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.

Good afternoon, Chair Wrestler, CM Brewer, and members of the Contracts Committee.

My name is John Kitsoris, and I serve as the Deputy City Chief Procurement Officer at the Mayor's Office of Contract Services.

I'm joined by Roman Goffman, Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Citywide Procurement at the Department of Citywide Administrative Services.

Gail Tang, Deputy Commissioner of Financial Management and Procurement at the Office of Technology and Innovation.

And Chantal Santas, Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the city's use of master agreements.

Mock serves as the city's central procurement oversight and policy office.

In that role, we support agencies navigating the city's procurement framework, promote consistency and procurement practices, and work to improve transparency, accountability, and efficiency across the city's contracting processes.

Procurement is one of the ways city government delivers for New Yorkers.

Agencies need goods and services to keep buildings operating, maintain technology systems, support programs, and respond to changing needs.

At the same time, public purchasing must be accountable, competitive, and understandable.

Master agreements are one tool the city uses to meet those responsibilities.

They use the city to establish contract vehicles in advance for goods and services they may need, even when the exact quantity or scope is not known at the time of the agreement.

By combining similar needs across agencies, master agreements also allow cities, the city to use its purchasing power to seek better pricing and value than an individual agency may be able to obtain on its own.

This helps agencies avoid starting a new procurement each time a common or recurring need arises, while preserving the procurement controls that apply to city contracting.

Mox acknowledges the controller's review and looks forward to continued conversations around improving transparency into the agency utilization of master agreements.

Today's hearing is an opportunity to explain how these agreements work, why agencies use them, and how the city can continue improving public understanding of agency usage over time.

For goods, master agreements allow agencies to purchase from agreements that have already gone through competitive process to establish fair and reasonable pricing.

This is particularly valuable when the city can leverage the competitive market using the collective needs of the entire city to encourage competition and secure better pricing than individual individual agencies may be able to achieve on their own.

These agreements can support reoccurring needs such as equipment, supplies, and other goods used across multiple agencies.

For services, master agreements generally establish the overall scope, eligible vendor or vendor pool, and prenegotiated terms, conditions, and pricing.

When an agency needs a specific service, the agency issues a task order that defines the particular scope of work pricing, payment terms, and other details needed for that agency's use of the agreement.

Task orders allow the agency to tailor the assignment to its actual need while using the contract structure that has already been established through the procurement process.

Depending on the structure of the agreement, the assignment of work may occur through non-discretionary rotation, additional competitions such as a mini-bid or mini RFP process, or another process established in the terms of the agreement.

Master agreements also include different pricing and payment models, including maximum rates, fixed fee deliverables, milestone-based payments, or payment after successful delivery.

Taken together, this structure allows the city to move more efficiently without requiring agencies to start from the beginning each time a similar need arises.

It reduces duplicative procurement work, creates more of a consistent structure for agencies to use, and allows the city to leverage its purchasing power where multiple agencies have similar needs.

The goal is not to avoid oversight.

The goal is to establish an appropriate procurement vehicle in advance so agencies can access goods and services efficiently when the need arises.

The process does not end when a master agreement is established.

Master agreements remain subject to agency chief contracting officer review, mocks review where applicable, contract registration, and controller audit authority, and most importantly, agency contract management responsibilities after award.

Before implementation, master agreements are reviewed and registered consistent with the city's contract registration requirements.

For master services agreements, related task orders provide additional detail about the specific assignment and are also registered.

For other master agreement structures, agency usage may be reflected through purchase orders, FMS information, agency records, and related procurement documentation.

Those steps are important.

They help confirm that the agreement has gone through the applicable procurement process, the city has the authority and funding to proceed, and the agency remains within the scope of the terms of the underlying agreement.

At the agency level, the use of the master agreement still requires agencies to define their needs, document the goods or services being purchased, confirm a funding availability, and allow the applicable purchase order or task order process.

In other words, the existence of a master agreement does not eliminate agency responsibility for appropriate use, contract administration or fiscal controls.

One area where terminology can create confusion is the distinction between MA1 and MMA1 agreements.

At a high level, MA1 agreements are master agreements that allow for agencies to issue purchase orders known as direct orders or DO1s against the pre-established contract.

These agreements are often goods or other purchases where contract establishes available line items, pricing, or other terms in advance while agency-specific quantities are determined as the need arises.

One simple example is a contract for the purchase of window air conditioners.

MMA1 agreements or master services agreements generally involve a structure where the master service agreement is registered and agencies later issue task orders for specific assignments.

Task orders define the particular scope of work, pricing, payment terms, and other details needed for the agency's use of the agreement.

These agreements are often used for services where agencies may need similar types of support, such as technical assistance, professional services, or quality assurance, but where the specific scope of each assignment depends on the agency's need.

Based on a preliminary internal review, the city has approximately 652 active MA1 contracts whose aggregate registered value is approximately $7.6 billion.

And approximately 552 active MMA1 contracts whose aggregate registered value is approximately 12.9 billion.

These agreements represent a significant procurement universe and are used across agencies to support goods, services, technology, construction, and other recurring or citywide needs.

The aggregate registered values reflect the potential spending by the city through these master agreements based on anticipated agency needs and historical utilization patterns.

Realized spending may be significantly different and depends on the future agency purchase purchasing decisions and operational requirements.

As master agreements are used across agencies, the central transparency question is not only what underlying contract allows, but how the agency activity under the contract is reflected over time.

The controller's report focuses on attention on that issue, how agency level usage of the master agreement is captured, presented, and understood.

That distinction is important to public trust and procurement, and is also important to ensure that oversight discussions are grounded in how these agreements actually function.

At the same time, it's important to distinguish between contract level information and agency level usage information.

For many competitively procured contracts, including DCAS-administered commodity contracts, the underlying bid includes the line items that describe the goods available through the contract.

In those cases, the contract record provides information about what may be purchased through that agreement.

Separate question is how agency usage is reflected after the master agreement has been established.

Once agencies begin purchasing against an agreement, oversight entities and the public may want to understand which agencies are using it, what quantities are being purchased, and which purchase orders or task orders being issued and how spending changes over time.

Some of that information is captured across different city systems.

However, those systems do not always present information in a single unified way.

As a result, a complete picture of agency level usage may require looking across multiple data sources depending on the type of master agreement and the way agency activity is documented.

That is the core visibility challenge.

It should not be confused with a lack of procurement authority or contract structure.

Rather, it reflects a system and data limitation on how downstream usage is captured and displayed across agreement types and city systems.

Mock supports continued conversation on how to make this information easier to understand.

Any discussion of transparency should therefore distinguish between the master agreement itself, which establishes the contract vehicle, and the agency level purchasing activity that occurs under the vehicle over time.

That's right.

Master agreements can support consistency across agencies, but consistency does not mean every agency will use an agreement in the same way or at the same level.

Agencies may have difficult have different operational needs, service environments, volumes, locations, and timing.

And those differences can affect what is purchased or how services are scoped.

The value of a master agreement is that those needs are addressed through a common procurement structure rather than through a separate uncoordinated procurement by each agency.

This structure can support competition, consistent terms, established pricing, and better use of the city's collective purchasing power.

For that reason, differences in agency usage or cost do not necessarily mean inconsistency or a lack of value.

What matters is whether agencies are using the agreement within its scope under the established terms and conditions by the procurement and through the applicable purchase order or task order process.

That's the balance master agreements are intended to support, flexibility for agencies to meet specific needs, and a common procurement structure that promotes consistency, competition, oversight, and value.

In closing, master agreements are an important part of the city's procurement toolkit.

They help agencies meet common and recurring needs efficiently while remaining in line with applicable rules, registration requirements, oversight review, and audit authority that governs city contract.

This hearing also reflects the importance of clear public visibility into how master agreements are used over time.

That discussion benefits both from a citywide procurement perspective and the operational experience of agencies that administer specific contract vehicles, including DCAS and OTI.

Mox looks forward to continued work with the committee, the controller, OMB, and agency partners to strengthen procurement transparency while preserving the tools that help agencies deliver services effectively.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great.

That was helpful and clear uh testimony.

Thank you very much for providing it.

Uh I really appreciate it.

And thank you for coming back to the Contract Committee again.

Uh John, it's good to, or Mr.

Catoras, it's good to see you.

Um so I want to thank our WIP, uh, the North Shore's own uh Councilmember Hanks for joining us, as well as Council Member Vernikov from the Best Borough.

Uh do you have do you want to jump in with anything?

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you so much for joining us here today.

Um, what records are created when an agency um contracting officers make delivery orders uh under a master agreement?

So the structure, the the document name that that would be referenced from a master agreement that's an MA1.

The resulting order is a DO1.

Uh and for MMA1 master agreements, the resulting task order is called a CTA1.

Thank you.

Um what steps must be taken for agencies to justify the use of a master agreement rather than a conventional contract?

It's all part of the pre-solicitation review that that's uh goes into the procurement process overall.

The agency would have to uh include its justification for the use of the procurement method, why it's establishing the contract that it needs, and would come with supporting documentation.

Uh, to drive that.

Thank you.

So who would review that and approve it and that justification?

Uh that it well, it begins with the individual agency that seeks to set up that master agreement.

