I think we're going2 to have additional cameras. I think what3 it will allow us to do is speed up the4 deployment, because we'll be able to5 deploy it to locations where we don't6 have to run wire to to get them out into7 the neighborhoods a lot faster.8
Mobility is one of10 the things that is on that track of11 functionalities that we're trying to12 build for Police, so that we can take the13 video and pass it out to a car or --14 right now we are able to pass the video15 out to the police mobile incident16 response vehicles.17
Yeah. We can do20 that today, and we have done that on a21 couple of different --22
I believe the25 119 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Police has three, what they call those2 mobile incident response vehicles, the3 MIRVs. I believe we have three of them.4
All right.5 Thank you.6 Thank you, Madam President.7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 You're welcome.9 The Chair recognizes10 Councilwoman Brown.11
I came in16 on the tail end of Councilman Goode's17 questions regarding MBE/WBE activity. I18 need to get some clarity regarding19 Verizon.20
So with22 the Verizon contract, just review for me23 what happened so that I don't misspeak24 here with regards to MBE/WBE activity.25 120 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Was there a stated goal in the contract?2
There was a stated3 goal in the RFP. I don't think we can4 answer the question whether it was5 actually in the contract. I think one of6 the things that we recognized from that7 contract and because of the performance8 issue that Councilman Goode raised is9 that in an RFP, we plan to take a lot of10 those services that were traditionally11 bundled in there that there was no12 subcontracting opportunities in to put13 them out and take them out of that14 contract so we can have the opportunity15 to have more contracting opportunities16 and subcontracting opportunities and not17 have it all bundled under one.18
Well, we had talked21 about trying to have the RFP out this22 summer, beginning of the new fiscal year.23
So we're not24 expecting to do it with the one that's in25 121 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 place today. It's the new one that we2 are trying to put out to look at3 different options.4
I clearly5 remember when there was a lot of6 discussion and, quite frankly, advocacy7 on behalf of Verizon, and then issues and8 concerns were raised about Verizon's9 commitment to MBE/WBE activity. So10 you're telling me that it was stated in11 the RFP, but we have no evidence of12 whether or not whatever they stated was13 honored?14
Okay. I21 do need to commend you on the aggressive22 outreach strategies I see stated in your23 testimony --24
-- to grow2 a robust pool of potential MBE/WBEs. In3 the short time I've been here, I've never4 seen this type of reach deep in the5 community to grow the pool of MBE/WBEs.6
So with8 that, this is what I wanted to ask. When9 you have these type of outreach10 activities, alert Councilmembers, because11 we too hear of MBE/WBEs who have an12 earnestness in wanting to participate and13 they are just out of loop of information14 for these type of opportunities. So15 inform us as well so that we can spread16 the information around.17
Okay. So19 enough about that.20 You said in response to21 Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller's22 questions that we can speak to our Chief23 Administrative Officer with regards to24 updating our City Council website,25 123 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 correct?2
Councilman4 Green spoke of cloud -- finish the5 sentence for me.6
I would8 ask that offices that are interested --9 better yet, I'll speak with Madam10 President about having a briefing with11 Councilmembers and staff so that we too12 can learn about that and see if we want13 to adopt that practice in our offices.14
Okay. On16 of your testimony, you state that17 your department has discovered some18 contracts that can potentially be19 consolidated. Which ones might that be?20
Well, there's a21 number of potential options. Like one of22 the ones that we have actually already23 consolidated because we thought it made24 sense was, there was a document25 124 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 management contract where we had eight2 separate ones and we're working to --3
I'm sorry; 186 separate ones, and we're working to7 consolidate as one. We've also had8 situations where we had a need to augment9 our technical staff with additional10 skills, and we found that sometimes the11 same vendor was selling their services to12 the City at different rates. So we put13 out a set of -- last year and then we're14 repeating it again this year, because we15 try to rebid it every year, where we are16 putting out an RFP to identify three to17 five staff aug companies that are used18 all over the City. So now no matter19 which department is using it, they'll get20 consistent rates and we can manage it21 centrally.22 We've also talked to people23 like Oracle for the databases we use24 about how we might have a consolidated25 125 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contract, because we had separate2 department ones.3 So we were -- I cannot sit here4 and claim that we've had a great deal of5 success in terms of dollars, but we've6 had a great deal of success in7 identifying potential contracts and that8 we can going forward now, we understand9 the City's needs better that we can work10 out the best deal.11 It's not always feasible -- I12 personally came in here with a bias that13 I was going to save money immediately on14 our database vendors, because I had done15 it in DC, and it turns out actually we16 don't spend enough money on them to17 actually have any leverage to really save18 a whole lot. So it's all about doing the19 evaluation and deciding which ones are20 the best targets to go after and which21 ones aren't.22
Sure. And23 as you do that, it really is a24 double-edged sword, because the follow-up25 126 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 question becomes, And how does that2 impact MBE/WBE participation as well.3 When you move to one, then you're going4 from hopefully eight different MBE/WBEs5 in those instances where you have eight6 different contracts.7
