Oversight Hearing on Master Agreements Transparency – June 17, 2026
Oversight Hearing on Master Agreements Transparency – June 17, 2026
The New York City Council Committee on Contracts, chaired by Lincoln Restler, held an oversight hearing on transparency and accountability in the city's use of master agreements (MA1s and MMA1s). The hearing examined spending of over $8.8 billion through these contracts between fiscal years 2022 and 2025, with 28,000 delivery orders per year, and focused on the lack of public visibility into what is purchased, at what price, and by which agency. The committee heard from the Mayor's Office of Contract Services (Mox), the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), the Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI), the New York City Comptroller's Office, and members of the public.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Charles Diamond (former city official, personal capacity) argued that the lack of delivery order tracking stems from procurement rules emphasizing procedural compliance over value for money. He called for investing in Passport enhancements and warned that proposed cuts to Mox's budget (18.8%) would hinder progress. He noted that passport enhancements require funding to close the information gap.
- Mike Hickey (Chief of Strategy and Operations, Citizens NYC) described their master contract with NYC Emergency Management as a successful tool for quickly funding over 750 community-based organizations ($12 million annually). He highlighted that data on purchases exists but is not transmitted through Passport, and that agency procurement cultures vary widely.
- Christopher Leon Johnson (public) criticized perceived favoritism toward Working Families Party-affiliated nonprofits and called for equal scrutiny across all organizations receiving city contracts. He also raised concerns about the homeless industrial complex and requested a non-bid contract for a table outside a community hub.
- Hayden B. Siegel (NYC Health + Hospitals IT worker, via Zoom) advocated for increased pay and expanded roles for his department's overnight IT staff, noting that they handle critical biomedical equipment and require higher qualifications. He emphasized that data on supply orders is captured in ServiceNow but not integrated into central reporting.
Discussion Items
- Chair Lincoln Restler opened with statistics: master agreements made up ~17% of city contract spending over four years ($8.8 billion), with agencies issuing more than 28,000 delivery orders annually. He highlighted the Garner Environmental Services contract, originally estimated at $30 million but resulting in $675 million in spending (20 times the estimate), with agencies paying vastly different rates for security guards ($24/hr under a union contract vs. $117/hr paid by Health + Hospitals).
- Administration panel (John Kitsoris, Deputy City Chief Procurement Officer, Mox; Roman Goffman, Deputy Commissioner, DCAS; Gail Tang, Deputy Commissioner, OTI; Chantal Santas, Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters) explained the difference between MA1s (goods, direct orders) and MMA1s (services, task orders). They acknowledged that downstream usage data is captured in various systems (FMS, DCAS direct order system, Passport) but not in a unified way. Only 30% of DCAS's master agreements are in Passport, though efforts are ongoing to move contracts there as they are reprocured. They noted that line-item details (quantity, price) are not centrally available because FMS does not capture item-level data.
- Council Members Gale Brewer, Kamillah Hanks, and Inna Vernikov pressed for detailed spend reports by agency, line-item tracking, and integration with Checkbook NYC. Deputy Commissioner Goffman stated that DCAS can produce spend reports by agency but not by line item without manual review of invoices. OTI's Gail Tang confirmed that for their citywide IT contract (covering 740 manufacturers), OTI has records for its own purchases but not for those made by other agencies. The chair expressed frustration that billions of dollars in spending lack centralized tracking.
- Comptroller's office (Deputy Controller Charlotte Hamangian and Dan Roboff) presented findings from a recent report. They noted that one in three MA1s is overspent or underspent by more than half, with cumulative overspend of $1.6 billion since 2015. Citywide IT contracts were overspent by nearly $2 billion. They recommended expanding Passport catalog/punch-out tools (currently covering <10% of active master agreements), enhancing FMS/Passport to capture delivery order details (product, quantity, unit price), improving demand estimation methodologies, and proactively seeking savings—especially in IT. They argued that the lack of data prevents the city from using its full purchasing power.
- Charles Diamond (public testimony) echoed the need for technology investment, noting that delivery orders are not tracked because procurement rules focus on competitiveness rather than value. He stated that the current executive budget proposes reducing Mox's budget by 18.8%, which would hinder Passport enhancements. He urged funding for procurement systems.
- Accelerated procurements were discussed: these account for nearly 40% of MA1 registrations since FY22 ($625 million spent). DCAS uses accelerated procurement for food and chemicals (fuel, heating oil). Council members questioned whether the city could reduce spend and get better pricing through this method.
- OTI's CDW contract was examined: a $142 million purchase of 350,000 Chromebooks for schools, with ongoing cellular service costs. OTI is considering savings opportunities but could not provide the monthly cost of the cellular service. Chair Restler noted that the mayor's savings plan includes renegotiating technology contracts.
- Citizens NYC's master contract was highlighted as a positive example of using master agreements to quickly fund hyperlocal organizations, with payments reaching vendors in about 45 days. The contract is in the process of being moved from NYCEM to OTI.