Um so I I mean I would defer to my colleagues here that would speak to how drive them to begin this process, uh, but mocks would have uh a review in that pre-solicitation review before anything is released, but uh, but I'll defer to my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh was uh is the question really how the DO1 process starts or the master agreement?

So we're we're we're trying to, you know, what steps steps may um need to be taken for agencies to justify a use of the master agreement rather than a conventional contract, and who reviews and approves that justification?

So for the use of master agreements, there are they're put in place to be readily available for agencies to use.

They don't have to have a justification to use them.

Um for DCAS-specific contracts, uh, part of our charter mandate is any goods purchased by agencies over a certain dollar value automatically is to be procured by DCAS.

Uh once those contracts in place, as long as an agency has a need of a line item off of that contract, they're allowed to use it.

There's no justification.

There are certain uh contracts that does have additional buyer approval uh where we review uh the direct orders that come to us uh before we allow the purchase order to go through the full systematic approach before it gets approved.

Thank you.

And so lastly, uh is there any reason why uh the request of a use of a master agreement would be turned down?

So so just to clarify agencies are not requesting to use master agreements, they're readily there.

Uh there's certain items, uh certain contracts that we do for NYPD, like firearms, uh bulletproof vest, uh certain contracts for furniture where we have buyer approval that they still are allowed to use it.

They need to submit it to us, and we have to confirm that it's used appropriately.

So, like another agency can't go by firearm unless it's one of those agencies like VOC uh DCAS or uh NYPD.

Thank you so much, and thank you, Chair.

Councilmember Brewer, would you like to ask any questions?

Do you want me to go ahead?

I'm doing the Manhattan delegation budget.

She's double she's double well, double fisting.

Okay, so I will jump in and you'll let me know when you're ready.

So I I just want to say firstly, and I hope my opening was clear on this, that I think master agreements are a helpful tool.

They're a good thing.

It's not that's the the premise of the hearing is not to question the existence of master agreements or to imply that there's something um problematic as a procurement vehicle.

The goal, I think the concerns that were outlined in the controller report and that I share are do we have the right transparency and oversight to ensure that we're spending as effective uh cost effectively as we can be.

Um so you outlined this a bit in your testimony, but could you just help me once again to explain the difference between MA1s and MMA ones?

Uh what who makes the determination of whether to use an MA1?

Is the agent when the agency makes a determination to use an MA1 versus M MMA one?

Why are they choosing one or the other?

So, Chair Wrestler, I just want to make sure I understand your question.

Uh you won are you asking when the contracting agency that sets up that master agreement, yes, what's the decision-making process to set it up one way versus the other?

Yes.

Um I think it's in t so I I I won't speak entirely uh uh put words in the mouth of my colleagues here, but I'll I'll defer to them to add to this.

But uh it's it's all a matter of how the intended contract what it intends to provide uh and what the scope of those overarching terms and conditions are.

Uh what I mentioned briefly in my testimony is that you would typically see MA1 contracts for goods-based or commodity-based contracts, and so which is a very simple list of catalog items, and you're placing an order of a particular item, and that and that direct order is placed to the to the vendor to for fulfillment.

Uh something that requires a little bit more in-depth depth and scope to uh the work that's being requested is that task order process, that MMA one.

And it's also present when you have a competitive process among multiple master agreement holders, and then you introduce a competitive task order process.

Um that would define uh more detailed scope of services, um specific to the agency's needs, uh, and may include uh different types of pricing.

Now, master agreements set ceiling prices, which means in a competitive process, you can actually drive that pricing even lower if you're introducing that level of competition, and so that's what the those CTA one documents or contracts resulting from an MMA one would result in.

So the MMA one has a competitive process that you can go to to potentially drive the price down in MA1, you're just buying off of the existing vendors.

Uh at a very, very high level, yes.

That's right.

Is anything anyone want to add on that?

Um I would just say that everything's correct.

Almost all of our goods are done as MA1s.

We have clear line items what agencies are purchasing uh in the instructions.

Our MMA ones are set to just our service contracts.

Um, and it's really like John said, to define more of scope.

So security guards, even though we're awarding one vendor for a uh certain borough, we still want agencies to do a task order because they outline what buildings where they're going, if they need specific trainings, like there's different trainings for ACS security guard services, then DCAS security guard services, and those task orders add on to the scope of work of the original master agreement, because the master agreement is just uh, you know, the the responsibilities of a security guard company on how to provide security guard service, but any additional responsibilities are outlined in task orders, but even in our service components, so uh pest management, right?

We have line items there of setting traps, setting things like that, and it's just uh MA1 because we know exactly what we want the pest management service company to do, right?

But not to fixate on this example, and Deputy Commissioner, I I think I grilled you about this a couple years ago when I was chairing GovOps, but the Garner contract is an MA1, and that does not precisely fit the description that you both gave.

Could you just help me understand?

There are exceptions, I guess.

Why and when are those exceptions exist?

So the Garner contract was procured a little bit differently.

It wasn't a competitive procurement by DCAS, it was an intergovernmental.

Uh I think when we last testified about this, we're utilizing the federal government's GSA schedule to to a contract with that.

The line items are predetermined and we're pre-negotiated by the federal government.

Uh we're just piggybacking off of that contract.

Um in those scenarios, uh, that contract is mostly has been mostly used, let's not say mostly, has been mostly used by NYSEM uh for coastal storm flooding, uh, things of that nature.

Um and there are predetermined line items.

Those line items, as I testified before, are not to exceed where you can negotiate the line items down.

Um, but for Garner itself, it's uh a blanket purchase order.

We have a coastal storm flooding, Hurricane Sandy.

We need uh campsites, uh things of that nature.

So we're issuing an order, and then we're determining uh the full scope of work while we're having conversations with Garner, they would submit submit a quote, we would approve that quote.

Okay.

Um why is the information on delivery orders or deal ones not tracked?

And what would it take to change that?

As I was mentioning in my testimony, I'm sorry I have to remind myself to keep turning this on.

Um there's uh there's different systems in the way this information is collected.

Now while it's collected in different ways, uh it enables the individual agencies that are mu managing those contracts the ability to manage their contracts, but there's no uniform way to to bring that information together in a more meaningful way that can be centralized and and shared out.

So that's part of what we strive to improve on with that transparency and and the improvements that we make to the level of reporting, and we look forward to doing that and working with our all the stakeholders involved in that process.

Uh but today because that's done in different ways and captured in different ways, the there uh therein lies the change.

Why isn't it captured in passport?

Why isn't it captured in checkbook NYC like our primary transparency reporting tools?

I think it was uh you know, th this is just my own speculation now.

I I believe it was the way Passport had been rolled out and so it was it was going with the more complex nature of the types of contracts and procurement that would be done and um the vehicle for these master agreements was done in a more uh predetermined simpler way, and so when you set them up and you're you're placing your orders, um they were already done in different systems.

Um Deputy Commissioner Goffman had mentioned uh they DCAS has a system to place direct orders, they've managed the the incoming for that.

Um and so that was a process that was already in place but not necessarily had been transferred over uh to passport uh entirely, and so uh just that as an example is just one of the many reasons why we're still moving forward to that central complete transparent process, but we still have more steps uh to take in that.

I for it to be incorporated into passport would require the agencies that hold the MA one the master agreements to work with the agencies buying off of those master agreements to s to input that information to passport, it would require some technology investments to improve passport.

What are the things?

Is that the wrong way to think about it or is there an alternative approach to create the transparency here that we're seeking?

Uh, so Chair Wrestler, I think I think that's a excellent question, but I think it might deserve uh additional follow-up and some careful consideration about how I can fully answer that question.

What about incorporation to checkbook?

Is that just sending the I don't know how everything gets sent to the controller at forgive my ignorance, but i is that just emailing Charlotte every other day?

Um I wouldn't presume to uh to advise that, but uh no, I wouldn't either.

I'm just kidding.

I just but I but in all seriousness for it to be incorporated into checkbook if passport doesn't have the if it's not an easy adjustment within our you know, passport to to make modifications there, is there another mechanism that we have to to bring some transparency and oversight to this?

There is uh admittedly uh somewhat of a disconnect about what how agencies are processing the the data that's collected, but then what uh ultimately gets transferred so that would translate into something in FMS and the checkbook would be able to provide.

Um that's part of that deeper discussion to identify how we can achieve that.

And so uh and it's something that I don't think I could reasonably answer uh here and now, but it it definitely would deserve a follow up.

Because I I would imagine this is the largest tranche of city spending that isn't tracked in passport or checkbook.

Is that your understanding as well?

I think I I you you do not capture a hundred percent.

I I think that's accurate.

And do we have a break?

Oh, uh you know I could go all big.

So I'll do one more and then I'll kick it to all I could.

I won't, because you know, Jahari has things to do.

But um the uh uh what kind of breakdown do we have of the MA one of like the eight point eight billion dollars that the controller identified over the Adams administration that was spent through MA1s?

Like what breakdown of that spending do we have through each agency, through how they spent the money?

Like what how could we if we wanted to to uh piece this together, how would we go about doing that?

Like what information do you have today?

What how what per do you know what the breakdown is of that agency spend?

I think that would uh involve us having to uh discuss individually with each agency that has these master agreements set up.

Uh we have two in the room, but I wouldn't presume to say that that's that that's not the entirety of of the agencies across the city that have master agreements, and I think it would require some additional input from them.

