonna use that for additional features that were offered through the product that were meaningful to them. So, you'll notice there's a gap in there, the the 52.3 total funds available and the 45,300,000. That was supposed to be used as another vendor that would go in for business process reengineering, but commissioner Smith told me that was not offered to them and they thought because it's such a specialized area, it would be difficult to find a vendor with that skill set that could do it, so they would do it internally. So, it's an interesting number with that gap now. So, there's like a $7,000,000 gap on the difference between what was available and what you're spending. I'm not sure if that is still the case. We would have to see in the final ABC form. Yeah. We'll just do the gap one more time. Okay. This 53,000,000 total funds available for the project. Yep. 53.2. And that's everything from what was appropriate to to savings in the the operating budget from cost supporting the old systems, you know, so those types of things. And then now there's a total cost for the contract for the implementation was 45.3. Mhmm. And and the management operations, so that includes like the ADS staffing and all of that. Okay. So that was what was predicted at that the beginning of the project. And the actual contract cost for FAST didn't, it actually, it it even though they did an amendment, we expect it to be a bit probably the same. So if they're not using that money for the business process re engineering, Granted, this is over a specific time period that that savings is, but I just wanted to note that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So this is under budget?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: It it appears, that, you know, you know how it goes. You have to see what the final numbers are.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: When would we like, when would the legislature see that gap? Well These gap funds.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Where Typically When and where? Typically, would they produce another report at the very end of the project where they showed what the actual expenditures were on a project, so we can look for that. I raised it with JFO when I noticed it because, you know, it it was a surprise to me that that wasn't

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: used. So and you may not know the answer to this. Like, I'm sorry. I was recognized.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Not sure

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: if you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't think I need to look. Okay. The the so

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I'm trying to understand

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the legislature when and where the legislature has the opportunity to do its job of providing oversight. And so do you know when or how that gap how would the legislature know about that? Like, does it come to us in

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: an court? Does Or is it something that we would have to go case by case to look at? It does I think we would notice it at the end, and it's possible that End of the project. Yeah. That where you understand where something was put out there, here's what we have available to it Mhmm. And here's what we're spending. And then if it's an internal operating cost, I I think that they they do have some flexibility at labor to determine how they use it. They they just have reported this as this is what's available to the project initially. And that we have this is how it how we end it. I I think it's interesting to look back, is why I raised it when I noticed it in my notes and pulled it forward into this document. It's it's just another, you know, question that we could pose to to labor perhaps.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And what is the question that you have posed?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: The question is it there were there were 52,300,000 that were said to be available for this project. Mhmm. And based on the information that's provided to us, it appears that 45,300,000 was accounted for or planned to be spent. And that the reason they they they said the gap for that 7,000,000 is going to be used for business process reengineering and that project wasn't done. They decided to do that internally. So I think, you know, that's where you start with the question. So since you're not doing that, what what happened to that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Campbell? I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: must have missed this when you were talking about the beginning of this memo. Says 27,000,000 from the Tech Mod Fund in 2022 and $30,000,000 released from the f y twenty three budget 2024. Oh,

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: yeah. And you Sounds like it's $57,000,000.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: is that is that wrong, or is that

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: That's a good question because I'm wondering if these because I pulled this from the GI talk memo when we were tracing back all the class for that. So whether this was an error or did we actually pull a number before we do about something else? I don't know the answer. I'm gonna have to look that up. Okay. Thank you for noticing that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So you're gonna be looking up what actually was available? Yeah.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I'm gonna look at the what was appropriated. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So in terms of and I know we're gonna keep talking project by project, but I've been trying to I've been thinking a lot about rep Sibilia's question just I mean, since the whole biennium about how can we do our job, our oversight job. And it it seems to me like our our obvious leverage point is the money, which is what we allocate. So anytime there's a request for, you know, an appropriation, we need to make sure we have the information we need to make a good decision. So, we need to make sure that the requests are clear in the Governor's recommended budget. So, we'll talk a little we're gonna talk a little bit about that memo. That so, if there is gonna be a specific any kind of specific request that is really clear and easy to find at the Governor's recommended budget, one. Two, that I'm sure I lost my thought. I hate it when that happens. So, the governor's recommended budget. Two, that any statutory authority is clear from the outset. And then three, this more important question of where the money goes then. You know? So the information we're putting in this memo about we wanna make sure that we can see all the spending easily across all of state agencies and departments. And that that's easy to find and easy to track and easy for us to look up. And then we have you, and then we have the Up Mode dashboard.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: So are we missing Well, I think at some point, remember all those categories that I do in the reviews? Mhmm. Those were deemed necessary to understand whether or not we felt comfortable making investment. And over time, the types of information that is available to us when we're request when they're requesting budget isn't always available. And so, seems a bit unfair that, you know, even in state government before ABS was formed, and we've talked about this before, you know, when you when you had another CIO at at at Department of Information and Innovation, they had standards for what agencies had to provide to them before they would agree that they could ask for money or even do the project. And that's degraded. We're we're not getting the same type of information, but ADS is initiating a new protocol at the beginning of projects if they're referring it to it as project initiations. So, it could be that there's more information available to us because they've added this to the to the process. So we wouldn't end I don't believe we would end up with something like the ERP where there were requirements documented for a project. It would go through that process, so we might start to get better information. But I think, you know, it's difficult if to to fund it to ask to be fund fund a project when you don't have information about whether, you know, it's to standard or, you know, or should

