Welcome to FloridaProcurements.com (FlaProc), your authoritative resource for navigating Florida’s government contracting landscape, with particular focus on transportation and technology opportunities. FlaProc provides free, expert guidance to help companies identify and secure state contracting opportunities throughout Florida. 

This resource is maintained by Attorney Sean Gellis of Gellis Law, PLLC, one of less than 75 attorneys Board Certified in State and Federal Government and Administrative Practice by The Florida Bar. Mr. Gellis brings unique insight to government contracting, having served as the Chief of Staff of the Florida Department of Management Services (DMS), General Counsel of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Deputy General Counsel of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation – positions that provided direct oversight of technology initiatives and issues of statewide importance. His record in bid protest litigation reflects the sophisticated advocacy and strategic thinking he brings to government contracting matters, particularly in complex transportation and technology procurements. Sean also leads Procurement Insider, a confidential subscription service that provides technology vendors with strategic intelligence and insider analysis of Florida government opportunities. Learn more about transforming your approach to government contracting at www.gellislaw.com/procurement-insider

Breaking the Tech Time Trap: Why Florida’s Long-Term IT Contracts Are Failing Us All

During my decade in Florida government—serving as General Counsel of the Florida Department of Transportation, Chief of Staff at the Department of Management Services, and as a legal adviser on countless procurements—I’ve witnessed a troubling pattern from every possible angle. We invest millions in new technology systems only to find ourselves locked into outdated solutions long before the contract expires. This isn’t just a bureaucratic inconvenience – it’s actively undermining Florida’s ability to deliver efficient government services and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

After spending years evaluating procurement protests, reviewing contract terms, and managing major system implementations, I’ve concluded that our approach to technology procurement doesn’t just need adjustment—it requires fundamental transformation. This isn’t merely an administrative issue; it’s a crisis that affects every Floridian who interacts with state government.

The Impossible Timeline Mismatch

Here’s the fundamental disconnect: Florida’s technology procurement cycle operates on a glacial timeline while technology itself evolves at lightning speed.

Think about this reality: When a state agency begins drafting specifications for a new IT system, they’re often describing technology that will be implemented 12-24 months later and expected to remain viable for up to a decade. That’s like buying a smartphone in 2024 based on 2022 requirements and expecting it to remain cutting-edge until 2034.

The ITN procurement timeline typically looks like this:

1. Planning phase: 6-12 months of internal requirements gathering
2. Procurement development: 3-6 months drafting solicitation documents
3. Solicitation period: 2-3 months for vendor responses
4. Evaluation, negotiation, and award: 3-7 months (if no protests)
5. Implementation: 6-18 months depending on complexity

By the time a system goes live, the requirements are often 2-3 years old. Then the contract typically runs for 3-5 years, sometimes with renewal options extending it to a decade or more.

During my tenure at five different state agencies, I watched them struggle with systems contracted years earlier that couldn’t adapt to current needs. The problem wasn’t poor planning – it was a procurement structure fundamentally misaligned with technology’s reality.

In one particularly frustrating case I managed, an agency had contracted for a document management system with a 5-year term. By year four, the vendor’s solution had fallen so far behind industry standards that the agency was forced to create expensive workarounds just to maintain basic functionality. When I reviewed the contract for possible remedies, I found that while the vendor was meeting the literal requirements specified years earlier, they were completely failing to deliver what the agency actually needed in the present.

CONNECT: The Cautionary Tale We Ignored

Nothing illustrates this problem more vividly than Florida’s CONNECT unemployment system. Implemented in 2013 at a cost of $78 million, the system spectacularly failed when it was needed most during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Inspector General report confirmed what many suspected: the system was never adequately tested for the capacity it claimed to provide. But what’s more troubling is that 14 issues identified in a 2015 audit remained unresolved in 2019 – six years later. This stagnation isn’t unusual; it’s the inevitable result of our procurement approach.

What’s often overlooked in discussions about CONNECT is how the original procurement process contributed directly to its failures. Having reviewed similar solicitations during my government service, I recognize the patterns:

1. Specifications focused on features rather than performance capacities
2. Testing requirements that looked comprehensive on paper but proved inadequate in practice
3. Contractual remedies that didn’t align with the actual impact of system failures
4. Lack of flexibility to adapt as technology and needs evolved

The procurement process essentially guaranteed we would end up with a system that met yesterday’s requirements but couldn’t handle tomorrow’s challenges.

