Restler asks whether administration supports Intro 834 on nonprofit subcontracting

I think we've gone pretty deep into subcontracting, but I don't think I've asked specifically about my bill.

So let me just do that.

As I think I've explained, we have some large nonprofit contracts, like with a shelter operator or a close-to-home operator or something like that, where there are significant subcontracts to for-profit firms.

In fact, in the DHS space, it's been where we've seen a lot of corruption over the years, unfortunately, so we need to have transparency and accountability there.

Is our legislation that would require nonprofits to report on whether their subs are MWBEs something that the administration supports?

I think it's consistent with the broader mission that you're laying out around better data around subcontracting so we can tell a more comprehensive story of how we're contracting with MWBEs.

Let me defer to Mark first, and then I will hone in.

Thank you for the question, Chair Ressler.

It's something that we're looking at, but just given what I was sharing at the hearing today

about the information that we're collecting, the ability to report on level of subcontracting across all contracts, not just

MWBEs, but any prime contractor that has a subcontractor, it's being recorded and reported in Passport along with payment information.

And that's something that I think when you look at what currently exists today and you compare it against what this bill is recommending, it may seem like there might be some duplicative work here.

I'm, if, but we're certainly happy to have a.

In fact, the improvements from release six are, have been so dramatic and there has been like a sea change of compliance with subcontracting reporting and passport in the intervening year since the last controller's data and report, then.

I'm happy to pull back my legislation.

But I don't believe that that is the case, and I think that we need this data, and I think we need this data across the board.

I am eager to see updated data from you all on how we're doing on the subcontracting piece, but I think this is going to be very hard to actually get agencies to comply and submit this data.

So, and it sounds to me like B2G is kind of dependent on agencies actually.

Taking this on seriously and submitting their subcontracting information into Passport.

So I appreciate that we have City Hall support on this, but like...

This has been impressively not done across the board.

Like agencies have clearly not cared, despite this being local law and despite this being a priority.

So if you can show me a data report that shows you have all this information, I will tell the speaker that I no longer want to pass this bill.

I don't believe such a data report exists, but I'm open to being persuaded.

Councilmember Chair Ressler, I'm sure that Director Yu would be more than happy to incorporate this into the regular cadence that she has with your office to discuss

viewing this data on a regular basis.

I appreciate it.

I just, to be clear.

In the last controller's report, 9% of subcontracts were reporting to Passport.

9%.

So unless you've got a report that shows me that 100% is happening now, we're going to push this legislation and we're going to be really aggressive in trying to support your efforts because this is what Chief Garner is saying is a major priority for him.

You correct me if I'm saying anything incorrectly.

There's a major priority that we get all agencies to report their subcontracting data so we can see where funds are going to MWBEs.

I, you know, so, but if Director Yu and you have a report that can show me that we're magically doing this today and we're doing 9% a year ago, I will be thrilled.

I might not have had the hearing.

I mean, that's not true.

I would have had the hearing for other reasons.

But I wouldn't have spent half the time talking about this topic that I think is so important.

So I will just say again for the record, for Councilmember Brewer's benefit, that I think it's over the last four years there was $33 billion in spending that's subject to Local Law 174.

where there's no subcontracting data reported into Passport whatsoever in aggregate over that four-year period.

That is a lot of money where we have no idea whether we're supporting MWEs with it or not.

And it makes Chief Garner look bad, right?

Because he could be getting credit for billions of dollars that are going to MWBs.

We might be supporting more black women-owned firms and more Latina firms and more other firms.

Through subs that we don't have the data for.

So if that data is there now and we're doing a better job and we're making the city all priority, I will be the happiest man in the city council.

But I am waiting to be persuaded.

So I think I've asked enough about my bill.