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: be planned. And

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I would add that it's also difficult to understand why some projects are not funded or others aren't out of that information. And Yeah. You know, I'll just say being really candid because, you know, I like to hold back. I find that I find this to be really frustrating. It I don't even sense that there's an acknowledgment that the legislature is really having a hard time keeping up here with keeping up, I mean, following along. And that's really constitutionally required. I'm I'm just finding it a little frustrating, just a lack of acknowledgement, because I think an acknowledgement of that fact could then put partners at the table to help us kind of figure this out to make sure that we're all make sure we have great IT that our managers provide and that we understand

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the money. Well, yeah, I was just gonna say, and very uncomfortable position, I'm speaking just for myself, but the very uncomfortable position that I feel I'm put in when I'm being asked to take testimony on and make recommendations about expenditures that are in the tens of millions of dollars without feeling totally confident, like, yep, this is a great investment and we're gonna be able to see into the black box and know what's going on. It's not a great feeling.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think neither party can be effective without solving this problem because we're all stymied. You know? They'll be stymied and and frustrated over their lack of ability to get an appropriation, especially as times get tougher, you're stymied on your ability to do the oversight that you're charged with doing. So, it's a question of how can we both be effective? We both have to come to the table and be willing to work together on it in order to do it. But right now, it doesn't feel optimal. That's for sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Well, Pat, sorry. No.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: This is this is good. So moving on to the current status of this project, it's Yeah. Oh, sorry. Rep. Haley.

[Unknown (Committee Member, addressed as 'Rep. Haley')]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, sorry.

[Unknown (Committee Member, addressed as 'Rep. Haley')]: I know This is a little off the beaten path, but is anything working? Have they got have they got anything that works?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I'm glad you just asked that right at this moment because this project is working. This project is working. They are on track for completion this summer. So I know they have different dates that they've been bouncing back and forth on because they're in UAT and they're they're finishing up and they understand they really understand the importance of getting this right. What's UAT? User acceptance testing. It's at the very end of the project where they make sure everything that they expect out works. So they're doing that now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The people who actually work there are doing it. Yeah. Okay. And they have all

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: of these test scripts that were developed with the help of ABS. Okay. And I think they're up at the say, building up at the airport though, It's just like testing. It's like all these people that are just it's a and so they've done and this this project is definitely one of I mean, ERP's hard, I e and e will be hard, but this project's really hard. You know, they really didn't have much documentation and these old systems and these old language, it was like, or something. Really old. She actually Commissioner Smith, when I was over there last week, they had this great framed photo of the first printout in green bar paper from that system with a date on it from nineteen nineteen seventy. So they've been working really hard. And at JITalk this summer, legally it came to testify and talk about their interest in this project and whether or not they were included. And after that meeting, they, VDAL did follow-up not only with, legal aid, but also other organizations such as the National Association of State, Workforce Agencies and Hire Ability, which is a form of Voc Rehab. They were really committed to having people help them test and give them their opinion from their perspective and their needs, whether the interface worked for them. They were able to, she said, accommodate most of the requests for changes. And and that also luckily, people pretty much had the same input. They they noticed the same types of things, so they were able to, you know, at least make some adjustments based on their needs, which is fantastic. They've also been telling holding some virtual town halls. They had one recently with nine participants, and they have others plans coming up. So in terms of stakeholder engagement, which is sometimes very lacking in some of the projects, they have really been working hard to do that and very responsive to the request from JITalk.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is that typical? Is that common? Or