Do you either could either of you speak to out of the eight point eight billion dollars during the Adams Administration?

What percent of the uh master agreement contract spend was through your agency?

Um, I would just say uh thank you, Chair.

Um I don't have the numbers in front of me, but our agency does have the ability to do spend reports on all our contracts by fiscal year by which agencies submitted those direct orders, so we have overall spend.

How hard would it be for you to produce a report like that?

Uh I would have to get back to my team.

I it could be produced.

How hard is it?

Uh there's some manual uh uh review in there, but we we have produced reports like that in the past we could produce reports.

I think that every agency could produce a report like that.

I know that DCAS can produce spend reports on our master agreements by agency.

Um but when it comes down to line items, that would have to be going back to agencies to review individual invoices where they would receive what they bought and how they spent that money and what about OTI.

It would be the same for OTI.

You could pull a report together, it wouldn't be too heavy a lift.

We'll be able to see the overall spending by the agency, but uh like my colleagues have mentioned here, not to the line item details.

Without getting that information from the agency, without getting the information from the agency that maybe ventures.

Yeah.

I mean, it's just a little bonkers to me that we don't have that, right?

It's like it's a lot of money that we're spending through these vehicles, and it's a good thing.

We want agencies to be able to spend efficiently.

It's not that I don't want it to that to happen.

It just seems kind of bonkers that we don't track then how that agency how that money is being spent and look at it all together to evaluate are we getting the best prices?

How is agency X versus agency Y spending off of your contract?

Is it are they spending the same amounts?

What are the variations?

How do we ensure we're getting the best prices?

I I just it's it seems it's just such a a significant amount of money, billions of dollars a year.

I I don't understand how we don't have a centralized tracking of it.

And I don't totally understand how we're getting there, or like what the path would be to do it.

I mean, asking every agency to pull pull these reports they could not even indicate on those reports what different agencies were spending unless we were to cross check every agency what they all put together, it would be a laborious process.

Chair, you raise an excellent point, but I think this might require some additional in-depth review on our part and uh we'd be happy to come back to you with that.

Um I mean, I wonder if there's just some mechanism to automate the invoicing into the reporting?

Because the companies that you're buying from that agencies are buying from, they know exactly what's being spent and how it's and who's buying it.

Is there some easier mechanism that they can fill the in information back in to the submit the information back to the agencies that hold the master agreement so that you have that information available and then can report that into mocks?

Like, what is the how do we think about how do we get there is I I is like what I'm trying to get at.

Uh thank you, Chair.

So I would just say for for DCAS specifically first on the pricing uh statement.

Outside of I know the lovely Garner contract that has uh not to exceed every other contract has pre-negotiated pricing.

Everybody's paying the same price across the board.

Um, not to accede they're not paying more than X amount but that doesn't mean they're paying the same price across the so Garner's the only one with that not to accede because we did the intergovernmental uh contract all other contracts that we have are straight line pricing there's no lower no not to accede it is what it is the same for OTS.

Yeah we also have set discounts for all the different manufacturers.

Agencies though are able to negotiate on an agency level and could get better discounts if there's like significant volume purchase that point to accede essential.

So they are set discount pricing for each of the manufacturers so uh there's a set discount pricing but you could potentially pay less you could potentially pay less but you would not be paying more to excel okay I'll stop for a moment and pass it over to my friend Casper.

I just have a general question.

So um terms of um transparency so you're thinking that obviously OTI and DCAS are here but you think every single agency has some kind of a master contract how would we know which agencies do or don't like you would think DEP might for instance I don't know.

Th there are some agencies that have master agreements um I think you mentioned you just mentioned I'm gonna say it would seem to me they might that has a master agreement.

Emergency management has other master agreements as well but um each one of them independently will manage their contracts as they see fit to to do and uh with that might include a variance in the types of reporting and uh information they gather that they use and so that's the that's the difference that I was mentioning earlier and in how this information is collected.

Because they do what they manage it individually per agency.

Yes.

Okay.

But is it there's nobody there's no agency that sort of keeps tabs like like OMB or somebody that keeps tabs that they are managed correctly or well how they're managed correctly is is the is the review of the task order process and the invoicing and payments right you're you're making sure that after the master agreement has already been set it's been reviewed it's been it's gone through its procurement process it's registered uh and then you're operating under those terms and conditions and then it just becomes a practice of reviewing the request that becomes that task order and then when an invoice comes against that task order you're reviewing that that's that's a an invoice uh validation and and payment process uh which I think is something different than what you're describing.

Yeah I mean it it the only question I have is how would you determine that you're gonna need a master agreement what what would be the criteria for that?

No would say for instance an an agency decides that this is how would one know that that's what one wants how would one decide how would one get the per you need permission to decide to do it or just the commissioner would say we need the master how how would that take place?

So I I believe that the there's there's nothing short of of information sharing that that the city does with uh mayoral agencies about the availability of master agreements for use there is no sharing.

No there is there is there is they okay so they're aware that they're that there's they're in existence and whether or not they choose to use them is entirely at their discretion based on series of of questions.

Does it meet certain criteria can you operate independently from using a particular contract say a DCAS commodities contract if you need is uh within a a hundred thousand dollar need you can operate independent from that contract or if it's greater than that then you should look to a DCAS contract to uh to take advantage of it.

Uh service contracts are optional because the terms and conditions set in these master agreements not might not be a perfect fit for that individual agency's need.

And so while they might consider it which they could reap all the benefits of the pre negotiated uh terms rates conditions and it's already gone through a procurement process.

If it's not that perfect fit that they need, then they might have to look to procure on their own.

On their own.

Okay.

All right.

I mean, the only one that I'd have heard is the one that um the chair mentioned, which is the Garner one.

I mean, that's the one that's within the papers quite a bit.

So i with DCAS, what I mean, this is what I should know, but with your acceler accelerated procurement, what is that the same thing?

That's something different.

What is accelerated procurement?

Is it the same?

Uh thank you, Council Butler.

Uh so accelerated procurement uh is a procurement method.

Uh we do have master agreements that result off of an accelerated procurement method.

Uh so the method really allows us to quicken up the procurement process by uh submitting uh the contracts to the controller for audit rather than registration, which saves us around 30 days, and then it also in the rules allows us to uh bypass public hearing.

Uh, but the caveat to that is is that all our contracts are done by competitive sealed bids that are uh done by accelerated method.

Uh and it uh acceler uh competitive sealed bids are not required to go to public hearing either way by the rules.

Um we only have limited commodities that are done by accelerated because that's all allowable.

It's uh things that have like uh uh large pricing variances.

Uh and all of our food contracts and chemical contracts are the only ones that are done by accelerated.

Because of the price differential.

The fluctuations, yeah, correct.

Um, because I think according to this, you did something with boxed water that got in I guess the vendor predictably defaulted within a month because I guess it was a small vendor.

What was the status?

So it's a smaller vendor, the vendor was a certified MWBE.

Um we do these procurements by competitive sealed bid, so we have to award the lowest bid that is responsive and responsible.

Um the vendor was responsive and responsible and was the lowest bid.

We did our quality assurance checks.

The vendor did sub uh submit supply uh samples to us that we reviewed.

Uh it met the criteria.

We awarded them the contract at the time of when there was ready for us to start getting res uh deliveries to replenish nice them's box water.

They were unable to perform.

The PBB rule has specific uh provisions for buy agains to quickly allow us where there's a vendor that doesn't perform, we could default them and move on to the second lowest bidder or anybody else that is able to perform.

We did that quickly, so there was not a lot of resources.

Who got their water?

We got this water is only for nice them to store for emergency purposes, uh, it's not distributed water.

It wasn't a rush.

It wasn't a rush.

We had enough water in this in the storehouse as you saw when you did your walkthrough.

Yeah, I saw a lot of water.

A lot of water.

I love that warehouse, by the way.

I could spend life in there.

I love that warehouse.

We had so much fun in that warehouse.

Oh my gosh.

Um, but there's a six hundred and twenty-five million of accelerated procurements, three hundred and forty-six contracts.

So many of those must be food.

Must be those.

So food accounts about sixty to eighty uh contracts a year, um, about sixty to seventy million.

I think the big uh number is uh the fuel heating oil and uh renewable uh uh diesel that we have.

That fluctuates also, is that why we're doing it?

That fluctuates also.

That fluctuates, but but the large scale of those contracts are really fuel uh and heating oil and diesel and renewable energy that we do as accelerated because fuel is considered a chemical.

Um those contracts are sometimes in the hundreds of millions, like our renewable contracts.

Um so that's why you have such a large number, but all our accelerated procurements are either chemicals or food.

And those are also not part of any kind of transparency process.

So those are go through the same procurement process as any other contract that still gets mock's approval, law department review, OMB approval.

The only thing we're allowed to forego is uh registering the contract, but the contracts still go to the controller within 15 to 30 days to ensure that they get the do post-audit on them.

But they're not in passport or some other unlike the other.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Just to continue on the accelerated procurement questions.

Um I think that what we found was that ACS accounted for sixty-six percent of the DOs off of accelerated procurement.

That's for all food.

So we yeah, DOC and ACS are our biggest clients for food purchases.

Driven all detention centers.

Oh, for the juvenile detention facilities.

