NYC Director/City Chief Procurement Officer Lisa Flores: “Technology enhances efficiency and accountability, but people remain at the heart of public procurement.”
GTF Insights: Government Procurement Strategies
In this interview with Government Tomorrow Forum Insights, the Director / Commissioner of New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Contracts, Lisa Flores, explores the City’s procurement strategy and its use of technologies—and gives inspiring advice to the procurement leaders for governments and municipalities worldwide.
“One of the biggest lessons of 2024 was recognizing that technology alone doesn’t solve problems—the challenge lies in managing change effectively. ”
GTF: How would you summarize the year 2024 from a technology perspective? Did something dramatically change in how you conduct procurement compared to 2023, or was there only a gradual change over the last years?
Lisa Flores: 2024 was a year of significant transformation for New York City’s procurement landscape. While many of these changes were the result of years of planning, 2024 marked the execution of key projects that have long been necessary to modernize our systems and processes.
One of the most impactful shifts was the retirement of the HHS Accelerator—a system that had been fundamental in managing billions in nonprofit contracts but had become increasingly obsolete. We fully integrated its functions into PASSPort, our end-to-end digital procurement platform. This was more than just an IT transition; it was about aligning with how modern procurement should function—offering efficiency, transparency, and real-time data analysis for vendors and agencies alike. Importantly, it addressed a critical risk: the impending end of manufacturer support for the outdated system, which could have led to operational disruptions. By making this move now, we secured a stable foundation for the City’s nonprofit contracting future.
Another major milestone was the integration of subcontractor management into PASSPort. Historically, we had very little visibility into subcontracting practices across agencies. This lack of oversight meant we couldn’t properly enforce diversity goals, ensure equitable access, or verify compliance. Now, with an integrated system, we can track and manage subcontracting in a way that truly reflects our city’s commitment to transparency and equitable procurement.
Additionally, we made user-focused improvements, such as launching a document vault within PASSPort. This feature drastically simplifies day-to-day interactions between vendors and the City. Instead of repeatedly submitting the same compliance documents, vendors can now store and reuse key paperwork, reducing administrative burden and cutting processing times. For a small business trying to navigate City contracts, these changes make a tangible difference.
One of the biggest lessons of 2024 was recognizing that technology alone doesn’t solve problems—the challenge lies in managing change effectively. We made a conscious decision to tackle hard reforms rather than delay them, even when it meant a heavy lift for our teams and vendors. Change in government can be slow, but when executed strategically, it’s incredibly rewarding.
GTF: What is your general outlook on how cities and national governments will deal with their suppliers tomorrow?
LF: We are entering an era where procurement isn’t just about cost and compliance—it’s about resilience, innovation, and long-term strategic partnerships.
“Governments must be intentional about creating space for smaller, more innovative firms—particularly local and minority-owned businesses—to compete for public contracts. ”
The COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call. Since then, disruptions—from geopolitical conflicts to climate-driven disasters—have underscored the importance of supply chain reliability. I believe governments will increasingly prioritize supplier resilience—not just in how companies operate day-to-day, but how they withstand crises. This could mean new scoring criteria in procurements that assess a vendor’s capacity to maintain operations in emergencies or diversify supply sources.
Governments tomorrow will surely look for innovation in supply chains. For too long, public procurement has been rigid. However, we are seeing momentum toward outcome-based and challenge-based procurement models that encourage creativity rather than just adherence to specifications. I’ve long advocated for a programmatic approach to solicitations—one that considers the broader policy goals rather than just ticking compliance boxes.
New York City, for instance, has embraced Challenge-Based Procurement (CBP), which shifts away from prescriptive solutions and instead invites vendors to compete by proposing the most effective approach. We have seen this in action through our NYC[x] Challenges, which call on companies to develop cutting-edge solutions for urban challenges. We’ve also used CBP in areas like climate resilience, where predefined solutions often don’t capture emerging technologies.