Yeah. Well, I can8 give you an example. Last year we let9 out an RFP where we selected -- we had10 35 -- 31 responses last year -- we had11 over 30 responses last year. We ended up12 selecting three companies to provide the13 talent, two of which were OEO firms and14 one was -- I don't know what the title15 is, mainstream. And then even there, we16 looked beyond that. Two of them was17 actually Philadelphia based.18 So we do look actually very19 hard at those types of things to try to20 figure out what's best both for the OEO21 community and also what's best for22 Philadelphia. And we're trying.23 Certainly we're not perfect, but we're24 trying to make sure that we are spreading25 127 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the wealth appropriately.2
Well, I3 need to say thank you. I don't know how4 long you've been here, but it's clear5 that you're trying. Because we have some6 department heads who have been here7 longer than ten years and every year8 still we are wrestling with why aren't9 you doing better. So your effort comes10 through.11
Thank you. And12 like I said in my testimony, my executive13 team took this very personal in terms of14 trying to raise these numbers, both in15 the OEO area as well as try to look for16 Philadelphia firms. So it isn't just me.17 It's the executive team is trying to do18 it.19
Well, and20 leadership sometimes goes from top down21 as well as bottom up.22
In your24 testimony, you state your office intends25 128 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to convert the current e-mail system to a2 new, more modern one. How will the3 e-mail system work differently after this4 conversion, or will it?5
Well, there's a6 part of me that wants to say e-mail is7 e-mail, but that's really not true. The8 current system is eight years old, hasn't9 been updated in a long time. It has its10 own benefits and merits, don't get me11 wrong. But one of the things that we12 looked for was part of when we were13 looking at the e-mail system, we had to14 look for a lot of technical issues like15 its ability to support security, to16 support archiving. We also wanted17 something that made sense in terms of our18 desire to ultimately have a voice over19 IP, VoIP -- you've heard a lot about20 it -- solution and to have a unified21 messaging.22 If I were to take you on a trip23 to DC, you would see the system that we24 implemented there that now no matter25 129 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 where people walk around, their voice2 mail messages follow them to be3 converted.4 So we're trying to modernize5 the system. We've taken a lot of flack6 at the time that it takes to get it done,7 and we agree. We wish we would have been8 faster. But we've done -- doing it,9 we've discovered a lot of technical10 issues that had to be resolved and it's a11 little bit of shift in direction, but our12 hopes is that we will absolutely -- we13 believe that we can finish it this14 calendar year. That's what we're driving15 to.16
When did17 you start? And the only reason why I18 asked is because we've changed kind of19 sacrifice, and sometimes sacrifices20 needed time to get it done differently.21
So we started in25 130 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 2009, but as we were progressing through2 that, a lot of things were uncovered. I3 don't know if you were in here when I4 made the analogy that all my team keeps5 telling me to stop doing of like doing6 renovation. When we started to pull down7 the walls, we discovered there were8 things we just had to fix before we could9 continue.10
And that's one of12 the cases here. So we've actually13 implemented it in all of the departmental14 technologies at 1234 location. We've15 decided we would be our own guinea pigs,16 because this is a fundamental change in17 the way people get done on something18 that's a core to their business, to their19 lives.20
And you're glad we22 did it to ourselves first, because we23 found some definite quirks and issues24 that we've now been able to iron out, and25 131 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 now that makes us now ready to go forward2 with the rest of the City.3
So, again,4 I think that simply speaks to strong5 leadership. So I commend you in that6 way.7 Let me just make sure I've8 covered all my bases here.9 So let me just get back to10 Verizon, make sure I understood what I11 think I heard. You're going to report12 back to President Verna -- state again13 exactly what you're going to report to14 her so we know what to expect next time15 around.16
We're going to19 report back to you what was the stated20 OEO goals in the RFP and what were the21 stated goals in the contract and what has22 been their performance since the contract23 was awarded.24
Okay.25 132 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I think that's it for me, Madam2 President.3 I thank you, gentlemen.4
Councilman11 Greenlee, I apologize. I misspoke when I12 said that BRT was maintaining their own.13 My team has corrected me that the split14 just happened, but it turns out now that15 we are the ones supporting BRT. So,16 again, I will meet with you to find out17 what issues you have about that.18 And it was also pointed out19 that when I talked about the procurement20 system, I made it sound like that what21 we're working on is the entire22 procurement system. The speed portion is23 just the front-end requisitioning, and I24 didn't want to give that erroneous25 133 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 impression. So my apologies for the2 misstatement.3
Thank4 you.5 Councilwoman Brown, are you6 finished?7
Yes, I did8 have one more, Madam President.9 On of your testimony you10 talk about the rollout of the Sidewalk11 Education and Enforcement Program. Just12 speak briefly to what that is.13
That is the14 sidewalk clean-up where you have to15 maintain the dumpsters and keep the area16 clean. Actually, the inspectors who go17 out now actually have a handheld device18 where they can scan -- they can write the19 tickets right there with the shop owner20 right there and give it to them right on21 the spot. It's been a great success.22 They don't have to come back to the23 office. It speaks to Councilman Green,24 Councilman Rizzo's whole desire for us to25 134 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 try to move the workforce closer to the2 actual work and to let them do this.3 This is a great example, a great success4 story of where we step one, baby step but5 step one, of where we're actually putting6 the workforce right where it needs to be.7
And so I'm11 curious to know, just out of curiosity,12 what type of education, if you will, or13 awareness was given to businessowners so14 that they know the hit is coming if you15 don't clean up your act?16
Yeah. Streets did17 an entire -- it's really a Streets18 Department initiative, and the Streets19 Department did a whole campaign, to the20 best of my knowledge, about this, a whole21 campaign telling people what was coming,22 what the situation -- I don't remember23 all the details, but I remember seeing it24 go out.25 135 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
