The capital infrastructure piece is one, yes, that we agree needs to be seriously looked at and to make some adjustments, possibly a complete revamping. For example,

instead of doing a combined O&M and capital infrastructure project, is it more effective if we separate the two so that contractors have enough advance time to bid on a program, to get materials sent up and delivered into those communities in a time frame that allows for summer construction, not winter construction? That review needs to happen.

We’ve got together the Cabinet Infrastructure Committee and we’ve got the correspondence from committee now requesting involvement in that, and we’ll review that.

The FIS system is something that is old. It is antiquated. In fact, much of the expenditures in past years have been trying to keep that system operational. That is why you see the large amount of dollars here to actually fully replace that system. It is a mainframe system, but it does not deal with the contracts report the Member has spoken about. That is still produced out of the Department of ITI with their systems. But as we proceed forward, many of our mainframe systems and those that are across departments are to ensure that the information fits into the FIS so that we can produce those reports in a timely fashion and be able to work with a newer system.