The Transition Nightmare

Even when agencies recognize the need for change, the transition between vendors creates its own crisis.

I’ve overseen transitions where the outgoing vendor, with little incentive to cooperate, seemingly did the bare minimum during knowledge transfer. In other cases, middleware compatibility issues that nobody anticipated created months of disruption. These transitions often take 3-12 months – sometimes longer than the original solicitation process itself.

During one particularly challenging transition I managed, we discovered the outgoing vendor had used proprietary coding approaches that weren’t adequately documented. The incoming vendor essentially had to reverse-engineer critical components rather than building on established work. The result? Extended timelines, unexpected costs, and frustrated users.

As both a bid protest attorney and agency legal counsel, I’ve seen firsthand how the fear of these difficult transitions often drives agencies to extend problematic contracts rather than face the uncertainty of change. This creates a perverse incentive structure where poor performance is effectively rewarded with contract extensions because the alternative seems even worse.

The Legal and Regulatory Straitjacket

Florida’s procurement statutes and rules, while designed to ensure fair competition and prevent fraud, create particularly challenging constraints for technology projects. Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 60A-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish a framework that works reasonably well for purchasing standardized commodities and traditional services but becomes problematic for rapidly evolving technology.

Some specific challenges include:

1. The “Significant Change” Limitation: Section 287.057(14), F.S., severely restricts agencies’ ability to modify contracts after award if the changes would have significantly impacted the procurement. This creates a catch-22 for technology contracts: they either remain static and become obsolete, or agencies make changes that potentially violate procurement law.
2. The ITN Limitation: While Invitations to Negotiate (ITNs) provide some flexibility, they’re still fundamentally designed around defining requirements upfront rather than adapting to emerging technologies.
3. Protest Vulnerability: More flexible approaches to technology procurement often create greater vulnerability to bid protests, which can delay implementation by months or even years.
4. The Fixed-Price Preference: While fixed-price contracts work well for well-defined deliverables, they create misaligned incentives for evolving technology needs.

Having defended numerous procurement decisions in administrative proceedings, I’ve seen how these constraints actually undermine the very accountability and value they’re designed to protect.

The Cost of Status Quo

Florida TaxWatch and the Associated Industries of Florida recently highlighted many of these issues in their 2024 report “It’s Time to Reform Florida’s Information Technology Procurement and Oversight.” While I don’t agree with all their recommendations, they correctly identify the fundamental problem: our procurement approach is fundamentally incompatible with modern technology needs.

The financial impact is enormous. We pay premium rates for outdated technology. We fund expensive customizations to make aging systems meet evolving needs. We invest in emergency patches rather than modern solutions. And ultimately, we spend even more when systems inevitably fail catastrophically, as CONNECT did.

But the true cost extends beyond dollars. Floridians deserve government services delivered through modern, efficient systems. Businesses should be able to interact with state agencies using contemporary technology. And taxpayers should expect their money to fund sustainable solutions, not perpetual crisis management.

Let me be direct about the scale of this problem: In my ten years of government service, I estimate that at least $300-500 million was spent on technology systems that were effectively obsolete before their contracts expired. This represents one of the largest areas of preventable waste in our state budget.

A Bold New Approach

It’s time to fundamentally rethink technology procurement in Florida. Having advised agencies on procurement strategy, defended their decisions in protests, and managed the consequences of our current approach, I believe the following reforms are essential:

1. Shorter Contract Timelines

Five-year base contracts with five-year renewals might make sense for office supplies, but they’re technological dinosaurs. Technology contracts should rarely exceed three years total, with annual performance reviews determining continuation.

Specific Recommendation: Amend Section 287.057, Florida Statutes, to create a separate maximum term for technology contracts of three years base with two one-year renewal options, rather than the current practice of five-year base terms with five-year renewal options.

2. Modular Architecture Requirements

Large monolithic systems should be replaced by modular approaches that allow component upgrades without full system replacement. State solicitations should require open architectures that facilitate future flexibility.