For the2 record, just tell us a little bit about3 your background, how long you've been4 here, please.5
Sure. Again, my6 name is Thomas Jones. I've been with the7 City since November of 2009 where I came8 in under the previous CTO as the First9 Deputy and Chief Information Officer.10 Prior to that, I spent two years with the11 District of Columbia as their Deputy12 Chief Technology Officer under Vivek13 Kundra, who is now the U.S. CIO. Prior14 to that, I was across the water in15 Trenton at the State of New Jersey where16 I was the Assistant Chief for Application17 Development, and then -- I don't want to18 tell how old I am, so I'm not going to19 say how many years prior to that, but I20 started my career literally running these21 mainframe computers and just worked my22 way up through the ranks. So I guess23 I'll say it. I have over 30 years of24 experience in the field.25 136 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank8 you.9 The Chair recognizes Councilman10 Jones.11
Thank you.12 Very quickly, because I do know13 that you've been up here quite a long14 time --15
But I would20 compliment you as well on your digging21 deep, as Councilwoman Reynolds Brown22 says, about inclusion. That is important23 to each and every member of this Council,24 and we thank you for that.25 137 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I ask this, though. On the2 hardware side, do you have a rough ball3 park estimate of what we spend on4 hardware annually or what we're5 anticipating to spend on -- when I say6 "hardware," not every -- I mean cameras7 but computers, mainframes, things like8 that.9
As my team here is13 looking up some numbers, I think you're14 probably thinking mostly in terms of your15 laptops, desktops versus --16
I'll take17 it -- yeah. No major systems, not18 wiring, but end-user kinds of equipment.19
So I know last year20 we replaced about 2,100 PCs. We spent21 about a million dollars last year on22 desktops.23
So what is24 the lifespan of equipment like that?25 138 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
So if you don't2 mind, if you'll allow me, I'd like to3 just talk about PCs, because once you get4 into the bigger machines --5
But at the6 end of the day, where I'm going, so that7 you can incorporate that, is how much8 leasing versus purchasing, do we build in9 for obsolescence and upgrades.10
So I'll have to11 come back with the number, but that's12 actually something that we've been13 discussing very heavily and we've14 investigated. Like, for example, out in15 Prisons, we lease their servers, and16 we've investigated -- we're trying to17 investigate whether or not leasing, in18 and of itself, is a better solution,19 because there are some leasing deals out20 here where automatic replacement. It's a21 juggling act that you have to do, because22 leasing is going to always be operating23 dollars in a given year. Capital you can24 at least spread over.25 139 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I'm not qualified to make all2 those decisions. I pull in the Budget3 and Finance group to help me with those4 kinds of decisions, because that's not5 where my area of expertise lie. But we6 have investigated with all the major7 vendors and we're continuing to8 investigate it even more so, because9 since the City does not have a fantastic10 record of being able to replace this11 equipment in a timely manner, we would12 love for it to be like every four years,13 at a maximum. We have many pieces of14 equipment that are seven, eight years15 old.16 We wanted to see if we were to17 lease with an automatic replacement what18 would be the operating expense hit. I19 don't have that number for you yet, but20 we are working with Finance and Budget to21 try to come up with what makes sense to22 do, and we know in some isolated cases,23 we have done it and then others we24 haven't yet gotten there yet.25 140 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
When I look2 at Bill No. 100848 as an example, those3 kinds of critical decisions are the4 difference between millions of dollars5 worth of taxpayers' money that can be6 saved. In addition, functionality, just7 functionality, I mean it's reminiscent of8 the commercial that's out where the guy9 gets the new phone and he says, 4G? And10 they said, No, we already have 5G out and11 waiting on 5GA.12 I mean, that's a joke, but it13 is not, because as we try to keep up with14 technology, it advances on us, and the15 usefulness of a computer that can't16 download a particular software because17 it's not configured in a proper way just18 is frustrating. And one of the beautiful19 things about young people and our interns20 is that they look at our equipment and21 chuckle to themselves and say, Where did22 you get that, Grandpa? And so we need to23 build this obsolescence into our24 procurement activities, thus allowing us25 141 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 not to bear the burden of owning Fred2 Flintstone's first laptop.3
This is true. I4 agree with you, Councilman Jones, but5 there is one other factor that has to6 come into this, and, again, I do not7 pretend to be qualified in all the8 financial realms that my financial team9 looks into, but one of the things that10 people forget quite often is that if you11 purchase it today and regardless of12 whether you like the fact that it's six13 years old or not, you didn't make14 payments for five years. If you lease15 it, you must make -- that is a that-year16 impact on your Operating Budget. So17 that's just one factor that quite often18 is overlooked.19
But I want24 you to think about it, is my point. And25 142 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 you are better qualified and the team2 that you've gathered is better qualified3 to make that decision, but there are4 times when I know we're getting it wrong5 and we're -- the folk that brought it to6 us on the back of a truck are laughing7 because they know it's obsolete and we8 haven't caught up with the joke. So I9 need that --10
-- concrete12 analysis, and we look for you to make13 those good decisions on our behalf. And14 I know I've dealt with people at that15 table for over decades and I trust that16 judgment, but I want us always, always to17 sharpen our pencils in that computation,18 because a mistake, a slight mistake, gets19 us 10,000 eight track tape players and20 nobody within this decade knows what they21 are. And so we rely on you to take care22 of that.23