I didn't understand.

So they you got it.

So it's for the food at the juvenile detention facilities.

So now I mean the DOC would be the same.

Yeah, no, no.

Yep.

Yeah.

That would mean the DOC would do the same.

Correct.

And they're small purchases, but they make up for a lot of the number of purchases.

Okay.

A lot of New York State source fresh fruit.

I want to make sure it's all New York State fresh fruit and vegetables.

Now, really nowhere to go.

Don't mess with Gale.

And what about NYPD?

Why are they using accelerator procurement so much?

Uh NYPD, uh a lot of it is fuels, they have uh gas stations out there precinct, so a lot of it is fuel for NYPD.

Uh we do do food for uh the police horses.

Uh we do pet food and uh adult food.

Uh so they use that as well.

Okay.

And have we done any review to determine if we could reduce spend on accelerated procurements?

Like, are we getting the best pricing through this process?

So again, they're they're competitive sealed bids, so it has to be best pricing to win it.

Um we don't we don't I think I think one of the things that I would like to say is on the estimated portions, we're not estimating the value of the contracts.

We're estimating the usage, the bids that come in against the usage is how we get the values of these contracts.

Uh the usage reports are based on historical spend and historical usages, uh, and that's how we put these contracts together.

Pricing obviously fluctuates up from the last three years that we've done a contract, so the pricing does go higher than it previously was, but the estimates are really based on previous usage.

Uh but when it comes to things like fuel, right?

We we do uh usage report, we register these contracts, and then back in January we had 20 days of below freezing temperatures, heating oil usage went up to all DOE schools and I show city buildings.

So that contract went over its estimate on usage and spend obviously.

Uh, but again, we can't forecast situations like that up front.

Okay.

Um I'm just gonna come back to the MA1s and trying to understand the different reporting opportunities.

So I'm not deeply familiar with the different um kind of technology systems that we have, but could you just help me understand like how we can try to to think about ways to capture this data more clearly?

There's the punch out tool, passport catalog that I believe allow for effective tracking of what agencies are spending and and tracking the invoices.

Could we get all DO1s into those systems?

Is that a way for us to capture the spend and and track it more carefully?

I know you're saying that this requires further conversation, and I appreciate that, but I'm gonna keep asking the questions and keep trying to get you.

That's okay.

I I appreciate your uh your uh thoughtfulness in this and your persistence in this air annoying.

But uh no, no, no, no, not at all.

Um it's a fair question.

Uh but um in order to give you the the respectful response that you deserve, it does require a more meaningful in-depth discussion with the various stakeholders that we have in this process that manage these these uh different types of contracts, employ the different types of ways that the direct orders are processed, and then find the best way that we can uh report that in a meaningful way, so that that you and and the committee have information that the public in general has something, more importantly, the agencies have uh better data in front of them so that we can reasonably manage and predict uh what we want to see in future contracts.

Who are the stakeholders that you think would need to be around the table to figure this out?

Well, I think I have a good portion of them with me right now.

Okay.

Well, maybe we can figure it out today.

But uh I think uh at the very least, that might be where the conversation begins, but it may expand to others uh that maybe I'm not even aware of at the moment, but but I'll certainly uh it's something that I would certainly offer to follow up with you on.

What information does Mox receive from DCAS and OTI about purchases off of the master agreements that they hold?

Uh I mean from from DGAS perspective, uh 30% of our contracts are currently in passport that Mox has access to.

Mox does review every percent of your total contracts or of our master agreements, master agreements.

So the master agreement, I thought all master agreements were in Passport.

They're all procured by pa uh by passport, but uh a lot of them are hosted on DCAS's direct order system.

Um, so 30% just so I'm following 30% of your master agreements are in passport, and does that mean that the purchasing off of those 30% of contracts is fully available in passport for all of us to understand?

Yes.

So whatever why so why can I just why is thirty percent in there and 70% not in there.

So so there's a lot of contracts that have uh other means or methods that it's not just uh a list item uh to just pick a list so passport's supposed to be like the Amazon of of purchasing uh there's uh situations that some of our contracts like the Gardner contract like our security guards contract that is not just uh line item purchase order you have to do uh other ways of purchasing it um so it's hosted on our direct order system but we are slowly moving those contracts uh once we're reprocuring them currently as much as possible into passport huh do you you've been in this position for uh chunk of time now how long have you been deputy commissioner um five years four years five years five years ago what percent of your master agreements do you think we're in passport um I don't think I think that functionality of passport wasn't live five years ago I think it was only started to go live towards the end of COVID and then COVID DCAS was uh involved heavily in uh particularly am I hearing you correctly that as you reissue each new master agreement your incorporate your that information is going to passport the purchasing off of the deal ones off of that agreement are available in passport we you do you know but you don't know what the agency spend is that right is that available in passport if I don't know pick your agency uh DHS is buying things off of a contract and a master agreement that DCAS holds is that purchasing available is the information of what they're spending available in passport so the I think uh I'll I'll let you follow up but I think the again we we have the spend reports on every agency.

I think the we have the spend but are the spend reports in Passport uh I believe you could pull it from passport the I think we received a report recently there's we do run our our spend reports out of FMS which is the financial management system uh that more accurately f reflects because a lot of the invoice payments historically have been done through FMS directly and that's where we pull spend reports from uh but again for all contracts we have the ability to run spend reports on individual agencies against our contracts okay so just to make sure I'm following for the 30% of contracts that are in passport of your master the 30% of your master agreements in passport is that that provides insight into it's only or we would to understand how a what agencies are spending off of those contracts we would have to look at your spend report separately to understand that that available is not tracked in passport what the agency spend is right for the master agreements that are set up and in use so the direct orders are placed through passport that if that information is available.

That's not it doesn't capture a hundred percent of the master agreements that that are out there.

Okay.

And what percent of your master you have one major master agreement or you have multiple how many master agreements is does OTI have we we also have a number of master agreements um are they tracked in passport?

I think they are processed in Passport uh but for the spend report uh similar to DCAS we also use FMS to pull out the detail reporting when delivery orders are placed under a master agreement is checkbook able to record that information I believe checkbook it doesn't have uh an order details of an order place, but rather a payment made.

Okay.

And we have I guess what I'm struggling with is like we have.

We have the spend reports from the agencies.

That FMS is tracking, but you've the spend reports from the agencies that.

So you do know what each agency has bought off of your master agreement.

You have and what they spent and what deliverables they received.

You have all of that information.

Both DCAS and OTI for everything that's spent, right?

You have that you could conceivably run a report today that um captures all of that information.

So so from my understanding, but I'll get back to you exactly.

The reports that I received from my team is encumbrances against, meaning that they issued direct orders or POs against a master agreement and the total invoices paid against that same master agreement, but it wouldn't show what they bought.

Yeah, because uh the information FMS is just line items of encumbrances of budget codes, it doesn't actually FMS doesn't allow for uh items to be captured in there and on reporting structures.

Okay.

Do you know are MA1 contracts hosted?

So you said 30% are hosted on passport catalog, basically.

Do you know how many are on Punch Out?

Uh Punch Out is a catalog of punch out is a type of contract and uh I believe they're hosted.

Most of them are hosted on passport.

I would have to check to confirm.

Um, but Punch Out is just a uh uh contract that has a catalog associated to it, so like our contract with Staples where people could go log into Staples website, refresh it back to DCAS's master agreement and place orders like that, and it gets delivered.

Okay.

How do you decide which go on Passport and which don't?

How does that so it depends on how we procure?

If we're procuring a catalog contract, so some contracts like uh maintenance repair and operation catalog, so staples will be a good one that they have a full catalog.

We're not gonna, you know, we're not gonna bid out uh 10,000 line items for every pencil.

So we go against a catalog and the the bid price is uh percentage discount off of MSRP to the general public.

We have other uh catalogs like that also for plumbing supplies to electrical supplies where there's thousands of line items, but instead of bid calling out all thousand line items, we show a catalog and then there's bid uh uh percentage discount off the catalog.

I'm sure the commission.

I'm sure the commissioner's watching and she'll be impressed with you knowing her for forty years, thank you.

Forty years.

Come on, you don't know her for 40 years.

She's younger than me.

I'm 42.

Just yeah, she's still younger than me.

Not by much, but no, but we don't need to talk about the commissioner's age.

The um but you all knew she was younger than me, you could tell.

Um so and just uh and forgive me for being so dense, but just from trying my best to understand.

Um for the 30% of your contracts that are hosted on Passport, when purchases are made, they do automatically generate DO1 records so that we understand the spend that's happening.

Is that right?

Yes, any master agreement uh records a DO1 and FMS as an encumbrance document or a purchase order against that master agreement.

Okay.

And do you have a timeline by when you think you might get to 100% of your master agreements being hosted there?

I mean, uh we're working every day, um, you know, procurements do take sometimes twelve months, sadly in the city.

Um, so we're working every day as contracts expire to reprocure uh those season commodities.

Obviously, we also have to talk to our partners' agencies as those commodities are still useful to be reprocured.

Uh, but we're working with mocks all the time on every new procurement on which one uh is going out and how it could be hosted in in passport.

Okay.

Um so it sounded to me like what you said earlier, Deputy Commissioner, was that you predict the amount on the contract based on previous year spends.