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: No. I don't think so. I I don't see it in a lot of projects, and I didn't see it with a lot of projects as a support vendor either with other states. So because it you you get so bogged down, it's hard to kind of make the time and but when leadership says, yeah, we're making the time and it is important, there's a lot of payback for this. So it is the good the right thing to do. And they did take that feedback seriously, which is fantastic. So so they're on track. They're, you know, they're they're just in the final stretch. And, you know, it'd be it's a I told them I wanna come to the party that you have because it's it's really an impressive effort. So there are things that go well, and Vermont can do part things.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Good. Yeah. Perfect.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: a more general question.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: If we wanna well, I'm just looking at the dashboard. This might be for secretary Hughes tomorrow or Stacy, but there's including in the the red ones that are in red. The the first one that's in red, I'm not even sure why it's in red because it has estimated implementation costs and current are the same, and the timeline's the same. Then there's half a dozen on here that have no data in initial completion date, estimated cost, any of that stuff. So I'm just I mean, have you are you looking at the dashboard as a whole or just the specific The

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: auditor of accounts was revisiting the audit that they did at the ADS, a few years back. They were revisiting that, but they also included they said they were going to look at the dashboard and check the accuracy of it. So, they're they're working on that. They said the report should be out later this year, So I don't know what they're finding, but I I've noticed some things. And and another thing since we're talking generally about it, I noticed VT buys isn't on that list anymore when I know they went live with minimal viable product, but I believe they're gonna go live with the PO module of it to do purchase orders. And that's going to come out, I think, in the next year. So it's like it was closed down. It's it's not on the the dashboard, but there is still work being done on it, and I'm not sure why. And I think that was a question I was going to suggest for tomorrow.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, let's stay with your you have more projects. Right? Yes. Why don't we let's stay with your written testimony and and go through your projects. And then you were gonna walk us through some dashboard info. Yeah. Also yeah. And then we do have ADS coming in tomorrow specifically to talk about the dashboard and keep projects on the dashboard, and we can get the auditor back into.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: So Great. Ruttory? Thanks, Lisa. I'm just on the UI. Okay. I'm just curious. Is is one of the performance metrics and goals of the modernization project to have more timely access to unemployment? I think that's ingrained in it. Don't remember what they think they had some goals in the original RFP that they listed, but I don't have those in front

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: of me.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And at some point, we could invite them back in to talk about their and what they're seeing. That would be great. Yeah. I know they're they're they're they're really nose to the grindstone between now and go live this summer, but I think they would definitely be wonderful to have them the talk.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So this is a big one you've been tracking. How long have you been tracking this one? Oh, probably

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: three years. Okay. Four years. Actually, when I first started, I was looking at this, before they had issued the RFP. So the next one is the ERP project, and I I'm pointing you to yesterday's discussion on that. We did a pretty big update, but I did wanna check-in and see if there were any other questions about that.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. But, Morrow? Yeah. So in your commentary yesterday, you were saying that STARS and FARS would each require 25 to 30,000,000.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: If they were to be replaced on their own. That's what was listed in the independent review. The CIO's independent review, they look to see what those costs were in other states that recently replaced.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Okay. So the secretary said that this whole ERP project would come in under $60,000,000 yesterday. Seemed cheap compared to some of these other

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: You know, large enterprise wide statewide system. We didn't so. Where are we at in terms of being able to have confidence in that number?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I am not confident in that number because I don't think they've I think they're going to uncover gaps, and I would hope what they're considering the cost of the project is that considering the cost to replace all of the needed functionality within those legacy systems, you know, versus saying, oh, that's a separate project. You know? If we're replacing those systems, I think it should be recorded as that. But

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Well, she if I understood her correctly, she says stars and bars were in there as well.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: She she says that, but it's in the in the risk log. It's the risk log from the people that are managing that project. This fall, it said, we don't know if we can meet the functionality, and they were looking at the the Department of Transportation, STARS system, the time management piece so that the inter where employees put their time, and that's loaded just into STARS. Right? And then there's some way they get the data to vision too. I think they might in that case, they might be double entering some things. But if you can't if you can't collect the time meet the time management, how do you replace stars? You know? And I did talk with some other people to confirm that peep people at labor that that said that, yes, their requirement is exactly the same as STARS. They they each captured data at a lower level of granularity than vision would allow, and that's why they have those systems separate. And if their take was, well, you know, if if we if we if we can't do the time management, we can't do the replacement. So they're committing that they can do it. I think that's great, and I I hope they can. I hope they work it out. But I'm not I haven't heard that anything that it was hopeful, and especially since when when they approved the talk project and they went to JITOC, they said we absolutely can do it, and we're seeing it as a risk. We don't know if we can. So I don't know what the answer is, but it's troubling to me.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Representative Sibilia? So I think I heard yesterday that they are bringing together the partners for the various projects for a series of full day working sessions or at least one or two soon, maybe next month, if I recall correctly. Are you ever invited to attend those meetings? No. Could if would it be inappropriate for us