We agree, and we24 will definitely do that.25 143 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank4 you.5 The Chair recognizes Councilman6 Rizzo.7
Thank you,8 Madam Chair.9 I want to get back to some of10 these technologies that we've been living11 with for a lot of years. Realistically,12 I listened to what you said about sending13 out bids. Who -- and let's be candid14 here. Who could bid against the current15 product that we have that is offsite,16 that doesn't require any installation of17 switches in our buildings? All this18 equipment that makes this system that we19 have work is in the central office at the20 telephone company. So realistically, you21 could put that out that you said earlier,22 but there's no way in the world anybody23 could compete without a very, very24 extraordinary expenditure on installing a25 144 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 lot of telecommunications equipment in2 our facilities. Am I right?3
Councilman, I think4 there's the opinion that things have5 changed, and what the Verizon product6 that we currently have is a managed7 solution. So it's back to what Tommy was8 talking about before between the9 difference between a managed solution and10 a cloud-based solution. There's probably11 a way to do cloud-based solution to12 provide us the telephony that will be13 comparable to the solution we have today14 and that there are more like service15 providers, not the traditional telephony16 type, who treat this as an application on17 a network, not as an end product, that18 could offer us a very attractive19 opportunity to look at what technology20 can do, and I think that's to the point21 what Councilman Green was referring to22 earlier in his questioning.23
Well, my24 point is that we really have to get with25 145 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it because of what Councilman Jones just2 said, some of the dinosaurs that we have.3 Some departments said if they had caller4 ID, as an example, how an anonymous call5 that comes into a police district, how6 helpful it would be for them to have that7 data and not have to go through the8 subpoena process to get information.9 I just can't imagine that we10 can't start a process where we start11 installing our own switches throughout12 the City, and at the end of the day, I13 think years from now with the upgrades14 that are available -- we talked about15 some of this obsolescence -- that some of16 the packages for upgrades 10, 12 years17 from now will be available without18 significant investments. I just can't19 imagine that for 30 years, or however20 many years it's been, that we have not21 changed our telephone communication22 system. I'm not saying that Verizon is23 not the answer to the problem. I'm just24 saying that it seems as though status quo25 146 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 is just the way it is, and I can't2 imagine that we haven't grown in all3 these years. And I know that you've just4 inherited the telephone end of the5 business, so you didn't have your hands6 on that, and I know the technology guys7 look at telephones differently than the8 telephone people used to years ago.9 So is there any plan, is there10 any money going to be budgeted to maybe11 move One Parkway or move another City12 facility away from these dinosaurs that13 we have?14
I'll try to answer15 the first part. I think, yes. To your16 point, we are looking at what we can do17 to kind of move us away from the current18 solution that we have. I think there's a19 couple things that have evolved like20 anything else. Technology has evolved21 and it's been talked about in the past,22 but I think we're at the point now where23 the technology has evolved that we24 actually do have the convergence of25 147 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 telephony and data communications as one2 solution as opposed to looked at them as3 two different types of platforms. And I4 think that's the effort that we have5 underway now in our plans, is to look at6 voice as a service, not as an end7 solution. And hopefully there's8 providers out there who look at the9 opportunity in that manner, and hopefully10 we craft it in that manner that they will11 see that even the investment of switching12 equipment that's necessary can be bundled13 into an overall solution that can use the14 infrastructure that's available and the15 technology to provide us the16 state-of-the-art. Just like you said,17 caller ID is assumed by most people to be18 what you automatically get, and today19 that's not the case. It's like you -- I20 think you've been asking since I've been21 around of having the light light on the22 phone when you got a message. Well, I23 think Tommy has talked about with unified24 communications, you don't have to worry25 148 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 about the light because you will have it2 all in your inbox, and hopefully we will3 get there in this new proposal that we're4 looking to put out.5
You have a6 good memory. See, I have my red light7 here.8
And I10 appreciate that, but I think I hear you11 talking about voice over IP. You can't12 have voice over IP with the13 infrastructure that we have now. It just14 wouldn't support it.15
But that's17 where we should be heading, to use one18 technology to do a lot of things. And19 our budget would significantly, am I20 right, decrease in the area of voice if21 in fact we used voice over IP? And I22 think we've been talking about it --23 what's the name of the company that we24 initially hooked up with to do the voice25 149 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 over IP project? You have the phone on2 the --3
Exactly. So6 that's five years ago we started that7 project, and I don't think it's any8 further along than it was five years ago.9
But, Councilman10 Rizzo, I'm glad you brought that up, just11 quickly, because you're right. Part of12 the reason that -- part of what we13 struggle with is the simple fact that our14 current infrastructure won't support some15 of these things. That's why some of the16 savings that were projected weren't17 realized, because the infrastructure18 wouldn't yet support it.19 But we are aggressively trying20 to make sure that that's not what we say21 next year when we're sitting at this22 table. We are looking at whether or not23 it's equipment, whether it's a managed24 service, whether it's a cloud offering.25 150 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 There are lots of offerings on the table2 where we should be able to take advantage3 of, and that's what the team is really4 focused on, besides the day-to-day5 firefighting of everything that happens.6 It's trying to get that done. And we are7 moving in the right direction. None of8 us are moving as fast as we want to, but9 we're moving there, and we're moving at a10 steady pace now that we see it as some of11 the underlying issues that we had to12 address, and you brought one up. So13 thank you.14
