Nevada DMV IT contractor gets terminated | SierraSun.com

Nevada DMV IT contractor gets terminated

Geoff Dornan
gdornan@nevadaappeal.com

The contractor hired to revamp and modernize the Department of Motor Vehicles’ computer system has been fired.

“Due to a number of concerns, we have determined it is best to part ways,” DMV Director Terri Albertson said.

Tech Mahindra was awarded the $75 million contract in April 2016 to upgrade DMV’s computer systems. To win the contract, the company touted its experience in developing other DMV computer projects around the country and promised to put its “A Team” with extensive experience in project development on Nevada’s modernization.

But it was DMV officials who more than a year later asked for an audit, reporting the project was way behind schedule because, auditors wrote, “the contractor has not provided a cohesive project delivery team with the level of expertise proposed in its RFP response.”

While the company promised a team of 25 experts to handle the modernization, auditors reported just six tech “experts” actually relocated to Nevada and three of them didn’t start until after April 2017, a year into the contract. Two others were removed and returned to the project more than once and the sixth had to assume multiple responsibilities, according to the audit findings.

Auditors also reported personnel provided by the contractor weren’t all proficient in English, making communications with DMV personnel extremely difficult.

Recommended Stories For You

DMV and state administration officials have been in negotiations over the contract since the audit came out last week and, on Wednesday, reported the contract with Tech Mahindra would terminate in 60 days.

The good news, according to the audit, is as of July 2017, DMV had spent only $13.5 million on the contract and most of that was for hardware and software that can be used no matter who’s the contractor.

But DMV didn’t escape some blame for the situation. Auditors reported the department didn’t ensure compliance with requirements, protocols and procedures in the contract including failing to impose binding due dates for steps in developing the project and not identifying eight of the 13 subcontractors used on the project.

No word was available on how long it would take to issue a new RFP and find a new contractor to do the modernization project which, over the coming five years, will cost a total of $114 million.