SF supervisors scrutinized Lurie’s plan Wednesday to push through an extension contract with OpenGov for the city’s PermitSF platform while questioning the portal’s performance and the administration’s decision to bypass competitive bidding.The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Budget an d Finance Committee advanced Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to keep OpenGov on as the technology provider for PermitSF, but stopped short of recommending that the full board approve the proposed five-year, $33 million extension, as the Chronicle reports. PermitSF is intended to replace San Francisco’s notoriously fragmented permitting infrastructure, which has required departments to rely on multiple software systems and has been plagued by problems ranging from inefficiency to permit fraud.The city reportedly launched the first phase of the portal in February, initially covering a limited number of permit records, with plans to eventually bring permitting functions from multiple departments onto a single platform.The OpenGov deal has faced criticism since the administration awarded the company a $5.9 million contract for the initial phase last year. OpenGov executives reportedly have financial ties to Lurie’s former nonprofit, Tipping Point, while advisory board member Katherine August-deWilde and her husband gave $60,000 to a PAC supporting his mayoral campaign and another $100,000 toward his inauguration.Meanwhile, a competing vendor, Clariti, submitted a bid that would have cost an estimated $528,000 for software licensing and as much as $1.4 million for implementation.City employees rated Clariti substantially higher than OpenGov during the evaluation process, giving it an average score of 4.42 out of 5 compared with OpenGov’s 2.88. The staffers warned that OpenGov and another competitor's products had gaps significant enough that they “shouldn’t be considered.”Despite the staff preference for Clariti, the Lurie administration selected OpenGov through a procurement waiver rather than the city’s longer request-for-proposals process, arguing that OpenGov was the only vendor that could implement the system quickly enough, according to Mission Local.“I’m concerned that the city is being exposed to real risks of conflicts of interest, and that billionaire tech bros with connections to the mayor’s office are getting preferential treatment,” Supervisor Jackie Fielder noted at the time.A June report from the supervisors’ Budget and Legislative Analyst, Fred Brousseau, found that the city should have conducted a more extensive competitive process, including safeguards to control costs and prevent a vendor from receiving an unfair advantage.Per the Chronicle, the report did not find evidence of wrongdoing but noted that the city has generally not used procurement waivers for new software, and that previous waivers involved contracts that were significantly smaller than the OpenGov deal.Fielder, who requested the analysis and previously called for a hearing on the procurement process, said she supports the goal of creating a unified permitting system but questioned whether the city received the best deal.“I am, however, questioning whether we got the best deal for this contract, and for the people of San Francisco,” Fielder said.The Chronicle reports that the OpenGov selection has also drawn opposition from IFPTE Local 21, which represents technical and administrative workers at City Hall. The union has argued that the administration is attempting to outsource work that should remain with city employees and has questioned whether OpenGov is equipped to handle San Francisco’s unusually complicated permitting infrastructure.Those concerns have been compounded by problems with the rollout. OpenGov has reportedly missed several deadlines for introducing basic permits, and the system remains limited to relatively straightforward functions, according to city workers. At the same time, the new portal has coincided with a significant increase in permit applications for the types of permits it currently handles, per the Chronicle. According to Brousseau, the city is issuing more of those permits but taking longer to process them.Liz Watty, director of PermitSF, told the supervisors that the longer processing times are partly attributable to the increased application volume and the difficulty of getting enough staff in place to handle it. She defended the project as an overdue replacement for a permitting system that has remained fragmented and outdated despite previous attempts at modernization.“Our businesses … homeowners and housing producers deserve better from our city,” Watty said, according to the Chronicle. “We’re at the heart of technology innovation. We should be the gold standard — not in last place.”The scrutiny is also extending beyond the Board of Supervisors. Mission Local reports that the inspector general, a new watchdog position within the Controller’s Office tasked with investigating waste and abuse, announced Monday that it is examining OpenGov’s ability to protect the integrity of the permitting process and “prevent improper activities.” The office expects to release its findings this fall.Brousseau reportedly recommended that supervisors either shorten the proposed extension or require the administration to provide additional information about its work with OpenGov during next year’s budget process. According to Mission Local, Supervisors Danny Sauter, Chyanne Chen, and Matt Dorsey voted unanimously to send the proposal to the full Board without a recommendation. Dorsey indicated that he supports the extension, particularly after proponents reportedly suggested a provision allowing the city to terminate the contract after another year if the system continues to fall short.“In my own conversations with the mayor’s office, I made clear the absence of that provision was causing me to look at the contract unfavorably,” Dorsey said.Fielder and Supervisor Chyanne Chen have reportedly said they are unlikely to support the extension without Brousseau's suggested changes, per the Chronicle.“There is not enough data that demonstrates [OpenGov] works as intended,” said Chen.The full Board of Supervisors is expected to consider the contract in about two weeks.Previously: SF Mayor Taking Heat for Awarding Big-Bucks Contract to Longtime Donors, Against Staff Recommendations ...read more read less