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to ask you to attend those meetings?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I'm not sure

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: if they I guess that's probably an inappropriate question to ask you.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes. I don't know if I'm invited. Yeah. Well Yes. I know. But that's that's my only answer I have.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Have we ever asked that? So I want I just wonder, you know, if we talked with JFO, if that's

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: You could definitely talk to JFO about it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's a lot of public dollars. We are clearly challenged to follow along. The secretary is clearly challenged with having to, I think she said, continually relitigate this. And so,

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I know that, but it's it's a you know, and but it's it's my job to raise those issues. And if I see those are what we're seeing is actually in line with what we were were identified as risks, and we have to state it. I know she wants to focus on that it's great that she's they're changing course, and I think they have to change. I don't disagree with the Mhmm. The decision to do it. I'm just saying it's it's there's prob there will be more of it. I feel comfortable saying there will be. That's how confident I am. But I I think we're gonna have Are

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: are there recordings from those meetings, those work sessions? Like, are there reports from those work sessions?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I You're talking about the the project team. Yeah. Yeah. Because well, I following along from that, if we're talking about the same thing, my assumption, and this is, I think, we picked up on different snippets yesterday. What I was thinking about was that there's a project team and somebody from each agency or department has been assigned to work on this cross government project team. And are they the folks doing the actual because what I'd like to hear from I I'd like to take more testimony on this topic, and I'd like to hear from from the folks within each agency, not not only, you know, secretary Riley Hughes, the people who are actually in each agency doing the work. I think the business, the program staff, the business staff are the ones that I would like to hear from most because they understand what

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: they need, and they're supposed to be leading the charge of this project, not IT. And it'd be interesting to see if they feel it's meeting their needs and if they what risks they see. Mhmm. I think it's they're really important and critical to the success of any project. And when I look at what the project over at the of Labor, the UI project, they had some you know, the JITOC meeting, some pretty impressive woman that was sort of leading the program side and boy, she knew everything. Standard boys are like that. They care about their work and they're gonna know what will work for them and what won't. And, you know, there is a question. I think we're we're when we we talk about promoting stakeholder engagement, well, are stakeholders in state government, and it would be great to hear from them.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm just looking on the I'm just looking to see who who the folks are. It does list I'm not sure if this is a little bit outdated, but it does list somebody at many, you know, many of the the program leadership team, deputy secretary Brown, we heard from him yesterday, but then there's, you know, deputy commissioner at AOA, a deputy commissioner of finance and management, and on down the line. Are those the folks we should be, or is it even Well, I

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: mean deeper down. You know, even just, I think, getting hearing from people from stars and bars could be interesting. Mhmm. Especially stars because they're with the mats. They're they've been actively working on a project and, you know, what are they feeling comfortable that it can meet their needs or is there still still some uncertainty? I know, you know, although labor hasn't been the focus and will happen in the finance piece, I was under the impression that they were definitely paying close attention and had some thoughts on it. And so, yeah, I think it would be great to hear from a sampling and then go from there, but it's nice to hear directly from the business.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Another thing, while we're on the ERP topic, another thing I wanted to ask about was I'm also trying to wrap my head around Guidehouse. And when we I think had mentioned yesterday an article she had seen in GRIST, and then it was in Digger, about Guidehouse and the FEMA money. And I skimmed over that article this morning, and it it sounded to me like, which is something I guess I didn't understand, that Guidehouse has a master contract with the with state government. And then within that master contract, they do different I don't really understand the Guidehouse relationship.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Well, maybe it will help you if I if I mention what their former name is. Price Price Cooper's Waterhouse. Price Cooper Waterhouse. Of the huge worldwide consulting firms. So they do a lot of different things, and it's possible that people involved in this project don't even know about that FEMA project, that they've never heard of it. Or I see. Yeah. So it's possible that that it's completely it's not like a a small group. It's a huge organization. Okay. Anyway. Okay. Okay. So sorry. We got sidetracked. Do you wanna So anything else around ERP? Or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, maybe you can help us figure out who to invite to hear a little bit more about how ERP is happening at at sort

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: of a Do you wanna do you wanna start with, like, the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: stars and

