Government Software Procurement: What SMART Learned | Podcast

What happens when a government technology project fails? Not once, but twice?

‍

For Dan Whitehouse, who leads Paratransit at SMART, Metro Detroit's regional public transit agency, the consequences weren't just technical glitches. Passengers waited hours for rides, employees faced mounting pressure, and a promising modernization project had to be rolled back twice.

‍

In this episode of In Pursuit, Dan joins host Mike Vichich to discuss SMART's challenging software procurement journey, what went wrong, and how those failures ultimately helped the agency rethink vendor evaluation, budgeting, and technology implementation.

‍

When a Promising Technology Rollout Fails Twice

SMART wanted to modernize scheduling across its transit network and community partners, many of whom still relied on pen, paper, and index cards. After selecting a solution from its existing vendor, SMART launched the new software in February 2024. But its typically strong on-time performance plummeted.

‍

The agency rolled back, fixed bugs, and conducted weeks of live testing before trying again that summer. The second launch failed too. Passengers reported waiting three or four hours for rides. Drivers couldn't explain why they were suddenly running hours behind.

‍

Dan recalls the emotional impact:

‍

"It's one thing when you see a number. It's another thing when you're hearing their story."

‍

SMART made the difficult decision to return to its previous software again.

‍

Eighteen Vendor Demos and a Completely Different Procurement Strategy

Instead of attempting another rollout, SMART went back to the market.

‍

The agency conducted approximately 18 software demonstrations, bringing drivers, dispatchers, call takers, IT, compliance, management, and community transit partners into the evaluation process.

‍

This helped uncover requirements that traditional procurement discussions might overlook. For example, SMART allows bookings 14 days in advance, while community partners might need 21 days. Rural agencies also have different reporting requirements tied to grant funding.

‍

Dan describes the approach:

‍

"We made sure there were no silos. We really didn't want to miss anything."

‍

The team also examined large-scale deployments at other transit agencies before developing a more detailed scope of work. The result was a procurement process shaped by real operational needs, not just vendor presentations.

‍

Why Predictable Pricing Mattered More Than Flexible Pricing

SMART's initial procurement exposed another problem: unpredictable software costs. Several vendors proposed charging per trip. Others suggested per-vehicle pricing.

‍

But with approximately 500 vehicles, including spares, and fluctuating passenger demand, neither model provided the budget certainty SMART needed.

Dan explains:

‍

"We are more comfortable from a budgetary standpoint, sometimes from a grant acquisition standpoint, to know how much the software is going to cost us every year."

‍

SMART instead asked vendors for clear annual pricing, including implementation costs and future contract years.

‍

"We wanted one number. The agency shared operational data so vendors could price the project realistically."

‍

For government technology vendors, the takeaway is simple: a pricing model that makes commercial sense isn't necessarily one that works for public-sector budgeting.

‍

Open APIs, Vendor Lock-In, and Future-Proofing Technology

SMART also made an open application programming interface (API) a critical requirement. The agency wanted future flexibility to integrate mobile wallets, camera systems, and other technologies without depending entirely on one vendor.

‍

Dan explains the concern:

‍

"Some vendors could have locked us in, and that could be problematic."

‍

The broader objective was to create a connected technology ecosystem that could support multiple transit providers with different operational requirements. SMART also structured the procurement to benefit smaller community agencies that might otherwise struggle to afford modern scheduling software.

‍

As Dan points out, without reliable scheduling technology, smaller providers may not even know their actual passenger capacity. That can mean inefficient operations, unnecessary costs, and missed opportunities to serve more riders.

‍

Technology Implementation Is About People, Too

New technology doesn't just change systems. It changes how employees work. SMART's modern scheduling platform would automate tasks traditionally handled by dispatchers and call takers, raising questions about staffing and job responsibilities.

‍

Dan acknowledges the uncertainty:

‍

"What is my job gonna look like?"

‍

But the goal wasn't simply to replace manual work. It was to free employees from repetitive calls so they could focus on complex passenger needs. SMART also hired dedicated implementation support and a customer service consultant to help with training and organizational change.

‍

Dan emphasizes that the agency learned an important lesson from its earlier attempts:

‍

"One team cannot do this. Successful government technology implementation requires coordination across departments, vendor support, employee training, and trust in the new processes."

‍

The Bigger Vision: A Connected Transit Experience

SMART's ultimate goal extends far beyond better scheduling. Dan envisions a unified passenger database that allows multiple transit agencies to coordinate rides, reduce duplicate bookings, and improve transfers.

‍

Passengers could track vehicles, receive arrival notifications, and follow journeys involving different transit providers. Caregivers could also monitor trips for loved ones.

‍

Today, many of those interactions require phone calls to dispatch centers. With better technology, passengers could receive updates directly, while employees spend less time answering routine questions.

‍

For Dan, modernization is ultimately about making public transit more accessible, reliable, and efficient for the people who depend on it.

‍

Why Talking About Failure Can Build More Trust

Perhaps Dan's biggest lesson is that government agencies shouldn't be afraid to discuss unsuccessful projects. At an industry conference, he participated in a panel focused on lessons from failed or challenging procurements.

‍

The audience appreciated hearing what went wrong instead of another polished success story.

‍

Dan explains:

‍

"There are challenges. And when you learn from those, the industry gets better. The vendors get better."

‍

SMART's transparency also helped rebuild internal confidence and maintain public understanding during its difficult technology transition. Dan believes the willingness to acknowledge mistakes ultimately strengthened trust:

‍

"You went back out with those lessons learned and you did the project and you did it a different way."

‍

His advice to other government leaders?

‍

"Reach out throughout the network, either within the state or other states and just ask the questions."

‍

For government technology vendors, SMART's experience offers an important reminder: winning a contract is only the beginning. Understanding operational realities, offering predictable pricing, supporting implementation, and learning from setbacks are what make long-term partnerships work.

‍

Watch the full episode of In Pursuit to hear Dan Whitehouse share how SMART turned two unsuccessful software launches into a more thoughtful approach to government technology procurement.

‍