Why Separating Technology & Services RFPs is Critical for CDBG-DR Success

Summary

When implementing CDBG-DR programs, jurisdictions often bundle technology and program management services into a single RFP. While this approach may seem efficient, it can lead to compromised outcomes, reduced flexibility, and potential compliance risks. This blog examines why separating technology and services procurement delivers better results for communities and taxpayers.

The Hidden Costs of Bundled RFPs

Compromised Technology Selection

When entitlement jurisdictions bundle technology and services, they often unknowingly limit their ability to select the best platform for their needs. Program management firms frequently enter partnerships with technology vendors or acquire them outright, making technology decisions secondary to service contracts. This can result in solutions that don’t fully meet program requirements or align with long-term organizational needs.

The impact extends beyond initial implementation. Jurisdictions lose direct relationships with technology providers and sacrifice negotiating power. This becomes particularly problematic when program requirements change or when new federal guidelines require system updates. Without a direct relationship with the technology provider, jurisdictions must rely on their program manager to negotiate and implement changes, adding unnecessary complexity and potential delays.

Reduced Program Flexibility

One of the most significant challenges with bundled contracts is the difficulty in making changes to either service or technology providers without disrupting the entire program. When technology is tied to a specific program manager, even routine staff transitions between program managers become complex operations that risk program continuity and data integrity.

Key Risks of Bundled Contracts:

• Programs become locked into specific technology/service provider combinations
• Staff transitions require complex technology handoffs
• Data ownership and transition planning become unnecessarily complicated
• Compliance and Oversight Challenges

CDBG-DR programs face rigorous compliance requirements from multiple federal agencies. Bundled contracts often blur the lines of responsibility for data ownership, security, and compliance. Different requirements for technology platforms versus program services create unnecessary complexity, while audit trails and program oversight become more challenging when technology and services are intertwined.

Benefits of Separate Technology & Services RFPs

Independent procurement of technology and services enables jurisdictions to maintain direct control over their program’s critical infrastructure while maximizing flexibility in program delivery. Direct relationships with technology providers ensure that platforms can evolve with program needs, while service providers can be selected based on their expertise and capacity rather than their technology partnerships.

This separation creates clearer accountability for both technology performance and program outcomes. Technology providers focus on maintaining secure, compliant platforms that meet federal requirements, while program managers can concentrate on effective service delivery and community engagement.

Critical Success Factors:

• Establish clear data ownership and transition requirements in both contracts
• Maintain direct relationships with both technology and service providers
• Evaluate technology platforms independently of service provider preferences

Best Practices for Implementation

The transition to separate technology and services procurement requires careful planning. Jurisdictions should begin by clearly defining their technological requirements independent of service delivery considerations. This includes establishing data ownership protocols, security requirements, and compliance frameworks that will apply regardless of which program manager is selected.

Strategic Framework for Separating Technology and Services

Phase 1: Pre-Procurement Planning

1. Establish a Technology-First Timeline
   • Issue the technology RFP 3-4 months before the services RFP
   • Allow time for platform selection and initial setup before choosing a program manager
   • Enable technology vendor input on technical requirements for services RFP
2. Define Core Requirements
   • Document essential technology capabilities needed regardless of program manager
   • Identify key compliance and reporting requirements
   • Outline data ownership and security protocols

Phase 2: Technology Procurement

• Technology RFP Development
  • Focus on platform capabilities and federal compliance requirements
  • Specify integration requirements for common program management tools
  • Include clear data ownership and transition provisions
• Platform Selection and Implementation
  • Complete technology vendor selection
  • Begin platform configuration and staff training
  • Establish baseline workflows and reporting templates

Phase 3: Services Integration

• Services RFP Development
  • Reference selected technology platform in requirements
  • Define clear roles and responsibilities between technology and services providers
  • Include specific technology training requirements for program staff
• Program Launch and Integration
  • Conduct joint planning sessions with both vendors
  • Establish communication protocols between technology and services teams
  • Create integrated timeline for program rollout

Phase 4: Ongoing Management

• Vendor Management Strategy
  • Hold regular coordination meetings with both vendors
  • Maintain separate but aligned performance metrics
  • Establish clear escalation paths for both technical and programmatic issues

This framework ensures a clean separation of responsibilities while maintaining program cohesion. It emphasizes the importance of having technology infrastructure in place before selecting a program manager, enabling more effective program delivery from day one.

Conclusion

While bundling technology and services may appear to simplify procurement, the long-term costs and risks far outweigh any short-term convenience. Separate RFPs provide greater control, flexibility, and value for CDBG-DR programs while ensuring clear accountability and compliance throughout the program lifecycle. This approach positions jurisdictions to build sustainable, efficient programs that can adapt to changing needs while maintaining consistent performance and compliance.

This blog represents industry best practices based on extensive experience with CDBG-DR program implementation nationwide. Sources: federalregister.gov; hudexchange.info; nist.gov; fcc.gov; theconsultingreport.com; ecfr.gov