Governments must be intentional about creating space for smaller, more innovative firms—particularly local and minority-owned businesses—to compete for public contracts. A one-size-fits-all approach to vendor selection is no longer sustainable.
GTF: What are the problems that you are facing that appear unsolvable today but might be solved thanks to technology tomorrow?
LF: One of the biggest inefficiencies in procurement is the verification and risk assessment process. Historically, a lot of due diligence involves manual review, repetitive documentation requests, and subjective risk judgments—all areas where technology can dramatically improve efficiency and accuracy.
A great example is our pilot on e-verification of insurance compliance. Currently, contractors provide certified broker statements, which require agency staff to manually confirm that policies meet requirements. This is slow and labor-intensive, and ultimately, it still relies on taking the broker’s word at face value. With e-verification, we can instantly verify insurance policies in real-time, ensuring vendors maintain the correct coverage throughout the contract period. This not only reduces risk but saves thousands of hours of administrative work.
Looking forward, AI and machine learning will likely disrupt many longstanding procurement processes. For example, we can think about automated proposal evaluation: AI-driven tools could analyze RFP responses for completeness and alignment with selection criteria, streamlining the vetting process. Another field of interest is contract drafting with AI: Using natural language processing, we could generate contract templates that dynamically adjust based on project needs. I also think about vendor risk prediction: by analyzing past performance, compliance history, and financial stability, AI could flag potential risk factors before contracts are awarded.
These advancements won’t replace human judgment, but they will allow us to focus expertise on high-value decision-making rather than administrative tasks.
GTF: What is the role of the human factor in high-stakes economic decisions? What is your opinion regarding this role?
“No amount of automation can replace the relationships, trust, and collaboration needed to ensure that vendors understand expectations and that agencies use data-driven insights effectively.”
LF: While technology enhances efficiency and accountability, people remain at the heart of public procurement. First and foremost, subject-matter expertise is irreplaceable. The most sophisticated systems in the world won’t help if procurement officials lack the knowledge to craft strong solicitations, evaluate proposals effectively, or anticipate potential risks.
Second, stakeholder buy-in is everything. New York City has over 40 agencies and thousands of vendors working through our procurement system. No amount of automation can replace the relationships, trust, and collaboration needed to ensure that vendors understand expectations and that agencies use data-driven insights effectively.
Third, organizational culture defines success. Government procurement is heavily regulated, but rules alone don’t create accountability. A culture of transparency, integrity, and proactive problem-solving makes the difference between a system that simply follows procedures and one that truly delivers public value.
Finally, one area where human oversight is particularly crucial is diversity in procurement. A fully automated system might flag the “lowest cost” vendor, but it takes human leadership to ensure that procurement policies promote inclusive economic growth. That’s why we emphasize diversified buyers and work to build a procurement workforce and pipeline that reflects the diversity of New York City itself. Equality and diversity are fundamental issues of competitiveness, and if our procurement systems are not proactively seeking to widen our competitive pool, then we are failing.
GTF: What did you learn most working in New York City? What advice would you give to your counterparts in other cities and countries?
LF: If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s the importance of seizing windows of opportunity for change. Government moves at an institutional pace, but occasionally, moments arise when political will, stakeholder alignment, and urgency converge. When that happens, you must act decisively—whether it’s sunsetting outdated systems, pushing regulatory reforms, or expanding opportunities for new vendors.
My advice to procurement leaders worldwide is threefold:
Question assumptions. Many procurement “best practices” exist simply because they’ve always been done that way. Be open to challenging outdated processes.
Invest in digital transformation—but do it strategically. Tech upgrades must be paired with strong training, change management, and policy alignment.
Build resilience. Whether it's cybersecurity risks, supply chain disruptions, or economic shocks, procurement must be designed for adaptability.
New York City is one of the most complex procurement environments in the world, but we have shown that government innovation is possible when we’re willing to take bold steps.
