OpenGov, the controversial software system that Mayor Daniel Lurie championed to overhaul San Francisco’s archaic permitting system — with little transparency and no formal bid — just got a contract extension.
But, after major scrutiny over OpenGov’s spotty performance, the Board of Supervisors dialed back a request by the mayor’s allies for a $33 million extension through 2031. OpenGov will instead get a $22 million extension through 2029.
This came after a 10-1 Tuesday vote by the Board of Supervisors, with Jackie Fielder the lone dissenter. A majority of supervisors, including those who criticized the deal for eroding public trust in City Hall, lauded the amended deal for keeping the city’s leverage intact amid reports about OpenGov’s rocky rollout.
“I’m grateful to the mayor’s office for coming to the table and negotiating a new contract that we can all live with,” said Supervisor Chyanne Chen, who proposed the amendments Tuesday, prior to the vote.
Chen, like other supervisors, said there’s no question that a world-class, modernized permitting system is sorely needed in San Francisco. But she, and even some of the mayor’s allies, agreed that OpenGov’s performance didn’t justify a costly, $33 million ask by the mayor’s office without clear plans beyond 2027.
“This gives [the city] enough flexibility to continue the implementation of permits, but gives the board stronger oversight and accountability tools,” Chen said.
The total contract amount has thus been reduced from $38 million to $28 million. A new provision for the contract approved today, which was only proposed after the deal came under public scrutiny, gives supervisors the option to terminate the contract without needing to prove a breach or wrongdoing.
“I’m hopeful this is something we don’t live to regret and can look back on, saying, ‘Aren’t we all glad we brought scrutiny to this?’” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey before the vote.
Lurie hailed the deal in a Tuesday afternoon statement, albeit without acknowledging it had been reduced in scope in both time and money.
“Every hour we save a small business owner is another hour they can spend serving San Franciscans, and every hour we save a homeowner is one they can spend with their family instead of at the Permit Center,” Lurie said.
“In the next phase of PermitSF, we will keep our foot on the accelerator so homes can break ground sooner, businesses can open their doors faster, and San Francisco’s recovery can continue moving forward,” he said.
OpenGov was pitched as the only software capable of meeting aggressive deadlines to streamline city approvals for building projects. It was installed with no formal bidding process by the mayor’s office in October, despite a competitor scoring higher in evaluations and over the objections of departmental staffers.
The software has since missed key deadlines, and city workers say they’re still using it simultaneously with the old permit tracking system due to ongoing bugs with OpenGov’s handling of even basic permits.
“San Francisco is our home, so this work is personal to us. PermitSF shows what’s possible when committed public servants, the right technology, and a relentless focus on residents and businesses come together,” OpenGov said in a statement after the vote.
“We’re proud to continue partnering with the City, making permitting faster, simpler and more transparent for everyone who lives and works here.”
The decision to extend the contract came after multiple public hearings in recent months showed disagreement at City Hall over OpenGov’s performance.
There have been questions about whether the procurement process was above-board, and whether the $33 million additional investment was sound, given mixed results from OpenGov’s first year.
The Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst found in June that Lurie’s award to OpenGov — a tech firm with connections to Lurie’s former nonprofit, Tipping Point — “did not conform to typical City practice or best practices,” but also “did not violate city requirements.”
While OpenGov is eventually supposed to consolidate the city’s permitting redundancies under one platform, three workers from different departments who spoke to Mission Local said their teams are still forced to use the old system it was meant to supplant simultaneously with OpenGov.
The San Francisco Standard also recently reported that while PermitSF Director Liz Watty claimed OpenGov was exceeding its goals for permitting times, internal city data said otherwise.
“Fire and sprinkler permits used to take two days and now take eight to nine,” Supervisor Bilal Mahmood said before the vote. While he acknowledged the possibility that OpenGov was getting over learning curves, he added, “This is not the outcome we were promised, and not one the city should be asked to accept for the next five years.”
Fielder was the lone supervisor not sold on the compromise.