So so we create bid sheets with estimates of usage.

So uh, you know, fuel will we'll we'll will bid out a fuel contract based on historical gallons bought by the city.

Um we do have an estimate.

We we use the historical spend, you know, multiply by if the contract's for the next two years or three years for future usage, but again, a lot of those estimates go off based on the needs, right?

We're we're electric, we're electrifying our fleet.

Gasoline's gonna be used much less than when we put out that contract.

Uh same thing with heating oil, you know, we're making uh local low 97 improvements to a lot of our buildings, uh heating oil consumption might go down based on uh improvements to the buildings.

Uh, but there's then situations like the two weeks of freezing temperatures that might go over the estimated usage.

So the usage is the estimates, the values of the contracts are based on the bids.

It seems like there's been consistent kind of overspend, if that's the right word, on what had been anticipated on on master agreements, I guess this question for all of you.

If we were better anticipating the spend on contracts, do you think we could get better prices?

So I I personally would like to move away from the phrase of overspend, right?

Because it's estimate of usage.

Uh spends are dependent on the agency's budgets and them issuing the direct orders, not on the master agreements.

Um, I I believe from our stance is that we have good enough estimates based on economy of scales to get the best pricing by competitive sealed bids as it as it stands, whether we're going a little bit under or going a little bit over, we don't believe or we haven't seen in the market that we would have got a couple cents extra if we overestimated our spend.

Uh we believe that our spend is uh our estimates are high enough at least to get the best pricing available to to government agencies.

Um, so I don't believe that that's would be the case on on the estimate side.

On the savings side, I know that the mayor's highlighted that his citywide savings plan has called for contract savings.

John, do you know if master agreements were viewed as a part of this process for potential savings opportunities and to the agencies as well?

Uh I don't know I wouldn't know for sure whether or not master agreements was part of that uh review, but the one thing I would say is that inherent in master agreement use, there is a savings already over time and resources that would be used by individual agencies procuring individually for those needs.

So that's something already inherent in the use of these kind types of contracts.

Okay.

I deputy commissioner, I recall that um when we did the storehouse tour, you mentioned that DCAS had recently had mocks kind of pull some reports on agency purchasing that I believe was a new that you were newly able to get mocks to share some information that could provide some insights on spending and maybe potential savings opportunities.

Um can you elaborate on what DCAS requested and if there are savings that you were able to identify through that process?

So DCAS requested spend data uh on commodities, one from the storehouse.

We want to reevaluate the commodities that we're holding.

We did get that information.

We're now doing in the process of reevaluating what commodities are more purchased on a citywide level that we could add to our storehouse catalog, what items are not being utilized as much, but we could remove it and give it back to the agencies.

Additionally, DCAS is now in the process of reviewing on centralizing more service contracts than we've done in the past.

Uh we we're estimating that that will create a citywide savings where we have, again, as you spoke earlier, that there's one price citywide that not every agency is negotiating their pricing and there's a lot of fluctuation on the down on pricing.

So we're in the process of uh speaking to our partner agencies that are utilizing a lot of these service contracts and which ones would be best fit uh with the resources that we have right now to start moving in FY27 to procure these.

And then uh on your other statement, there are savings initiatives going on citywide contracts.

We are actively renegotiating uh any contracts that we have for commodities to see if we could get a better deal that are active right now.

Okay.

Um for the OTI team.

Uh OTI's contract with CDW covers, I believe, more than seven hundred and forty different manufacturers and service providers.

And OTI has already paid, I believe, six hundred million dollars to CDW this fiscal year.

Does OTI have records of all the purchases that were made off of that contract?

I mean, for the ones that OTI purchased, we we have the records for the ones the agencies are, you know purchasing um the records would be with the agency.

How many do you so and those rec so you don't you couldn't answer for example like how many laptops the city purchased this year and the average price because that information would largely be with the agencies beyond what you purchased for yourselves um right and how long has OTI's master agreement for technology purchases existed?

Uh for the for the six resellers, um I think our oldest one started in twenty eighteen.

Okay.

Um, uh for the first two, and then more have been brought on since then.

And I believe that OTI is gonna be renegotiating this contract soon.

Is that right?

Uh we have renewables uh new contracts in the pipeline because these contracts are set takes.

You wouldn't mind just being a little louder too.

Yes.

Yes, so yeah, that's not true.

Um are you considering using multiple vendors instead of a single vendor as a clearinghouse?

We do have uh multiple vendors.

We actually have six IT uh citywide IT resellers today.

Um not just one.

And do you anticipate including more requirements on standardizing pricing?

We already uh previously mentioned there are set discounts on the pricing and you know, if new manufacturer does come up, like an agency needs to request um a new manufacturer, like the um a new product that comes to market, we do also put out like a mini bid to all of our six resellers, um, you know, to obtain like the best discounts possible.

Whoever actually provides us the best discount will actually get the manufacturer added to, you know, their contract.

Um I recall that toward the end of last year there was a very large kind of laptop tablet purchase that DOE did.

My I believe that the DOE purchased a hundred and forty two million dollars in Chromebooks with cellular service through OTI's C DW contract.

Is that your understanding as well?

Uh that is that is correct.

Uh and do you know the sta the status of these laptops or how uh how many laptops were purchased and they're with high school students?

Is that right around the city?

Um 350,000 uh Chromebooks were actually purchased and I think at the end of February of this year, they have it distributed to um over fifteen hundred public schools across all five boroughs.

So it's not just high school students.

And are we still paying for this are we paying for the sell service on these laptops?

Um the uh Chromebooks are actually the Chromebooks.

The Chromebooks are uh internet capable and you know can connect to like Wi Fi.

They can connect to Wi Fi.

Do we pay for sell service for them as well?

We currently um are paying for the covering the sell service.

Um I think that was initiative from the prior administration.

Do you do you know what the monthly cost is on the sell service?

Is this looked is this been considered in our savings plan?

This feels like a really ripe thing for us to address.

Um actually I was wondering if the thanas would be to help us answer the question.

Uh yes.

The uh right now the um service is paid by OTI and additionally I just wanted to offer a correction with respect to the laptops themselves.

They were actually purchased by OTI as well.

They were purchased at OTI, not by DOE, correct.

So the 142 million dollar purchase, so you have all the information on that because you guys did it.

So 142 million, I think you said 350,000, is that right?

And do you know the monthly cost on the sell service?

Uh the monthly cost on the sell service, I would have to get back to you with that information.

Okay.

Um do you know if we could terminate the spending on the cell service if we wanted to?

I mean, I think the agency is considering all types of savings, so I don't know what the entire portfolio is, but I know that our savings officer has been diligently looking at savings uh since the um the executive order came out.

Um, okay.

And I I guess to that point in the in the mayor's savings plan it was announced that OTI would renegotiate technology contracts and then eliminate duplicative hardware and software.

Is the renegotiation of the master agreement part of that process or is that just on its own track independently?

I mean, we're not limiting to just master agreements.

It's really a review of all the different contracts that we have.

Okay.

When Molly says that we're okay, that's when we're okay.

Um I think then we're okay.

Anything else anyone on the panel would like to add?

No.

Thank you.

Um I want to just thank you all for coming and trying to answer these questions.

I think that um I think that you know, whether we have to do something legislatively to to bring more transparency here, or we can figure out an alternative approach through sitting down together and working it, working it out.

I I think these are good tools where we just want to make sure that we're spending money as effectively as possible.

And so when there's so much money being spent that's kind of outside our traditional transparency systems that I think work quite well, it it raises questions.

Um, but I'm thankful for each of you coming today to answer questions and engage with our committee and hope you all have a good rest of your afternoon.

Thank you.

Okay, next up we're going to hear from the controller's office.

I'd like to invite Deputy Controller Charlotte Hamangian to join us and Dan Roboff.

Great.

Um, it rains today now tomorrow.

I wanted to talk more about the cell service costs.

Um, but not what the purpose of today's hearing is.

Thank you both for joining us.

Welcome your testimony.

Um the committee council will swear you in.

All right, we will now hear testimony from the controller's office.

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.

All right, you may begin when ready.

Chair Russler, members of the committee on contracts, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about a critical but often overlooked area of city procurement.

The use and oversight of master agreements, or as they referred to in FMS, the MA1s.

These contracts play a pivotal role in enabling agencies to quickly acquire goods and services essential to serving New Yorkers.

Yet as our recent analysis shows, the opaque and outdated systems governing these contracts sharply limit our ability to effectively manage them.

While the flexibility of MA1s can be very beneficial, the city isn't doing enough to keep track of what the agencies are buying at what cost and from whom.

Today I will outline why the city must act urgently to modernize its procurement systems and highlight concrete steps we can take to ensure our spending is strategic, efficient, and fully accountable to the public.

MA1's streamline the typical lengthy process for making purchases by establishing an on-call relationship with vendors under pre-arranged contractual terms.

They are typically used in situations where there is a projected future need, but agencies don't know exactly how much or how often they'll need to buy them.

They allow city agencies to procure commonly needed goods or services more quickly than if they had to go through a whole procurement cycle for each such purchase.

They also seek to achieve economies of scale by leveraging the city's substantial buying power to get the best possible price for a good or service.

Although just a few city agencies can establish MA1 contracts, many of them can be used by other agencies to make purchases.