Key Outcomes
- The committee filed the oversight (as per meeting minutes). No formal votes were taken.
- Chair Restler indicated that if administrative solutions are not achieved, the council may pursue legislative action to mandate transparency. He called for continued collaboration with Mox, DCAS, OTI, and the Comptroller's Office.
- Administration witnesses committed to following up with more detailed spend reports and to exploring technology improvements to centralize delivery order data, including expanding Passport usage and enhancing data capture.
- The hearing underscored the need for investment in procurement systems (Passport enhancements) to close the information gap and enable better cost control and negotiation leverage.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon and welcome to the New York City Council here in for the committee on contracts. Please turn all devices on silent. Going forward, no one is to approach the dayus. If you have any questions or you want to testify testify as you want to decide on that ops. Chair, you may begin. Thank you so much, the Sergeant of Arms. Uh my name is Lincoln Wrestler. I have the privilege of chairing the committee on contracts. I would like to welcome my friend and colleague, the inimitable Gail Brewer. Thank you for joining us today. Today we're holding an oversight hearing on the city's use of master contracts. Master agreements made up about 17% of the city's contract spending over the past four years. We paid over $8.8 billion for these goods and services, and yet there is no meaningful public record of what we purchased. Master agreements are a critical and frankly helpful contracting tool. They are standing contracts that allow city agencies to quickly purchase laptops or hire security guards without running a new years-long, painful procurement process. The city signs one master umbrella contract, and every agency can then place individual orders off those contracts. It's essential that agencies have this flexibility in order to operate efficiently and serve New Yorkers well. But unlike regular contracts, where we have a detailed review process and transparent reporting on exactly what was spent, we currently have very limited information on purchase details for master agreements or MA1s. Public records show only spending, they're not here for the contracts hearing, that's why they're laughing so hard. Um the public records show only spending totals and not items, quantities, and company details. Last month, controller Mark Levine released a compelling report on these master agreement contracts. His office found that between fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2025, the extent of the Adams administration, mayoral agencies spent more than $8.8 billion through these delivery orders or DO1s, issuing more than 28,000 orders each year. The estimated values agencies put on these contracts at registration bear limited relationship to what the city actually ends up spending. Agencies have overspent the combined value of these master agreement contracts by more than 1.6 billion dollars over these this four-year period. In 2023, DCAS registered an emergency master agreement with Garner Environmental Services. The estimated value was about 30 million dollars. Since then, agencies have placed 103 delivery orders against that contract, spending more than $675 million, more than 20 times the estimated value of the contract. These were largely purchases to support asylum seekers, purchases that we absolutely needed to be able to effectuate quickly. But reporting later found that agencies paid wildly different amounts for the same service on this contract. HH, for example, Health and Hospitals paid $117 per hour for security guards, while NYSAM paid only $79 or New York City Emergency Management paid only $79 per hour for security guards, both far exceeding the city's rate on existing contract, $24 an hour with FJC, but I believe DHS holds, which is a union contract for security guards at you know less than a quarter of the price that it that HH paid. Examples like this illustrate that we need to eliminate the contract. We need examples like this illustrate not that we need to eliminate this important contracting tool, but that we need to increase transparency and implement more rigorous standards and review to ensure we are planning properly and always getting the lowest price to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars. The city's technology contracts are similarly opaque. OTI has a single citywide IT contract that covers 740 manufacturers and service providers. We have overspent on that contract by two billion dollars without any reporting on what we actually purchased. There is no way to look how many laptops or printers we purchased and how much they cost. While agencies are collecting invoices before making payments without centralized reporting on purchases, it's impossible for us to identify patterns and discrepancies between agency purchases. Today we are hoping to gain more insight into the current review practices and protocols at Mox, DCAS, and OTI, and OTI. We hope that the administration is committed to working with the council to increase transparency and oversight of this of this spending. I really do appreciate that the Mamdani administration has made clear that they are committed to identifying cost savings and efficiencies in contracts, and we hope to work together to identify additional savings that can be found through improved review protocols and systems upgrades. Before we begin, I'd like to just thank our terrific contracts committee team for their hard work in preparing for today's hearing. Senior Counsel Alex Polanoff was very excited about this hearing and unfortunately has a sick kid, so I know he's watching from home. We appreciate all your help, Alex, and our terrific committee counsel Jahari Fraser, who transferred with me here from GovOps, although we still have scale over there as well. Our policy analyst Alex Dublon, financial analyst Owen Kotowski, and the brains of our operation in Council District 33, my chief of staff, Molly Haley. I would now like to turn over to the committee council to administer the oath and thank the panelists for joining us today. Alright, we will now hear testimony from the administration. Before we begin, I will administer the affirmation. Panelists, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee and to respond honestly to council member questions? Alright, we may begin when ready.
openpublica.com