And I think15 I'm one member that appreciates all of16 your good work, because just maintaining17 what we have is a big responsibility, and18 I know that we will do better in the19 future and save some money at the end of20 the day.21
Thank25 151 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 you.2 Are there any other questions3 from members of the Committee?4 (No response.)5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Seeing no one, gentlemen, thank you very7 much. I think you're doing an8 outstanding job. Thank you.9
We11 will now stand in recess until 1:30, at12 which time the Procurement Department13 will testify. Thank you.14 (Short recess.)15
The16 Committee of the Whole is now back in17 session. I would ask the Procurement18 Commissioner to please approach the19 witness table.20 (Witnesses approached witness21 table.)22
Good23 afternoon. Thank you for your patience.24 Kindly identify yourself for the record25 152 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 and proceed with your testimony.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: My3 name is Mary Stitt, Deputy Commissioner4 of Procurement.5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: My name6 is Hugh Ortman, Procurement Commissioner.7 Good afternoon, Council8 President --9
Good10 afternoon.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I'm12 sorry?13
15 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Good16 afternoon. 18 Good afternoon, Council19 President Verna and members of City20 Council. I am Hugh Ortman, Commissioner21 of the Procurement Department. 23 Stitt. 3 The Procurement Department is4 requesting a total appropriation for all5 funds of $4,370,602, of which 4,151,5746 is in the General Fund. The General Fund7 budget for Fiscal Year 2012 provides8 2,236,000 for Class 100 payroll expenses9 supporting 49 positions, 1,866,000 for10 Class 200 purchase of services and 49,00011 for Class 300 and 400 supplies and12 equipment. 2 The mission of the Procurement3 Department is to obtain quality goods,4 services and construction in a timely,5 cost-effective and professional manner6 through a competitive, fair and socially7 responsible process in accordance with8 the law. 11 To that end, with the12 Department's mission in mind, the13 Procurement Department has undertaken a14 number of initiatives during the current15 fiscal year. 14 The Department has consolidated15 its physical office space which has16 reduced its footprint by 25 percent. 13 We have continued to engage in14 an active role alongside the Office of15 Economic Opportunity to increase16 participation of minority, women and17 disabled-owned businesses in all City18 contracts. 2 OEO has launched a new3 initiative called Doing Business With the4 City, which is a series of workshops5 aimed at all local companies, with an6 extra focus on disadvantaged business7 enterprises. These sessions are held8 once a month and include presentations9 from Procurement, Finance, the Commerce10 Department, PIDC and others. 15 Procurement, along with other City16 departments, continues to attend various17 outreach programs on both a local and18 citywide basis. 22 Through attrition and the23 consolidation of various24 responsibilities, the Department has25 158 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 reduced budgeted positions from 65 to 512 over the past four years. 7 The Procurement Department is8 comprised of three divisions. 25 159 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The Services, Supplies and2 Equipment Division issued 155 bids in3 FY10, resulting in 270 contract awards4 totalling $69,590,000. These awards,5 coupled with contract renewals, mean that6 at any given time there are approximately7 800 active Procurement contracts8 available for use. Also in FY10, 9619 small order purchases under $30,000 were10 also processed, totalling $6,277,000. 15 In FY10, our Capital Programs16 Unit processed 104 bids resulting in 10117 contracts worth $147,443. 2 The Department is also3 responsible to certify local business4 entities that may qualify for the five5 percent bid preference on contract6 awards. This effort is an incentive7 meant to encourage local vendors to get8 preference in bidding opportunities while9 continuing to have a base of operations10 within the City. 16 The Procurement Inspections17 Officer works closely with the using18 departments and the Water Testing Lab to19 ensure that all supplies and equipment20 meet the specifications as required in21 the awarded contracts. 2 The PIO also inspects the premises of3 applicants for local business entity bid4 preference to determine the validity of5 that location as a functioning local6 office, as required by the LBE7 regulations. Follow-up inspections are8 performed periodically to ensure that9 contractors continue to operate within10 the City limits. Violators are reported11 to the Inspector General for further12 investigation. 22 Madam President, this concludes23 my testimony. 3
Thank4 you, Commissioner.5 On of your testimony,6 you mention you will be implementing an7 electronic bid announcement system. Once8 this is accomplished, will you be able to9 reduce your advertising budget, and, if10 so, by how much?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:12 Unfortunately the answer to that is no,13 because advertising is mandated by14 legislation. We're required to advertise15 two consecutive weeks in one of the top16 three circulating newspapers in the City.17 And our advertising budget itself is18 really only about $120,000. The rest of19 our budget, we pay for any mandated20 advertising throughout the City. We pay21 for that out of our budget.22
What23 does that cost?24 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Excuse25 163 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 me?2
What3 does that cost?4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I'll tell5 you exactly. It's in the neighborhood of6 $2 million, but I've got to locate that.7
Yes,10 sir.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We pay12 for mandated advertising in the13 department --14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 Excuse me, Commissioner.16
I just want17 to back you up on something that you just18 said when it's appropriate.19
