California officials outline fixes to failing state IT projects at Little Hoover Commission hearing

Chair Pedro Nava convened the Little Hoover Commission’s third hearing on state IT project delivery on June 25, 2026, to hear officials and industry experts debate why large government technology efforts so often fall short and how to fix them.

GovOps Secretary Nick Maduros told commissioners the state’s current incentives reward technical compliance, not workable outcomes, creating a “culture of blame” that pushes departments toward infrequent, large-dollar projects rather than continuous modernization. “We’ve built a system that frankly has the wrong incentives,” Maduros said, urging changes in hiring, procurement and budgeting to reward thrift and iterative delivery. He cited a recent payroll upgrade proposal as an example of the problem: “It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around $1.2 billion to upgrade our payroll system,” he said, arguing that that scale of project should be rare.

Maduros proposed several concrete reforms: a lighter-weight project delivery life cycle (reducing required artifacts and approvals), a centralized advisory role for the California Department of Technology that functions like an in‑house consulting arm, and procurement tools such as a state ‘‘price‑checker’’ and broader use of delegated negotiations under code section 6611 to consolidate buying power. He also recommended budgeting changes to let departments save and carry forward funds for ongoing maintenance and proposed tranche-based releases to balance oversight with the need for continuous work.

Outside witnesses framed similar causes and fixes. Rob Lloyd, president of the Center for Digital Government, summarized decades of delivery experience in three words: clarity, commitment, urgency. Lloyd cited large empirical studies showing that a small fraction of projects meet cost, schedule and scope goals and argued procurement must be redesigned to reward delivery records, team continuity and user involvement rather than resume depth alone. “The RFP is where we set so many conditions for success or failure,” Lloyd said, urging payment gates tied to accepted deliverables and vendor staffing guarantees.

Vendors who build government systems warned that culture and staffing inside agencies matter as much as procurement design. Jen Leech of Trust described a Department of Defense engagement that achieved a successful pilot but then stalled when leadership and in‑agency technical advocates left; the new culture demanded exhaustive requirements and forbade iterative releases. Leech said the transition showed three nonnegotiables for success: skilled technologists inside the agency, an empowered mission‑aligned stakeholder, and outcome‑based procurement that ships working software into users’ hands.

Witnesses and commissioners discussed examples and alternatives: staged procurements with small, time‑boxed discovery phases (Washington state), civic talent‑sharing programs that temporarily embed private engineers into government (San Francisco’s Civic Bridge), and federal‑style digital service teams that build internal capacity (US Digital Service models used on IRS Direct File and healthcare.gov recoveries).

Public comment raised guardrails and accountability concerns. A member of the public asked whether the commission will probe why projects end up “in many different hands” with blurred ownership. Another commenter urged preserving privacy and oversight when governments adopt data‑driven tools, warning that some procurement and contract terms can lock agencies into proprietary, surveillance‑style products and invite long‑term dependence on a few vendors.

What comes next: commissioners directed staff to synthesize hearing testimony into the Commission’s report on IT delivery. The record supports near‑term steps—standardize outcome‑based procurement language, require measurable payment gates and vendor staffing commitments, invest in in‑agency technical capacity, and pilot techniques such as price aggregation and staged discovery contracts—while warning that statutory and budgetary changes may be required to scale those reforms.

Ending: The Commission’s work on IT project delivery will continue through its report cycle; staff noted an IT study subcommittee meeting to finalize recommendations for a later report to the Commission.