Indiana: IBM welfare intake work flawed from start

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's human services agency says it found problems with IBM Corp.'s takeover of welfare intake services early in the project and suggested delays, but yielded to the company's wishes to expand the project.

IBM, meanwhile, claims the Family and Social Services Administration seized more than $9 million worth of its computers, servers and office furniture without paying for them after Gov. Mitch Daniels fired the technology giant last year.

The counter charges are included in filings rebutting and denying claims in the former partners' lawsuits against each other in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis. The state agency is suing IBM for more than $1.3 billion, claiming the Armonk, N.Y.-based company breached one of the biggest outsourcing deals in state history. IBM wants the state to pay $52.8 million it says it's owed in deferred payments and equipment costs.

The two sides sued each other May 13 over IBM's canceled $1.37 billion contract to automate intake for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits received by more than a million Indiana children, seniors, elderly and disabled residents.

In its July 14 response to IBM's lawsuit, the state says the social services agency began to observe problems with IBM's performance soon after the project's initial rollout to 10 northern Indiana counties on Oct. 29, 2007, and an expansion to the project's second region was delayed and eventually split into smaller segments.

"FSSA suggested delaying further rollouts until the performance outages could be cured; however, IBM assured FSSA that if the Region 2 rollout was implemented, IBM would recognize some efficiencies and economies of scale that would improve performance. Accordingly, FSSA agreed to the rollout of Region 2," the state's lawyers wrote.

The filing appears to contradict statements public officials made at the time, in which they expressed satisfaction with the project.

Then-FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob told The Associated Press on March 16, 2008 — eight days before the expansion to 27 more counties — that "we're going to get this right and we're not going to do it fast. ... We have to do it with great care."

In the court filing, the state says public statements by Roob and Daniels praising IBM's work were "an effort to be professional and help the Modernization effort succeed ... rather than dwell on its continued shortcomings."

IBM spokesman Clint Roswell challenged that explanation.

"You can't have it both ways. You can't say two things. Which one is the real one?" Roswell told the AP.

FSSA spokesman Marcus Barlow issued a statement saying, "IBM did not live up to its contract promises, despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, the encouragement and cooperation of State officials, and numerous opportunities to correct its mistakes."

The project had grown to 59 of the state's 92 counties by May 19, 2008. Three weeks later, flash floods swept through central and southern Indiana, putting any further expansions on hold while the FSSA focused on flood relief including emergency food stamps to affected residents. That created more work for IBM's team of vendors, as did the economic downturn, the court filings say.

Under the contract, "IBM assumed the risk of such natural disasters," the state said. However, the state paid IBM an additional $2 million for disaster relief. Eventually, Indiana paid IBM more than $437 million.

Roob moved on to an economic development position in the Daniels administration in January 2009, and new FSSA Secretary Anne Murphy halted any further rollouts and demanded a corrective action plan from IBM. That led to Daniels canceling IBM's contract in October, saying he wasn't satisfied nearly three years into the 10-year deal.

IBM's contract ended in December, but it did not finish up work until June 13, Roswell said.

It left behind $9.35 million in computer servers and workstations that it had purchased or leased and more than 1,000 desks, chairs and other furniture pieces that it claims the state has seized, continues to use in welfare processing, and owes the company for.

"The State admits that it obtained equipment formerly used by the IBM Coalition," the state said in its response. Barlow declined to elaborate on the matter.

Attorneys for the two sides were scheduled to meet Friday in a case management conference. IBM's attorneys were seeking a shorter timetable to resolve the case and have proposed it go to trial in less than a year, on July 1, 2011. The state's attorneys have proposed a Feb. 1, 2012, trial date.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.