Very20 well.21 Commissioner, do you want to22 respond to my question.23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes. The24 advertising for the City as well as for25 164 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Procurement comes to $1,744,000. That's2 projected for 2012. We also pay for3 election advertisings, things such as4 that, sheriff sales.5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Commissioner Rizzo -- I made you a7 Commissioner. Councilman Rizzo.8
Madam Chair,9 I believe what you said is a very10 important point that we have to follow up11 on. As we modernize our work practices,12 we need to modernize our legislation.13 And I think that you guys have14 a responsibility that if there's an15 obstacle in legislation, that you need to16 come to us and say, We need to change17 this legislation, so you can save the18 City money.19 So what I would hope you would20 do -- and I think the President broke the21 code there -- is that you need to22 modernize the legislation that requires23 you to spend money in areas that may not24 necessarily -- I'm not saying it's going25 165 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to go away, sheriff sales, but I think2 you could start to reduce the advertising3 costs.4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: And I5 agree with you completely and I'd love to6 reduce advertising costs. The only ones7 I'll be able to reduce would be the8 Procurement advertising-mandated costs,9 because most of the others -- excuse me.10 I'll back up. Our costs are mandated by11 City Charter.12
I was13 going to say --14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Sheriff15 sales -- I'm sorry, Madam President.16
I was17 going to ask that question. Would we18 need a City Charter change?19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.20 That's just for the Procurement21 advertising.22
And23 we did one; did we not? Didn't we do a24 City Charter change?25 166 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
We did a2 Charter change.3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:4 Councilman Clarke introduced a bill a5 couple years ago.6
And?7 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: His bill8 was mainly introduced to in case the City9 newspapers were on strike. We would love10 to reword that to include our advertising11 so we wouldn't have to do that. We12 believe we can. We haven't gotten to13 that point yet.14
I am15 told that that City Charter change was16 done.17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20
There was --21 Rebecca Rynhart, Budget Director. There22 was a Charter change done. I think there23 would need to be, I think, an ordinance24 or a follow-up ordinance to actually25 167 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 change the requirements, the advertising2 requirements, to make it cheaper. So I3 think that if Council is amenable to4 that, that's something that we'd probably5 want to work with you on to be able to6 save money there.7
Well,8 I think the Administration and Council9 should be working on that, because we're10 talking about $1,749,000.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:12 Unfortunately, Madam President, most of13 the advertising for campaigns for the14 vice-presidential -- whatever elections15 we're having are mandated by federal and16 state laws, and also sheriff sales.17
But18 isn't City advertising by local19 ordinances?20 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Some of21 it is; some of it isn't, correct. Most22 Commission meetings, I believe, are23 handled -- can be changed. But the ones24 covered by the federal and state statutes25 168 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we can't change. And that is probably2 the bulk of our advertising, to be quite3 honest. It's all the elections every4 four years, the two elections. It all5 has to be advertised. The polling places6 have to be advertised, sheriff sales --7 there's a state law about that -- has to8 be advertised, at a minimum, the Legal9 Intelligencer, as well as other10 newspapers, what other top three11 circulation, I believe.12 So there's a lot more to it. I13 mean, I've been on a crusade to try and14 reduce advertising over the last couple15 years by only allowing departments to16 submit mandated advertising to us, but17 there's some they do on their own that's18 not our budget.19
So are you22 saying that the sheriff sales and23 whatever sales are mandatory by the24 state?25 169 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The2 advertising, yes. It has to be in the3 legal newspaper in each location.4
So they5 have to be in the legal paper?6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Say that7 one more time. I'm losing you here.8
I'm sorry.9 So you have to put those in the Legal10 Intelligencer?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes. And12 I believe, since I don't place them13 directly, I believe it's also one of the14 larger three circulated newspapers.15
So one of16 the larger three circulated papers and --17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: And the18 Legal Intelligencer. And the state says19 it has to be done in every locale in the20 state.21
So at22 least one major paper that's circulated23 every day and the Legal Intelligencer.24 It doesn't have to be two major papers?25 170 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: No.2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes,3 okay.4
I6 think that's something that we and the7 Administration should be looking at.8 You're going to follow through on that,9 Dear?10
Thank12 you.13 Will the Administration be14 submitting an ordinance to City15 Council -- I was going to say, will we be16 getting an ordinance and when will we get17 it regarding the advertising procedures?18
I think that's19 something we need to talk about20 internally and then -- I don't have -- I21 don't know all the details of that. So22 we'll talk internally, but, again, if23 there's a way here to save some money,24 it's something we definitely want to do.25 171 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 So we'll be in touch with you shortly2 about it.3
Sure.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Commissioner, on of your budget,8 you are requesting $80,000 for online9 auction of surplus vehicles and10 equipment. Why isn't this in the Fleet11 Management budget?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Because13 there's much more than just vehicles that14 are auctioned. It's an auction for15 anything we might have. The only thing16 we do separately is scrap metal. It17 could be regular -- whatever we have18 that --19