Importantly, the actual purchases under these contracts are made via delivery orders, or as FMS refers to them, DO1s, which, unlike their parent MA1 contracts, are not subject to control or review per the city's procurement rules.

Finally, the stated value of an MA1 is an estimate of future demand, not a firm spending cap.

The city may never end up purchasing anything under a registered MA1, or it could spend many times on the listed value of that contract.

Our review found that these contracts are quite popular.

Between fiscal years 22 and 25, mayoral agencies place more than $8.8 billion in orders using MA1s, averaging over 28,000 delivery orders each year.

Yet the public and even oversight bodies have far less visibility into these purchases than into other types of contracting.

Delivery orders often contain little of any information on what was purchased, in what quantity or from which manufacturer.

This shrouds billions of dollars of spending in a black box and weakens the city's ability to control costs.

The data also shows that the city frequently misestimates its needs.

Since 2015, one out of every three completed MA1s was underspent by more than a half, while another third was overspent.

Despite the similar share of contracts in these two buckets, agencies ultimately overspent the cumulative estimated value of all MA1s by more than 1.6 billion dollars.

That is a lot of unrealized buying power that we could be using to negotiate better prices.

It's hard to manage what's not being measured.

One of the stark examples of this lies with our citywide IT contracts procured under the Office of Technology and Innovation, which were overspent by nearly $4 billion relative to their estimated values.

Because of the lack of information being captured by the delivery orders issued under these contracts, neither the public nor oversight agencies can determine what technology products or services drove these costs.

It's simply not acceptable for the city to be without a full accounting of what it has purchased.

These issues are even more prevalent for a subset of master agreements procured under the accelerated procurement method.

This method enables agencies to fast track the bidding process for commodity purchases, such as fuel that must be obtained quickly due to shortages or rapid price fluctuations.

Unlike other MA1s, accelerated procurements are exempted from my office's registration reviews, but they still constitute big business.

Our reporting found that they account for nearly 40% of all MA1s registered since fiscal year 22, and that agencies spent more than 625 million under them during this period.

While it's important that the city can secure the best price for vital commodities, insufficient oversight of accelerated procurements can increase opportunities for the misuse of public dollars.

There are concrete, achievable steps we can take right now to strengthen our procurement system and restore confidence in how taxpayer dollars are being spent.

The city must expand the use of centralized tools that already exist to capture critical data on MA1 purchases.

Less than 10% of Active Master agreements are covered by punch out and the passport catalog.

These tools function like an online shopping portal where desired items and quantities can be ordered by permission to agency users.

Wider adoption would reduce staff burdens associated with the manual creation of individual delivery orders and allow the city to more easily capture detailed purchase information under those orders.

The city should make far more MA1 purchases data purchase data publicly available.

Passport and FMS should be enhanced to capture key DO1 transaction data, including product manufacturer, product or service descriptions, unit of measures, quantities, and unit prices.

Agencies must improve their methodologies for estimating demands.

Agencies currently rely on inexact inputs like optional agency surveys to assess demand for goods and services that it will procure via MA1 contracts.

The city's struggle to accurately estimate demand can make it harder for agencies to negotiate the best price on behalf of taxpayers.

These agencies would be fundamentally stronger in a negotiating position if they had easier access to detailed purchasing information.

And lastly, the city must proactively seek savings by examining areas where MA1s regularly exceed their estimated value.

Information technology should be an early priority because of the scale of spending and the potential opportunities for enterprise-wide purchasing and license consolidation.

In closing, we fully believe that MA1s, as the chair has indicated, are an essential tool for helping agencies purchase goods and services quickly and at scale.

But flexibility without reliable data limits accountability and prevents the city from using its full purchasing power.

The city should know what it is buying in what quantity at what price and from which manufacturer.

It should use that information to forecast demand, compare prices across agencies, negotiate better terms, and identify opportunities for savings.

Right now, it's systems too often make those basic tasks difficult or impossible.

Modernizing these systems would not only improve transparency, it would help agencies work more efficiently, strengthen oversight, and ensure that the city gets the greatest possible value from every public dollar.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and we welcome your questions.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful testimony and and for the great report.

How do we fix this?

You turned it off.

Apparently, I'm learning lessons from John.

You know, Chair, you and I have spoken, and you know, I know you've spoken with other oversights and agencies.

I think the procurement, the city's procurement process in general needs a whole lot of reform.

Um, and a lot of that um, you know, might be process changes, legislative changes, but some of it rests in technology.

And I think, you know, in listening to the testimony at the administration before, and we were so happy to hear that um they are on board and willing to work with the council and with our office to make this information more transparent and in a more digestible way.

That is not only um good, you know, sort of public governance, but also I think, and and and I think they, you know, uh would agree with this, helps them in being able to better contract manage.

And so in hearing uh the testimony, I think for many ways it confirmed what we discussed in our report, which are the varying systems that currently exist to capture this enormous spend that happens.

Um, 28,000 delivery orders, 8.8 billion over, you know, the the past uh, you know, mayoral administration.

I mean, the number of direct orders each fiscal year or fiscal year doesn't change a whole lot, neither does it necessarily the spend, but that is billions of dollars every year.

And the fact that we can't go to one place and gather the information on what we're spending, let alone on who's buying it from what and why, I think is is the challenge there.

And so it sounds like agencies might have some of this information living, you know, in in spreadsheets, in internal systems.

It sounds like uh mocks captures some of it and passport, certain of the information is available in FMS.

I think Cherry, you you raised a good point about invoices, right?

Um, we should have the information going out because ultimately somebody at an agency is placing the order for exactly what they need, but at the end of the day, the vendor is also invoicing us for that.

And those invoices are being reviewed by agency staff and making those payments.

So whether it's a reverse engineering of those invoices, someway, the information, it sounds like exists, but there needs to be technology enhancements to sort of get it all together consolidated, centralized.

So, what are the technology enhancements that you think would be the most logical to pursue?

Okay, um.

And to the extent that passport um is already a vehicle by which some of these contracts and some of these delivery orders are being placed.

I think it would behoove us to, you know, as um Mox indicated during the prior testimony.

Look to see what resources would be necessary and what enhancements would be necessary in order to fully have the system live in Passport.

My experience is when you buy for CAD or have an even multiple more systems where agencies are entering information, where vendor information is being captured.

Um it is not only difficult to manage, but it is also right for things to fall through the cracks, especially if there isn't clear guidance.

So I would say probably the best course of action would be to see what functionality can be expanded into passports so that all the MA1 contracts, their delivery orders and the use of those delivery orders lives there.

Yeah.

It's just frustrating.

Um I imagine frustratingly hard to actually make that happen, but but important for us to pursue it and try.

Can I ask what would it take to get this into checkbook?

Sure.

Uh, and Dan, you'll you'll keep me honest here.

Um, checkbook is the controller's public-facing website um launched, you know, well over 10 years ago at this point.

It's in its information is um uh derives directly from the city's financial management system.

So for the most part, there is no independent um uh information does not independently enter checkbook, it is filtered right.

And so for example, um information that when we register a contract and we registered into the city's financial management system, that information is reflected in checkbook.

There are also integrations with um passport that allow for certain information to be visible and pass uh in checkbook, and so um I believe not being the technology expert behind checkbook at our office, that if this information lived in checkbook, um, we would be able to see that information in I'm sorry, if the information was able to be included in passport, we'd be able to filter it into checkbook.

Got it.

I think that was that was right.

Uh just uh adding on that there's more information in some cases that gets captured in passport than is able to be transmitted into checkbook via the existing DO1 forms, and so that's the the sort of uh mismatch there is part of the reason why even for passport catalog contracts which are um usually provide the most data, uh we're still not seeing everything that we'd want to see in those DO1 records, but right.

Because even DCAS testifying, I I'd imagine they're the holder of more master agreements than anybody else, and then testifying that 30% of their master agreements are now in Passport, the it doesn't mean that the DOs that we can see there show the products that were purchased or the quantities that were purchased or tell us all that much information, which it's still pretty opaque.

Yes.

Um so I feel like and I I think what I heard the administration try to testify to today was that the Garner contract purchasing off of a federal procurement vehicle is more of an outlier, and that the remainder of the the vast majority, I guess I if I were to put words in their mouth, or nearly all of the MA1s are, you know, purchasing of goods that have a set price.

Of course, agencies can try to get to a lower price, but there's a you know, uh price for an air conditioner, price for whatever um thing, um, and that we don't need to they didn't say this, but what I interpreted was that we don't need to worry too much about efficient spend and getting the best prices because we do that through the competitive process and and we should then we're fine.

Do you think that's right?

Do you agree with?

I mean, then tell me if you think I mischaracterizing what I heard, I'm not trying to be flippant.

Please adjust or amend, but do you think that that assessment is fair and accurate?

Uh that was my takeaway as well.

Um, you know, and I and I do agree that a public competitive process can certainly establish competitiveness at the time that you're doing that procurement.

Um, but I do think that there's a missed opportunity to better manage what agencies are purchasing.

And so, and so for example, uh using the OTI um software and hardware contracts as an example.

Uh, if there isn't central oversight of what agencies are purchasing, and it's great to know that agencies on their own can negotiate a better price than the not to exceed that's in the contract, but another agency might not know.