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: powers? Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Sure.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Let's start with that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I do have a question about yesterday's hearing because you have identified the lack of a gap analysis as a big risk. Secretary Riley Hughes, when I questioned her three times, said we've identified the gaps and we have a solution for all of them.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And And this is where I think I said at one point, like, show us.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I noticed that she did qualify that by saying, we identified all the gaps within ERP functionality, which made me suspect there's other stuff they've defined out of ERP and are gonna handle separately. Possibly.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And, you know, they haven't done the analysis for finance, So they're they can't say they've they've identified the gaps. That's for sure. And even the example when we're when she addressed the specific example I gave, the system integrations and the payment files, which was talking vault versus API. All I could think of is, so you're saying you're going to change all those systems that are producing those files? And when when do we have time to do that? So there's a lot hanging out there. I'm not I think if they have the gap analysis, they would have showed me a long time ago because they see me talking about it all the time, and we could

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: ask what don't I was gonna say, it's simple for us to ask the secretary to send us the gap analysis. Right?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And give us a presentation on it. Yes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: See what happens.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And the the plan for historical data, you know, other than we're doing a data lake, it would be very helpful. So we're at that point, and I think we're at the point in the project where a lot of people have understand how it's going to be moving forward, And we need to hear from them. What's their assessment? Through this process, we hear a lot of things that are that are privileged. Right? Information they can't give us their privilege. And, you know, there was this spreadsheet yesterday. They contacted me and said, you know, we don't wanna post that. There's some information there that shouldn't be posted. And I had a a quick conversation with Rick, counsel assigned to the IT about this. And he's he's been I talked to him about it last week, and he's giving it some thought on how you know, that we need a toolkit when somebody says something's privileged or they don't want to give it to us. Under what grounds? Because there aren't any public record laws, you know, there are some exemptions. So he I'm not the lawyer, that's why I talked to him, and he's been he's thinking about it, and he was going to talk to some people internally. So but I think that relates to this on what we're given, what we're allowed to see, and, you know, where those lines are and what our toolkit is when we're when the response is we we can't give it to you or you can't post that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Try.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: One thought I had or takeaway was when secretary said, this is a government transformation project, not an IT project. Have we ever had anything? All projects are like that. Oh, really? Okay. That was my real question, was like, is this just a larger scale of something like the UI project? It's a larger scale. It really is. But we've done the the transformative thing successfully. Like, a system might change because we're doing this. Well, UI is a big change. It's like the motor vehicles have completely changed the way they worked. Right. Completely. So that's a trend another transformation. So in many ways, when you're doing the newer projects, they all are. They're all transforming. They're all they they all are. And So ours and far as we're gonna transform in order to Yes. The the tools. Yes. And that's part of you know, I have this such a great meeting at ADS where they were talking about their new process of onboarding and about Stacy and other people on her team, and just how they're able to assess, you know, how can they refine their processes before they decide whether somebody needs a system. Can it be met by some existing system? So a whole framework is so good. And, you know, I could think it you know, this this project, I don't think would have started this way if that had been in place. You know? So it's there's really good news on how we're transforming. The question is, based on how this was started and it wasn't ideal, and I know she doesn't want to keep rehashing yet. I really don't either. But the problem is the foundation wasn't there, and it's there's just going to be a ripple effect. Okay. That's my concern. But she doesn't share it, and she's sincere in her belief. So I you know, at this point, I the hard work was the review and then just keeping an eye on it and then just sharing what I see and then Right.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: But the emphasis on outcomes, I mean, that's what we're after at the end of the day. Right? It doesn't matter what IT project or not. We want functionality.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Right? I appreciate that that view of it. You know? But we need to focus on the outcomes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You know? Absolutely.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: The whole I IP is just a tool at the end of the day, right, to get us where we need to go.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yeah. And the goal is the goal is to reform and make it better and the process is smoother because you know how government grows over time, and it's grown a lot over, you know, thirty years since vision was implemented. So

[Unknown (Committee Member, addressed as 'Rep. Haley')]: So on the ERP project, has any part of it gone up that's working now?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: The budget. Their their replacement of the budget system went live last fall. So that one, I I don't mean to make it seem small because it you know, that was an accomplishment for them and they needed to get out that old system. But it's also something that was managed in a spreadsheet by a guy named Otto for, like, thirty years. It's good to stay. It's not that it shouldn't be managed that way. It's too critical. It's it it is where it belongs. So they do have that success. But the issue is we've been paying licensing on that or I think we're about our fifth payment for the Workday subscriptions. And I think this year it's 3,500,000. And really, you know, it's it was two years late getting started. We spent 2 point I think it was 2,300,000 before they even started the project because it was just signed prematurely. So, you know, it it's a question of and now now, you know, she says we're not losing time, but we're not going live with HR. We'll we'll see. I think So

[Unknown (Committee Member, addressed as 'Rep. Haley')]: they'll go up in modules?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes. But but well, she which the budget's already up. She they were going to go live with the HR module first, but that's what they consolidated. They said we can't there's too much integration with the finance. We're gonna launch them both at the same time. So essentially, they push the HR back to launch at the same time that the finance module will launch. That's the plan. They say they're not lengthening the time frame.