Specific Recommendation: The Department of Management Services should develop standard specification language requiring modular architecture and open APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) for all major system procurements, with specific interoperability standards defined.

3. Continuous Innovation Clauses

Contracts should include requirements for vendors to implement relevant technological advances throughout the contract period, not just maintain the system as initially designed.

Specific Recommendation: Develop standard contract language that requires vendors to implement industry-standard improvements at no additional cost when those improvements become commonly available in the marketplace. This should include specific benchmarking methods to determine when technologies have become “standard.”

4. Value-Based Pricing

Payment structures should tie compensation to outcomes and performance, not just implementation milestones. Vendors who deliver systems that adapt to changing needs should earn premiums.

Specific Recommendation: Establish payment structures where at least 20-30% of contract value is tied to performance metrics like system adaptation, user satisfaction, and successful integration of new technologies.

5. Specialized IT Procurement Track

Section 287.057, Florida Statutes, should be amended to create an agile procurement pathway specifically for technology projects, with different requirements than those used for traditional goods and services.

Specific Recommendation: Create a new procurement method specifically for technology that allows for:

• Initial selection based on qualifications and approach rather than detailed specifications
• Phased implementation with go/no-go decision points
• Collaborative development of requirements as the project progresses
• Streamlined change management processes

6. Real Accountability Mechanisms

When systems fail to meet requirements—as CONNECT did repeatedly—there must be meaningful consequences, not just repeated extensions and additional funding.

Specific Recommendation: Require performance bonds for major IT projects that can be called if systems fail to meet critical performance metrics. Additionally, establish an independent technical review board with authority to recommend contract termination if systems consistently underperform.

7. Data Ownership and Transition Planning

From day one, contracts must establish clear state ownership of all data and require comprehensive documentation and transition planning.

Specific Recommendation: Standardize contract language requiring vendors to maintain complete system documentation in state-owned repositories, participate in regular transition readiness exercises, and face significant financial penalties for transition non-cooperation.

8. Procurement Training and Expertise

Agencies need specialized expertise to effectively procure and manage technology projects.

Specific Recommendation: Establish a Technology Procurement Center of Excellence within DMS that provides specialized training, consultation, and oversight for major technology procurements across all agencies.

Addressing the Counterarguments

Some will argue these changes are too radical or too difficult to implement. As someone who has successfully defended Florida’s procurement system in numerous bid protests, I understand the concerns about departing from established practices. However, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that continuing our current approach is not just inefficient—it’s fiscally irresponsible.

Others will suggest that these problems can be solved within the existing framework through better planning or more careful contract drafting. My experience managing complex technology projects proves otherwise. The fundamental structure of our procurement system, not just its implementation, is misaligned with the reality of modern technology.

There will also be concerns about increased costs. But the true waste is continuing to invest hundreds of millions in systems that become obsolete before they’re fully implemented. The proposed reforms would ultimately reduce total cost of ownership and deliver better service to Floridians.

The Path Forward

Technology isn’t slowing down. The gap between what Florida needs and what our procurement structure can deliver will only widen unless we take decisive action.

As a state, we need to recognize that technology procurement isn’t just another purchasing category—it’s fundamentally different and requires a fundamentally different approach. The longer we wait to acknowledge this reality, the further behind we’ll fall.

For companies doing business with Florida government, these changes would create new opportunities to showcase innovation rather than just compliance. For state employees, they would provide tools that actually support their missions. And for Floridians, they would deliver the modern, responsive government services they deserve.

Having spent a decade working with Florida’s procurement system—from drafting solicitations to defending protest decisions to managing implementations—I’m convinced that meaningful reform isn’t just possible; it’s essential. The question isn’t whether we can afford to change our approach; it’s whether we can afford not to.

Sean Gellis is a Board Certified specialist in State and Federal Government and Administrative Practice with over a decade of government experience, including service as General Counsel of the Florida Department of Transportation and Chief of Staff of the Department of Management Services. Through Gellis Law, PLLC, he provides strategic counsel on technology, procurement, and regulatory matters.

Need strategic guidance navigating Florida’s technology procurement landscape? Contact Gellis Law, PLLC for sophisticated counsel informed by direct experience leading Florida’s technology initiatives.