I mean, the vendor is most likely not going to tell you.

By the way, I offered another, yeah, I offered savings to another agency, right?

And so absent the cross-sharing of that information, absent the management of what agencies are buying at what quantities and for what dollar amounts.

I do think that you miss out on the opportunity to re-evaluate the competitiveness of those prices from whenever it was that you initially procured the contracts.

Um, that's helpful and makes sense.

Uh, my understanding, maybe from your report, or maybe because Molly told me, is that the like entire there's like an entire WB Mason catalog that kind of counts as an MA1.

Um do you have concerns about agencies like purchasing offer catalog in that way, or is that just a good tool for them to have?

Is this a positive thing or something that should raise alarms?

Or both?

I think we have so many city agencies and so many program areas within agencies that clearly have unique needs that you know are arise as there are program changes, technology changes, whatever the case is.

So I do think that having a tool that is nimble to be able to offer the city agency the ability to quickly purchase it is essential.

Um, but I think that lack of oversight as to what is being purchased off of those contracts or what might be added to those catalogs over the course of the contract and why um raises concerns, not necessarily even just from a cost control perspective, but an understanding of, you know, why is so much furniture being purchased, why are so many expensive couches being purchased?

I mean, just you know, certain things that in the past, the chair's costs.

Yes.

So I uh you know, just to answer the question more directly, I think that the flexibility, the nimbleness um is important, but I I think that you know, given the amount of money that goes through these contracts, there does need to be better oversight of what is being purchased.

Right.

I mean I think there is a having worked on the other side of multiple administrations, it's so painful to buy things that if you have an efficient vehicle to purchase, you might say, I'm not as concerned that this is the best possible price that I might be able to get, because at least I can get it in a period of months instead of years.

Um, and so ensuring that we're getting the best prices across the board off the you know, in these catalogs or mass agreements or whatever it may be important because the speed is worth money to agencies, right?

Because, you know, our traditional procurement processes are so painfully slow.

Um, this was all incredibly helpful, sorry, is there anything else you'd like to add?

I just want to thank you, Chair uh and the committee for holding this hearing and for paying attention to our report and to my staff for pulling this all together.

I know it's a super wonky piece of um city contracting, but just given the volume and the amount of dollars that go out every year, I'm really grateful for the opportunity to testify and for your attention to I thought that your report was smart and nuanced and um and insightful, and we really appreciated you putting the time you and your team putting the time in to uh to sharing it with um kind of the broader world.

We're really happy to have held this hearing, and we're always grateful for your expertise around uh procurement issues and look forward to continuing to work closely together.

Absolutely.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're gonna go to our next panel.

Oh, no, now I gotta read the thing.

I don't know my case.

Um, Molly could I might like anyone, I'll just rehearse.

The okay.

I will read this fast because I'm required to read it.

I now open the hearing to the for public testimony.

I remind members of the public there's a formal government proceeding and the decorum shall be observed at all times.

As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times.

The witness tables are reserved for people who wish to testify.

No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recordings to the sergeant of arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

If you wish to speak to today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the Sergeant of Arms and wait to be recognized.

One recognize you will have two minutes to speak on today's hearing topic.

If you have a written statement or additional written testimony, you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to Sergeant at Arms.

You may also email testimony to testimony at councildynyc.gov within seventy-two hours of the hearing.

Audio and video recordings will not be accepted.

I will now call up Charles Diamond in his personal capacity and Mike Hickey from Citizens NYC.

Thank you both.

I'll give you this back in case you want to keep these things.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, as I said, my name is Charles Diamond.

Uh, as you know, I served for both the controller's office and mox.

I feel like I know a bit of both of those worlds.

Um you asked a few questions, Chair.

Why are D1s not tracked like normal procurements?

We were kind of dancing around it, I think Deputy Controller Ham Jim was really getting there, which is that because we register and we track things based off of their competitiveness, right?

And the whole idea that there was a competition over there means that it's not going to be registered.

It's not going to flow that way because of course our procurement rules and law are concerned more with procedural compliance than they are for value for money.

Right?

The idea of competitiveness is not the same idea as spending your money well.

I think we're really getting at is it's not the traditional concerns of competition or things like that.

Though those are happening, but there's an information gap.

So really what it is is again is maybe someone buying too many uh pieces of furniture is an indicator somewhere else.

The data's still valuable, even if there was a competition, right?

So I think that's why there is, it's not by accident that these are like this.

It's because of the very nature of what we're doing that they're not tracked like registered items.

You also asked how do you get it on there?

Again, I think uh Deputy Controller Mam Jim was getting there.

Yeah, you need to build an enhancement into passport.

Uh Deputy Controller Goffman references at the time I was there.

I helped work on it when we started being able to get these contracts and a passport.

Uh and I have to mention it's budget season.

Uh the current executive budget proposes to reduce Mox's budget by eighteen point eight percent.

Now, if that means that we're not gonna implement passport enhancements, guess what?

That means things like this can't be done.

Uh I mentioned in April at the preliminary budget hearings that those are false economies.

We're seeing an example right now.

Um if you want to do these things, you need to invest in it.

It makes me very sad that apparently that lesson has not been learned that you need to care about procurement if you want good outcomes in procurement.

I've read in the press this week and last week about more delayed payments to nonprofits.

Again, it's not like we don't know about these issues.

These all have existed for years.

We've got to invest in procurement if we want it to succeed.

Uh also I'd say can it be on checkbook?

Again, I think this gets back to the idea.

The information being sent to FMS is simply the basic, basic, basic data, because it's not really the same thing as a big giant procurement.

You so you can get it on checkbook.

I also worked on checkbook.

You can get it on passport, but you'd have to build an enhancement where you're getting something different in there.

I completely agree with Deputy Controller Ma'am Gin that despite passports faults, it's clearly where all this stuff needs to go.

Um, finally, I would reiterate again.

I have advocated for master contracts in this before this committee uh when I worked for the city in various times for so many reasons, they are an amazing tool.

So I'm really really appreciative of that tone again where these are really great tools, but there's an information gap that again, it's not 1989 when the structure was developed.

Um we need data, whether it's about competition or not.

We need the data.

There's no excuse not to have it, uh, we need to fund it.

I'll stop there.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman.

So, as Chief of Strategy and Operations for Citizens NYC, uh just want to give you a bit of background on our master contract.

Uh so uh this past year we'll issue payments to 750 community-based organizations, totaling some twelve million dollars for efforts ranging from participatory budgeting to workforce development, child care access, open streets programming, supporting LGBT LGBTQ plus communities and others.

Difference is these funds will be issued through eight city agencies using the master contract that we hold through emergency management.

The groups for funding typically go from applying to an RFP to being paid in about 45 days.

Um they did this with greatly reduced administrative burden and uh much deeper working partnerships with city agency program staff.

City agency partners can enact these programs with flexibility, speed, and simplicity, um, all while retaining full oversight and authority over the implementation and funding.

As someone who formally ran a major city office working with highly vulnerable students and families, I'm frankly a little jealous that I didn't have this funding mechanism available to me when I was working that job.

Would greatly improve my ability to respond to both immediate and longer term needs on the ground and empower my team to innovate and deepen trust with NYC residents.

Otherwise, uh the first to experience hardship when the bureaucracy can't live up to its intentions.

Master contract is an exception process.

So it's an outlier and cannot itself serve as a model for overall procurement transformation.

But it can serve as an example of what happens when a city agency commits to creating an innovative procurement pathway that's purpose-built for engaging hyperlocal leaders, restoring trust with communities by partnering with those who already have it, and deepening understanding of neighborhood needs and applying those learning uh city agency planning and operations in ways that really improve that work.

The finally this helps build the capacity of the nonprofit sector by using that most fundamental and powerful of tools on time payment in full.

So the master contract makes all these possible now as exceptions.

Obviously, we'd like to continue using these tools to help us uh conduct our work.

I'm more than happy to speak about my direct experience as someone who's worked with multiple city agencies in implementing a master contract and what we see in terms of our interactions with passport and checkbook NYC and other systems based on the data that we collect and what doesn't seem to transmit all the way to the ultimate reporting.

Go ahead, please.

So the good news is we have all the data.

So when you know when we're issuing, when we're and every vendor does, yeah.

I mean, you're a beloved local nonprofit, but you know, WB Mason and everybody in between has all of the data as well, and it should be captured.

So, just to interject for some.

Right.

And I think as Charles is saying, that you know, what what's when we're working directly with the city agency partner, that's all 100% transparent.

Thanks, sir.

Um, but uh, you know, there really isn't a way within Passport for us to communicate that, even though the administrative burden of doing so wouldn't be particularly onerous and be happy to.

Um I think the other thing I want to mention is that in this process we do see how different agencies interact with these tools with reporting tools, and as you will not be surprised to understand, you know, every agency has its own culture and approach to procurement.

Um some are highly flexible and innovative, some not so much, and we're hoping we can use those insights to continue informing the way that the city more broadly can address the challenges around procurement, procurement efficiency.

This was part of this was testimony I just offered to the commission on government efficiency, and I'm part of a number of folks who are seeking to provide additional advice and guidance.

Your master contract is through NYCIN?

It's it was originated through emergency management, it's actually in the process of being reassigned to OTI.

Huh.

Um I can explain why if it's helpful.