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: Well Excuse me.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm But I found that portion of the conversation I mean, you said you don't you don't disagree with this decision. And if the overall deadline hasn't changed, I mean, I I found that plausible. So, you know, why is it important that HR go first and then the other module go second? If that's not gonna work better, if it could complicate things, if it could cost more, like, why is that problematic? Well, usually,

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: what they say is that they focus on modules to reduce risk one at a time. And Right. Like, do it in small bites. Do you remember?

[Rep. Marty Feltus (Guest)]: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Lots of Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's why. Again, I don't disagree. I'm just my point was, yes, you didn't know. You couldn't have known because that work wasn't done. Right. And there's other work that hasn't been done that you don't know. Though she's saying that gap analysis exists, so maybe you know, I I I did the follow-up for the oversight that was listed in the original review where we said, okay. Once you're done with that base camp phase, you'll be able to give us the gaps. Right? But then they said, well, didn't really finish that yet. That phase is gonna go through UAT. So I tried to get the information and they didn't provide it and said, because we're not done with it yet. So I didn't I mean, that's the biggest risk that you don't really realize where all your gaps are until you've paid all the deliverables and you're about ready to go live and then you realize what you have. Do you pay before

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: so UAT sounds like the last phase to me. That's where you're actually, you've got hands off people who work at these agencies and departments actually using the system, seeing how it works, getting trained on it. Yeah. Have you already paid at that? You've paid for a lot

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: of the deliverables. So typically you're paying for, you know, the analysis phase where you have all these meetings and they're flushing it out and they they give you the requirements. They say this does this look right? Do you agree with this? And you sign off on it or you don't. Right. And then you go to the next phase, which is the configuration, the hands on configuration, where they take all the information and configure the system, and then they show it to you like, is this configured correctly? So it's all done steps like that. And then usually you have like just these little testing blocks during the process and then you end with a final UAT because sometimes it might have worked in unit testing but it doesn't work all together at the same time. So that's how it usually works.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So you mentioned we're paying a subscription for work today. Is that separate from paying for work done.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes, the implementation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Separate from paying for deliverables. We've been paying a subscription fee for something that we're not using for the last couple of years and made that sense.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: They consider usually, you have to buy buy your subscription when you start the implementation because you're using it. You're building it. So that's the norm, but you don't buy your subscriptions two years before you're gonna start the project. I know that wasn't their intent, but that's where they were.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's exactly what happened.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yeah. And ironically, they they had the delay because they decided to they weren't gonna go live with finance first, and then they decided to move it to HR first. So that was, like, the first delay. So, you know, there are other changes

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: along the And the subscription fees, $2.5100000000 It's dollars a

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: not the same every single year. Like, this coming year, like, as you're reaching maturity, it, I think this payment is 3.5 or 3.6. Okay. Yeah. I'm just off the top of my head. Yep.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And is there a term for the for the subscription? Or is

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: it Ten years.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And what happens if if if if these are ten years?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: You renegotiate what the subs subscription costs are.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And do we know what the subscription costs are for all three each and each of the ten years? Is that something that's already

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: It's it's it's I definitely used it when I did my review.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. It's part of the cost that you have listed.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yeah. I'd I actually have a column for Workday licenses in in the review in the finance section.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. I think I saw that too. Yeah. K. Just sure. Yeah. An analogy occurred to me as we've been talking about this. We we feel like we don't really have it much control here, and this reminds me of teaching my kids how to drive. And it felt like I was still driving, just had a lot less control I could tell them exactly what

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: to do. Right? But but then they