“I want to make one thing clear: I am not questioning whether San Francisco should have an integrated, best-in-class and corruption-free permitting system,” said Fielder. “Until PermitSF gets a firm handle on operations, the Board of Supervisors has no business expanding the contract beyond the recommended one year.”
Not surprising that a billionaire mayor connected to these tech facists pushed through this contract without a formal bidding process and against the opposition of departments who clearly warned OpenGov is a terrible idea. Joe Lonsdale who cofounded OpenGov and also co-founded Palantir profits off anti homeless policy and is connected to Lurie. Lurie doesn’t like to publicly admit his connections with republicans but we can all see through the BS
Republicans however, are happy to admit their connections to Lurie. Former Homeland Security Sec Kristi Noem said “You’ve got a mayor that works with us very well. He probably doesn’t want me to talk about it,” and we still don’t know what Lurie promised Trump in their secret phone call.
You might say the BOS is coming to their senses but I only see one Board member, Jackie, who actually seems to understand that no matter the urge of the mayor, that money is not theirs but ours. And the supervisors that blindly voted for OpenGov were certainly blinded by the Mayor’s ability to sell.
Sorry but it not fiscally prudent to spend that much money on a promise. DBI did not learn it’s lesson with the Accela debacle, in their desire to make the public like them, they have doubled down on their stance to awarding someone something just to get the public of their backs. The Lurie knows this and has taken advantage of this flaw to help himself and his buddies see ( Open Gov and tipping point) .
“You are not fooling real San Francicans Lurie”
Wasn’t her involvement in Accela an example of legendary mediocrity? It never lived up to its full potential. IT staff knows.
If someone could go back in time, 30, 40 years ago, and find the billions of $$ spent on software and hardware projects by the City, it would be shocking! Every department for decades has wasted huge amounts of money on failed systems, many that were never even implemented…
Can you back that up with examples please?
Geez. How many politicians does it take to secure funding for overpaid bureaucrats who clearly are not providing deliverables?
Guessing OpenGov will flame out. Hopefully the Supervisors have the guts to cancel the contract when they need to.
In all likelihood, it is telling that we haven’t seen any contractor file a protest. All of this of course does not happen in a vacuum, let’s not forget Lurie and his friends are wasting millions of taxpayers’ money here.
OpenGov is the same as the sold to us taxpayer’s Accela. Like the Music Man River City panacea that allowed Accela the cash cow milked the city for years. OpenGov parity. We are working on the deliverables, just keep giving us more money, were almost there. Accela Tripling plus the base cost, costing he city 3 plus times more on the undeliverable product. Except in this town the Mayor, is part of the deal unlike Mayor George Shinn. If the OpenGov fails, will the Mayor say they really wanted a deal, but I (Lurie, a businessman) know the art of making deals? The failed costs don’t additionally reflect the thousands of hours city employees spent on the Acella program only to be thrown in the garbage. Fortunately I understand there may be an escape clause in the contract if the city is getting hosed again on another cash cow like Accela. Director Watty needs to provide a Rubric for objectives and goals being met by OpenGov before they receive payment from the city rather than front loading undeliverable goals saying we need more money and I will gladly pay you on Tuesday. OpenGov’s payment. OpenGov has been running without a leash. Time to reign OpenGov in to provide actual achievements and goals met within the objective progress plan which seams to be missing from this out of control contract to placate the Mayor’s “friends” awarded the defacto no-bid contract.
“a new contract that we can all live with”. Apparently nine out of ten supes can live with debasing themselves and vandalizing the City&County government like that. Lurie has lost my vote, and the supes who voted to support this scandalous procurement should lose their constituents’ votes as well. REMEMBER these people are supposed to be there to serve you, not to expedite their political carriers.
Look up Joe Lonsdale, the owner of OpenGov, and then tell me HOW we should trust anyone at City Hall.
This was a test, and only Jackie Fielder passed. Proud to be represented by the only voice of reason on the board. Embarrassed for my city that the other 10 supervisors’ idea of standing up to nepotism and waste is to only approve 67% as much of it.