A city report released Monday found that Mayor Daniel Lurie “did not conform to typical City practice or best practices” when he awarded a $5.9 million contract to a relatively untested vendor to overhaul San Francisco’s permitting system.
The report was called for by Supervisor Jackie Fielder after revelations in October that OpenGov, a tech firm, was awarded the contract despite its competitors offering what city staffers found to be a superior product at a lower price.
The mayor’s office “could have conducted a competitive bidding process” to ensure “a fair, transparent process,” the report from the Budget and Legislative Analyst noted. But it did not, and instead moved quickly to award the contract to its preferred vendor, the report found. Nevertheless, the report continued, “The OpenGov selection process did not violate City requirements.”
The Budget and Legislative Analyst, which provides independent analyses for the Board of Supervisor, conducted the investigation at Supervisor Fielder’s request.
Fielder, who is currently on leave, was one of the few voices on the board to speak against Mayor Lurie’s projects. She raised questions last year on how his office structured the procurement process with OpenGov.
San Francisco’s one-year $5.9 million contract with OpenGov — the basis of Lurie’s touted PermitSF system to cut red tape — lacked a formal bidding process even though several OpenGov officials have ties to Lurie and his former nonprofit. His office reportedly overruled city staff who preferred other vendors.
“Formal, competitive bidding” would have protected the city from the controversy PermitSF courted, the report read, by incorporating safeguards “to avoid potential vendor favoritism and to provide assurance that the contract price was the best value for the City.”
“While we did not find evidence of impropriety or unfair advantage given to any bidders,” it continued, the lack of a competitive bidding “can create the appearance of impropriety and can damage public trust in procurement.”
The mayor’s spokesperson, for his part, said the report vindicated the process.
“This process followed city rules,” said Charles Lutvak. “But it wasn’t a typical process, because as they found, bureaucratic red tape makes purchasing software slow and expensive — and San Franciscans can’t afford to continue letting our failing permitting system hold back housing and our economic recovery.”
Lutvak said the approach is “paying off for San Franciscans” and has cut wait permitting times for “residents and small business owners.”
As of February 2026, PermitSF launched five permit types, which were generally for simpler projects that “can be approved over the counter,” the report noted. More permits will be launched by June, instead of March as originally planned.
There is no current timeline for expanding to complex housing and commercial developments, according to the report.
To avoid a repetition of the ordeal, the report also suggested three policy options to the Board of Supervisors: add guidelines to the “request for information” process to ensure it is not used as a substitute for competitive bidding, update the city’s rules on waivers for software vendors, and help reduce the timeline to procure new vendors.