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we do it or not. You know? It just so it just feels like we don't have very very much very much oversight or control here.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: It does feel that way. I feel the same way. Yeah. At some point, all you can do is watch.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. You're right. Yeah. Please don't hit that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, okay. So now we now we do need to now we do need to watch the clock. So okay. So your upcoming reviews?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: The IEME system. So that's coming up. And just to give you a status on that, because it has it's a lot of federal funds, they have to get approval for the RFPs from the feds, and they did that, and, of course, they were issued. They're in the phase where they're getting contract approval. And I guess there's two agencies they need, and they have received approval from the Center for Medicaid Services. And when I talked to them a few weeks back, because I meet with them every month, they said they the next approval was pending, and they had identified the state had identified the independent reviewer for the CIO's independent review, and they said that when they get that, they would share the actual preferred vendor bid with me so I could get started on my review. But I can't finish it until I they finish the CIO's independent review. But that's moving along. So the the thing though that I think we need to follow-up on is this last line, this last bullet. Remember, in Jai talk, they had I was under the impression they expected to make a budget request, but they didn't for the state match. But they didn't in the budget, and so there was some concern about that. And I, you know, I kept pushing on them, and finally they said, if you want to know how we're we don't really understand how we're funding it. So they suggested we contact Tracy O'Connell, is the CFO of AHS, and ask her to explain how they're funding this. And so I thought you might be interested in doing that.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: On the, the dashboard, the AHS, the worst performer by far. So I guess as a follow-up question, is there someone in a HS or a team that we should be talking to? I mean, like, you look at the top six or seven worst performing, you know, projects on the dashboard. They're all AHS. So I'm just wondering what our avenue to get a little more clarity on what the issues are over there.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think you could contact them through the normal process that you have for scheduling meetings and and mention which projects you'd like to talk about and that you you'd like to talk to about the the dashboard and why some of the the projects, and you can even list these the projects that you wanna discuss and and get more information on why they're running in the red. You'll probably end up I mean, I know Christopher oversees a lot of the she's a deputy. She oversees a lot of the IT things, but I'm not sure if those projects fall under her purview, but it's definitely a good use for it.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: That's the chair. Have time. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I we'll have time. I mean

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Seems like a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The end of the year gets so gabby and weird. Right? You know? I mean, we've got a couple bills we're working on. We're waiting for stuff to come back from the senate. And then at the end of the year, we often have a lot of time. So

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: would be interesting just because they they it does stand out.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Mhmm. Okay. So the next one is the CWIS member of the DCF presentation. Yeah. So they're still under procurement, and I did reach out to them to see how they were doing the program staff. We've talked a couple times. They're working really hard on this and they were at the stage where they were like, Yes, it's us, we're the delay, but we insist on calling every reference. They're basically doing due diligence. They're running later than what the IE and E folks are, and as soon as they reach a point where I can do the review, I will start that. But I did connect with ADS about this and discussed that it it just seemed like they could have used a little bit more support on the technical side, and they have assigned a project management manager to the process. It's at that stage, And the the the team at CWIS were talking about how happy they were about the assignment, and they thought it would work out great for them, and a a big improvement. They they had a contract project manager that they were they were not renewing that particular contract, so they were very excited to get this particular person. So they were they've been happy about that. But again, we don't we don't know how they're being funded either, so maybe if we do invite the CFO over, we can understand where that is coming from too. So I don't know a lot because they can't say anything because it's open, but it's moving.

[Unknown (Committee Member, addressed as 'Rep. Haley')]: My seatmate said that there's one of the problems in in the agency of it's getting their Medicaid match money. Oh. Is that this one or is that the IEE one?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think it's the IEE, but they mentioned CCWIS people mentioned the fact that if they can get a new recipient, they can increase the match. I believe they they testified to that. So it's the same thing. Just like if you look on the dashboard, under AHS, you'll see IENE and they have their noticing solution. What that is is they were out of compliance with federal requirements, they have to update this particular solution, and that's really been the bulk of the types of projects they've been dealing with over the last five years that have you know, four or five years that I've been involved. So, you know, that's sort of where where they are. But, you know, this the I and E and E will be an an update, you know, brand new start for them.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Sure. So yesterday, the the secretary said they'd be saving roughly $2,000,000 a year in operational costs once ERP goes live. I mean, that sounded reasonable to me given how old the old systems were and the, you know, potential level of integration and time saving and not is that did you

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I it's hard to judge it when I'm not convinced the costs are right. You know, if I'm if I'm expecting Forget

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: the cost of it, though. Like, once it's fully implemented, if the functionality is there

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Well, they will be able to retire PeopleSoft as long as they have figured out the historical data access.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: But it also won't be a a time saving across the entire state government?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I I can only report on what I know for sure, and I do not know that. We would hope, but I don't know the answer to that. I I can't report on what I, you know, I haven't researched on on because, you know, I'm not seeing that level of the project of what it means. You know, like, how long does it take the STARS and PARS people to do their stuff and what the end result because we just it's not formulated there. She might be convinced of that, and I'm sure she has a reason, but I don't have access to what she

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: has. Thank you.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Alright. So that's what's coming up. You wanna look at the dashboard, or are we running late?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. We have time.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: We have time. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So You guys are 10:30. Right? Yeah.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: We have time. Okay. Me just jump to pee. I'm hoping I can

