Denver seeks approval of $30 million network purchasing agreement
The proposed citywide agreement would cover hardware, software and subscriptions outside the airport, but the request does not identify specific upgrades or replacement projects.
Denver is seeking City Council approval of a $30 million master purchase order for network hardware, software and subscriptions used across city agencies, excluding Denver International Airport. The proposed agreement with Advanced Network Management Inc. would run through Sept. 15, 2029, with renewal options through Sept. 15, 2031, the city’s contract request says.
The request does not identify specific network upgrades, replacement projects, equipment quantities, capacity expansions or service deficiencies. It refers generally to the city’s “operational needs” and says most expected spending would be for goods, which must be purchased through a master purchase order rather than a professional-services contract.
The document lists $30 million as the current contract amount, with no additional funds and a $30 million total in its financial table. It does not provide annual spending estimates, a separate renewal amount or an aggregate maximum through 2031. The purchase would use General Fund dollars, and the contractor was selected through a competitive process.
The purchase order is one of four coordinated city and airport agreements. The proposed agreement covers network infrastructure products for city agencies outside DEN; a companion agreement would cover products for the airport. Two other agreements would cover professional engineering services—one citywide outside DEN and one at the airport. The city says the split is needed because hardware and software purchases require a master purchase order, while engineering services require contracts with additional terms. Separate airport agreements would allow DEN to manage its specialized infrastructure independently.
The proposal is listed as Denver City Council file 26-1184 and is scheduled for committee-consent consideration Aug. 18. The city’s Legistar record shows the matter as “Committee Consent,” rather than as a completed council action. The available record does not show a final vote, executed contract or effective date.