Give20 us an example, please.21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Desks,22 huge desks, that people have no use of23 anymore. Unless we can get them to a24 department, we will do it ourselves.25 172 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Councilman Jones, there's your desk.3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, the4 auto auctions provided for 1,063,000.5 Non-auto was $31,956. So there are other6 things besides just vehicles that are7 auctioned. Aluminum poles was one from8 the Streets Department. I just don't9 recall the others because I don't do the10 actual auctions.11
Very12 well. On of your detail, you are13 requesting $150,000 for Chartwell14 Advisory Group. This represents a 3515 percent commission on all refunds16 received from the state. Can you explain17 what this is and how are refunds included18 in the revenue estimates?19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The20 refunds are -- when we do get the21 refunds, they go right to the General22 Fund. But what they consist of -- it's23 for public works contracts. Probably 9924 percent of it is public works contracts.25 173 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The state -- the City -- I'm sorry. The2 sales tax, the state sales tax code is3 very, very complicated and it's4 impossible for vendors or contractors,5 since they're buying so much stuff at6 once, to say this is taxable, this is7 not. So they pay the tax. We in turn8 pay them the tax, because we don't know9 what it is either, it's so complicated.10 And then we go back to the state to get11 it.12 To give you an idea of how13 complicated -- and I believe I said this14 last year. A six-inch nail would15 probably be taxable. A two-inch nail16 would not be taxable. It's that crazy.17 And this is why this company actually18 exists and goes out and spends time,19 spend days going over contractors' books20 in order to come up -- they want their 3521 percent. Of course, we want our 6522 percent. But they go out and they really23 do look for it. I've had vendors call24 and say, Look, we have our own people to25 174 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 do this. I said, No, our guy wants to do2 it. And they'll find $20,000, $30,0003 even though these guys are saying there's4 no way this could happen.5
Very6 interesting.7 Where is that in the revenue8 estimates? What page would that be?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't10 know there's an estimate, because you11 never know from one year to the next12 what's going to happen. As a matter of13 fact, Harrisburg --14
We15 have to have something. I'm sure the16 revenue estimates are not zero.17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well,18 unless the state starts paying us some of19 the taxes they owe us, it may be zero,20 because they're not paying money right21 now. That's part because of their budget22 situation. We have a lot of money23 hanging up in Harrisburg that we paid in24 previous years that we're not able to25 175 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 collect it right now. Last check we got2 from Chartwell --3
How4 much does the state owe?5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Excuse6 me?7
How8 much does the state owe us?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Hold on10 and I'll try to find out for you.11
I was just told12 that the money actually comes into the13 Grants Fund, because it was expended out14 of the Grants Fund, not into the General15 Fund, because it was expended out of the16 Grants.17
I18 thought 35 percent went to the Grants19 Fund.20
I think 3521 percent is the fee that we pay.22 Right, Hugh?23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:24 Yes.25 176 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
But4 isn't that the only part that would go to5 the Grants Fund?6
The 35 percent7 is their commission. So that would get8 paid to them. So that 35 percent goes to9 them, and then the rest of the -- oh,10 you're saying the equivalent of the 3511 percent would come to the Grants and the12 rest would come to the General Fund? I'd13 have to check on it. If you're14 interested, I can figure out where it15 would be in the General Fund, sure.16
I can do that.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We did20 ask Chartwell for this information that21 you just requested last week, and we22 haven't gotten it yet. We do know that23 there is a minimum sitting in Harrisburg24 from invoicing --25 177 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Excuse me, Commissioner.3 Mr. Donatucci, please don't4 leave the room. I want to see you. Your5 budget is coming up soon.6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: There are7 refunds that have been hanging up in8 Harrisburg not approved yet that were9 submitted last year totalling somewhere10 in the vicinity of $200,000. But I'd11 have to talk -- we specifically asked12 that one question from Chartwell last13 week, and they have not gotten back to14 us, but I will get you that information15 and submit it to you.16
Thank17 you so much.18 The Chair recognizes Councilman19 Goode.20
Thank you,21 Madam President.22 Good afternoon, Mr. Ortman and23 Ms. Stitt.24 Mr. Ortman, the Procurement25 178 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Department handles all citywide2 contracts; is that correct?3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We4 process all citywide contracts, yes.5
And that's6 not reflected in your budget, but it's7 reflected in the budgets of all the8 departments?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The10 expenditures are reflected in the budgets11 of all departments, yes.12
In terms of13 citywide contracts, can you tell me what14 is the largest contract you anticipate15 for Fiscal Year '12?16 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I have17 the contracts that are currently in18 place. For FY12, I'd have to run through19 each one individually to see which20 contracts are expiring in FY12 and then21 see what the value that we spent over the22 last four years.23
What is the24 largest contract for this fiscal year?25 179 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Currently2 in place would probably be -- well,3 there's actually a group of contracts for4 water chemicals, treatment of water. It5 probably totals 20-some million dollars,6 but that's a group of contracts because7 it's like eight or ten different vendors.8 Individual contract would probably be9 Elliot-Lewis at the Airport.10