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This was

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: It was doing this earlier. It was running so slow.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. Mean, on the. Okay.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Okay. So if we look at the dashboard here, go down to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There we go. It's better. Much better. Thank you.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Okay. So here, the existing, the top row now, IE and E noticing solution. Is the is the memorize that they're out of compliance and we'll be doing the full vote, but it's interesting to see where they are on this portion. They're ahead a year, it looks like, on the estimated completion date, and then you have the cost and the budget used at 26%. It looks like they are worried about the schedule. I think they had some delays, but they were coming in a year early.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: A it'll be early.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: A month early, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry, which one are we on?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: This very top one. Oh, okay, great. This is the noticing speech. Oh, okay. So that's their out of compliance piece that they're finishing up soon. So around AOA, here's the ERP project. Again, they're on the top line now. You'll see that they have a risk noted under the budget, risk schedule scope. So, they're either yellow or red overall. And the costs, these are sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Give me one sec. Sorry. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I just wanna remind myself who is responsible for what we're seeing in terms of those ratings.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Stacy. So ADS? Yes. So The project managers work on this.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Is that raining? Like, what are what we're seeing there? The risks are like, is that consistent with what we heard yesterday?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think so. Remember, they're when the these are based on where the project is right now, today. So tomorrow, once they feel like they've resolved them and they're back on track and they have a plan, they might all be green, but it doesn't mean it's you know, that it was completed on time. Those conversations. So it's important to look at those other dates that we have here. The initial what they the initial completion date estimate versus the actual and the initial cost versus the actual cost in the end. And, you know, it's funny when when I started to, you know, look at the numbers I had for cost, some of them, they don't necessarily line up because they may not they, you know, may not include staffing costs and there's some variation, it seems, so it'll be interesting to see what, you know, what she uses and how they line up with the other documents that we have. I'll be here tomorrow. So the next one, I think it was because we're looking active, it's the one at the very bottom, the unemployment insurance. So they had it doesn't look like it was updated. I know they they were had some caution around the budget and risk because they were waiting to sign a contract amendment that adjusted the cost and added new process whatever new thing they wanted to implement. But they have reached an agreement with the vendor along before the amendment came forward, so but they were counting the amendment. I know that it was in the in the the project management reports, they were talking a lot about delays related to the amendment, but that's seems fine. They're still on track for completion in the summer.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: for follow-up, I think you were gonna well, okay. So I'm gonna redraft the memo, and I'll send it to everybody for feedback and review. We're gonna I have an interest in hearing more on the ERP project from sort of stars and bars on the ground. We're doing the work folks, and it sounded like were you gonna suggest actual people? Or Yes. Okay. So you'll help help us figure out who we should invite. I wanted to and then there were some specific projects that we wanna take more oversight testimony on just as time permits that are on the dashboard. And which was anyway, they're up they're up there.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: The and then the question of whether you wanna talk to the a the AHS CFO about Yeah. The cost for see where they're getting the money for IE and E and Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Late match and CCWIS. Well, so maybe we just wanna talk to AHS about I I IE and E and CCWIS in general, how they're doing. I know we had hearing on it a while back, but

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think the program team really pushed back when I was asking about the money. They said you need to talk to the CFO. So I wanna respect that. So I don't I don't know why, but I maybe we do wanna at least talk to her about that. Okay. But but but in terms of the other projects that you're looking at, I know you have a process for identifying the people, but I'll I'll I'll try and get names for the the stars and fars.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And that's it. V trans and Vdol. Right?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. That's correct. Great. Okay. Okay. Alright. Next steps. Great. Alright. And

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: we are sorry. We are also gonna ask digital surfaces for their gap analysis. Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Need to add something. Okay. So, one, so, ADS, we want to see the plan for the historical data, right?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And they're completed gap analysis.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the plan for the historical data, is that specific to stars and stars or is No. It just across

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: That's for everything. They're only loading one year's of data into the system and yet employees constantly, business managers need access to historical data to return grants. And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: then completed gap analysis. And these are both specific to ERP. Right?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that's that's just an email. Okay. Then two, we're gonna finish the budget memo. Then three, we wanna take testimony again specific to ERP, the STARS and FARS. Lisa's going to help with who to ask for that. And then we're gonna learn more about from AHS, we wanna hear about I I'm sorry.

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I, e, and e.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I, e, and e, and. We want a to learn more about a project update Including no. I think in general. And then including the funding. I'll look back at your memo to to be back. Did I get everything?

[Lisa Goggin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: sir. Great. Great. Thank you Lisa, very thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. Would you guys mind if we take a five minute break? Sure. Okay. Let's go off live, and we'll be back in seven minutes.