And the grants the grants that do you are you obligated to go through a competitive process for your grants and how you disperse those funds?

Yes, we are.

So, so first off, the the master contract itself is a competitive bidding process.

We were one of the organizations that bid we were selected.

Um, in addition, when we create a task order, we work with city agencies to then generate a competitive bid process for the specific implementation that they're creating, and we're part of the creation of the process, the evaluation and awarding of that process.

So we're we're fully involved.

And so you do your own RFP process to select vendors to meet whatever intended spend you have.

We yes, we work with this, the city agency is really the originator of the competitive process.

They're the ones that ultimately make the decisions on who is selected.

Um, but we often navigating to hyperlocal partners can be challenging.

So we're often a part of helping them identify the people they want to have included in the pool for uh competitiveness to apply.

And a city agency, these are all to nonprofits.

Not exclusively.

So Citizen YC as a grantor doesn't limit our grants to nonprofits.

We work with volunteer-led organizations that don't have a corporation status in small businesses as well.

So we can that's enabled under the master contract.

The city could do micro purchase up to 25k to a non-NWB.

So this is really helps quickly get the money out the door for something that's $25,000, $20 over $25,000.

Over and under.

So with the Civic Engagement Commission, we're issuing hundreds of payments to for like a thousand dollars to groups that are part of participatory budget.

Although they could do it themselves in a but it's just painful.

In theory, uh so DOT is another partner of ours, and they were so happy to be using the master contract.

They actually issued a press release about their new payment methodology that we just originated for open streets this year.

That's cool.

Yeah, that's cool.

I would add, Chair, that a small something under 25 grand is still gonna take longer than the process of Michael's contract.

Almost uh I can't imagine that.

So it's still faster than the way the city would do it.

Right.

Yeah, it's it's kind of amazing that a micro purchase that doesn't even require a competitive process, right?

That an agency can just say we have a need, we need to do go here and partner with this entity.

That's slower than going through a competitive process with an outside party once you have a master contract involved.

It underscores the value of this as a procurement tool, right?

And then we appreciate what the work you guys are doing, and I think this was a good innovation by NYSIM, and I'm glad to hear that you're figuring out a stable home with with OTI and working well with other agencies.

It's it's a really positive thing.

And then Charles, I did want to just say on the record, my understanding of the variation in the mock's budget is that it is almost entirely um the uh the fact that there are no enhancements to passport this year.

And so the 9.7 million, I think is the number that we the council pushed successfully for in last year's budget for passport enhances that are going to be released in the fall.

Um, and there's not at this time, uh at least in the as of the executive budget, uh, additional investments uh planned for passport.

And I think that you know we're all trying to figure out what the future of passport looks like right now as we determine what um adjustments are needed.

I would just say appreciate that, Chair, because of course we and the public don't get to hear about what they are, but I think in fact uh when I wrote about it, in fact, I said my assumption is exactly that what we're saying is, oh, we're just not going to enhance passport this fiscal year.

And then as I would say, I go, oh, uh is it lovely and pretty with a bow on it?

Passports done, we're all set.

No.

I think everybody under the uh under the sun knows that there's a list that goes into multiple pages of planned enhancements that have been planned for probably a decade.

So the list exists.

Exactly.

We could we all didn't know that.

So again, I would urge that it's tempting, especially in these crises to say it.

What I'd also say is that uh I've heard, I mean, if you c take all of the lines together of basically contract efficiencies, which include licenses, need to be approved by Mox leases, need to be approved by the all of these are still contracts.

There's over a billion dollars of savings being projected through being better at contracts.

And as I would say, if our idea is that we're gonna be a billion dollars better at contracts next year than this year, well, spending less money on central procurement staff, I would say that is I I hope you succeed, but it's obviously not a reasonable expectation to have.

I my understanding is that there were vacant positions that were eliminated, not to say that they're they wouldn't.

And because there's a high turnover at Mox over the past few years as well.

So again, yeah, you you know more than I, but I appreciate that chair of you letting us know.

Thank you both for your testimony today and for taking the time to join us.

We appreciate your enthusiasm for master contracts and procurement and contracts.

So have a great afternoon.

Um our final panel will be hybrid.

We're gonna hear from Hayden B.

Siegel online, and I think our number one frequent flyer at the contracts committee, Christopher Leon Johnson in person.

Um why don't we start with Chris and then we'll go to Hayden?

All right, cool.

Uh ready.

Uh yeah, hello.

My name is Christopher Leo Johnson, thank you, Chair Wrestler.

Uh I want to throw it right now that uh look.

Um I think that the city council um needs to start um really making away that the contracts are fair, and to wear that every year, these nonprofits don't have to go through any of this nonsense is that I understand that Madani's mayor, and Madani is his main nonprofits, are the working families party and DSA, and they got him in office.

And the issues that we have a city council, they're more held bent or protecting the working families party for the ND's human service nonprofits, including a nonprofit outside of that LaRusta Hub.

Why are they outside begging for hand-out flies?

Like, guapa and Gustavo Chibi outside handing off flyers begging for money from the city council.

Where might know that they do a lot of great work for the city but they get they get more scrutiny from the city count from the city more to these working families based nonprofits.

Going forward when it comes to transparency I understand that uh last last session with um Eric Adams did when it came to migrant crisis they were handing out billion dollars of contracts when it comes to the migrant crisis I totally understand that we need transparency and the big problem is this is a homeless industrial complex.

That's a different topic but going forward I I think the city council need to be start bringing the same type of energy when it comes to these working families um family based nonprofits like vocal New York why is vocal New York still holding a convicted pedophile in a nonprofit and they pay this guy money with our tax dollars uh we have lost sure as we have men that get paid by this by this developer and it was nothing to do with inlet but to support a development of that will destroy green point with the Brooklyn Inlet Park.

Going forward like I said the city council I stand at the human service nonprofit get a lot of heat because of like they are connected to the home industrial complex but bring this same type of energy when it comes to the any of these nonprofits that are based with the working families party that are based with the DSA mainly anything that's under the people's plan NYC that's under Zara Nazir they need to get the same type of scrutiny because going forward if there's no real scrutiny these human service nonprofits gonna find out and there's gonna be a real division and I don't think there should be no division between these human service nonprofits and the the working families party because they should be working together.

But going forward man I'll say right now the last 45 seconds that the city council I know that uh when it comes to mass contract you could you can do any non-bid I support a non-bid uh contract for a table outside outside the Rista hub because they have a lifetime table that's like worth $20 and if it is less than $25,000 hell like I said they need to be spent two thousand dollars on a table on a table get rid of that lifetime table and put in a uh a decent better looking table it's outside you look out of yourself it's a disgusting looking looking white table and I'm calling the city council to hand out a contract to the worker justice project to give them a a decent good looking table and get rid of that lifetime table outside.

So thank you so much and enjoy your day I'm about to leave thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony it's always good to have you before the contracts committee and next up uh Hayden B.

Siegel on Zoom time starts now.

Okay, there we go.

Yeah hello um so I watched this whole thing and all I could like really hear is an expansion of what I'm gonna have to do at work.

So I work for the city um in EITS uh for uh NYCH and uh basically my role covers everything in IT for everything that touches public health care right so somebody has a question on like how to enter a patient note or how to order an office supply right uh you guys were talking about WB Mason earlier and how to have oversight on those contracts um at least for ordering IT supplies right like computers or even the biomedical equipment like X-rays and stuff those orders are put in through service now so you have the data point right there's a way to capture why somebody wants this specific piece of equipment and W WB Mason and the office supplies and stuff are handled uh through the vendor's means and they have their own separate thing but in the last maybe three years I want to say my role has uh expanded to cover not just like the computers and phones but again the actual biomedical equipment uh which is how I got into this uh career path in healthcare.

Um the reason why I'm coming to you today is actually just to seek an expansion of uh my personal department's contract.

I want to see about getting everybody within my role paid more because we have expanded the roles for those people, um, and it's already a very low paid position that requires qualified workers uh to do it.

Um from to put it this way, we are a 24-7 department, right?

So during the day, when I first got into the role, it was the heaviest volume help desk I've ever had with way more than I've ever had to cover for any other company.

I've worked uh in the private sector, you know, working on equipment that is used in laboratories, and I've worked in the private sector doing admin IT, project management, nutrition and such.

I've done all of that, and then I came to work for us, and the day crew have a nightmare of just a plethora of work.

For overnight, there's just nobody that we can escalate to, and that's that's where my role is I work overnight.

So unlike the day crew where you get slammed by emails, chats and phone calls.

Um on overnight, there just isn't anybody that you can uh, you know, call to say, hey, I don't really know how to fix this.

So you have to be on your A game and know how to actually fix whatever it is or set it up properly for for you guys, city council, so you have the oversight to know that we're actually, you know, performing certain tasks according to the city standard.

And I I do like to that I'm working on time expired.

Okay.

Well, Siegel, thank you so much for your testimony and for your work at Health and Hospitals and sharing your insights and and for advocating for your unit.

We really appreciate it and uh and and this is helpful information to share with the committee.

So thank you for taking the time and for being a part of our hearing today.

Uh, with that, I will once again thank our committee council and my team, uh, especially Molly, uh and and the Sergeant Arms and hope everybody has a great day.

We are adjourned.