You said the11 next one -- I'm sorry.12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: That's13 going up -- that will be going out very14 shortly.15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:16 Elliot-Lewis at the Airport, the FMC,17 Facilities Maintenance Contracts.18
Okay. For19 both of those contracts, are they20 renewable contracts?21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes, but22 the Elliot-Lewis one should be going out23 shortly for rebid.24
When was25 180 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that last bid?2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Last bid3 was in 2007.4
So how many5 years has the firm held that contract?6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, it7 just got extended for another three8 months, but it's been four years.9
And that is10 not a certified disadvantaged business.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: No, it's12 not, but they do have 29 percent13 participation.14
I'm getting15 there.16 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Oh, I'm17 sorry.18
Does the19 firm subcontract with disadvantaged20 businesses?21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Say it22 again, please.23
Does the24 firm subcontract with disadvantaged25 181 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 businesses?2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.3
What was the4 DBE participation goal in the last RFP?5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't6 have -- the goal is actually best7 efforts, but they came up with 29 percent8 in their actual -- in their bid.9
Why was the10 goal best efforts?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't12 know the answer to that question. I13 would have to ask OEO and see what they14 set the goals for. I'm assuming -- well,15 I don't know the answer to that question.16
Okay.17 Briefly describe the contract18 requirements.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: For the20 Airport?21
For the22 Elliot-Lewis contract.23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's24 huge. Well, the contract itself was25 182 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 about that thick. It's baggage claim,2 there's -- it's basically all the stuff3 on the outside of the tarmac as far as4 management, cleaning, repairing, window5 washing, whatever it may be.6
So you don't7 know what goals were in the -- you said8 the goals in the RFP were best efforts.9 Do you know what goals were actually in10 the contract? Were there goals in the11 actual contract?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:13 Twenty-nine percent.14
That's what15 Elliot-Lewis came up with. That's what's16 in the actual contract?17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:18 Right.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I know20 that was in their original bid. What was21 actually in the negotiated contract, I22 don't know the answer to that. I'm going23 to assume it was the same, but I can't24 say it's for sure.25 183 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Has anyone2 beyond Elliot-Lewis identified what3 subcontract opportunities exist in the4 contract?5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: For this6 contract, for the new one coming up?7
This8 particular contract.9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well,10 Elliot-Lewis is the one that would go out11 and find them. I'm not sure what you12 mean by that question. Once a contractor13 is in place, we wouldn't go out and14 solicit more people. That would be up to15 OEO and Elliot-Lewis.16
Let me17 reword it. Has anyone identified what18 subcontract opportunities are going to be19 in the RFP?20 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: In the21 new RFP?22
In the new23 RFP.24 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I haven't25 184 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 seen the new RFP.2
Who would3 know --4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:5 They would be similar to -- they're going6 to be similar to the previous contract,7 but of course --8
But the9 previous RFP said best-faith efforts.10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: I11 don't know what the participation range12 is going to be.13
How big is14 this contract?15 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's 1316 million.17
And we don't21 know what the subcontract opportunity is22 going to be within the RFP?23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: They are24 still -- hold on a second.25 185 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 (Witness approached witness2 table.)3
Good4 afternoon. My name is Angela5 Dowd-Burton. I'm Executive Director of6 the Office of Economic Opportunity.7 Councilman, without having the8 documents right in front of me, I can't9 be specific, but I will tell you in10 general what we will do is look at the11 subcontracting activity on the current12 contract and, at a minimum, indicate13 these are the options for any of the14 companies responding to the request for15 proposal to use these kinds of services16 to subcontract out for.17
Okay. I18 understand that, and as you're aware,19 every department that comes up, I'm going20 to ask them what their largest contract21 is.22
I'm going to24 ask the same series of questions and get25 186 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 down to what the actual contracting2 process is. And so what I'm going to3 need in terms of response, whether it's4 from Procurement or whether it's from5 OEO, is, particularly since there's a new6 RFP going out, what subcontract7 opportunities are identified within that8 RFP and what percentage of contract9 dollars does that represent. I'm10 actually not as concerned with or only11 concerned or solely concerned with the12 percentage of contract dollars. I'm more13 concerned about process in terms of how14 far we're digging in terms of15 subcontracting opportunities. And so I16 think the best way to go through this17 process with all departments is to look18 at the largest contract that they handle19 and actually see what their process20 actually is.21
So whoever23 is going to forward that information,24 will you please forward that information25 187 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 through the Chair.2 I'll move on in terms of3 contracts. In terms -- actually, still4 with the Elliot-Lewis contract. Is that5 firm currently in compliance with the6 City's living wage and benefits standard?7 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't8 know the answer to that question.9
Will the10 firm be required to be in compliance for11 Fiscal Year '12?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.13