Pull to refresh
Logo
San Francisco committee advances OpenGov permitting contract without recommendation

San Francisco committee advances OpenGov permitting contract without recommendation

Money Moves San Francisco, CA local

Five-year, $33 million PermitSF extension heads to full board amid procurement and conflict-of-interest questions

3 days ago: Committee advances $33M extension without recommendation

Overview

Updated 53 minutes ago

San Francisco's permitting overhaul cleared a key vote this week, but the panel behind it declined to recommend the deal. The Budget and Finance Committee voted 3-0 to advance OpenGov's five-year, $33 million contract extension to the full Board of Supervisors.

The split decision reflects deep unease over how Mayor Daniel Lurie's administration chose OpenGov in the first place. The city skipped competitive bidding, staff scored a cheaper competitor higher, and the new inspector general is probing whether the software can prevent permitting fraud.

Why it matters

San Francisco may lock in $33 million for a permitting system that missed deadlines, while the city's new watchdog probes the deal.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

$5.9M
Initial OpenGov contract
No-bid award from October 2025, set to expire September 30, 2026.
$33M
Proposed contract extension
Five-year extension pending before the full Board of Supervisors.
4.42 vs 2.88
Staff evaluation scores (Clariti vs OpenGov)
City employees rated the competing vendor far higher on a 5-point scale.
$528K
Clariti's license bid
Competing vendor's software licensing cost, plus up to $1.4M for implementation.
$100K
Inauguration donation
From OpenGov advisory board member Katherine August-deWilde and her husband, plus $60K to a pro-Lurie PAC.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Play

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Most of these play right now — no account needed. Sign up to save scores, keep a streak, and unlock Debate and Predict. Log in Sign Up
Predict 3 ways this could play out. Back the one you believe — contrarian picks score more when a scenario has a resolution date. Log in to play

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

October 2025 October 2026

7 events Latest: 3 days ago
Tap a bar to jump to that date
  1. Inspector general expected to release findings

    Upcoming Report

    Fraud watchdog to detail whether OpenGov can ensure integrity in the permitting process.

  2. Current OpenGov contract expires

    Upcoming Milestone

    Deadline for full board to act or the city loses its vendor continuity.

  3. Committee advances $33M extension without recommendation

    Latest Vote

    Budget and Finance Committee votes 3-0 to send the OpenGov deal to the full board, declining endorsement.

  4. Budget analyst report criticizes procurement

    Report

    Fred Brousseau finds selection fell short of best practices but did not violate rules.

  5. First PermitSF phase launches with limited records

    Launch

    Portal goes live covering a limited number of permit records, far below planned scope.

  6. Lurie awards OpenGov $5.9M no-bid contract

    Contract Award

    Mayor's office bypasses competitive bidding, citing urgency to modernize permitting.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

2001-2012

New York City's CityTime scandal (2001-2012)

New York City's payroll modernization project CityTime started at a projected cost of $63 million and ballooned past $700 million. Prosecutors later uncovered an $80 million fraud and kickback scheme among the contractors.

Then

Federal prosecutors charged 11 people in the scheme, and the city tightened its rules on large procurements.

Now

CityTime remains a textbook example of how a well-intentioned government tech project can become a corruption vehicle.

Why this matters now

San Francisco's inspector general is opening the same kind of inquiry into OpenGov, examining whether the new permitting system can prevent improper activities—echoing the concerns that haunted CityTime.

October 2013 - March 2014

Healthcare.gov launch (2013)

The federal health insurance exchange went live October 1, 2013 and crashed almost immediately, with most users unable to create accounts. The disastrous launch required months of emergency repairs.

Then

A 'tech surge' of private contractors fixed the site enough to function by March 2014, at a total cost above $2 billion.

Now

It became the standard reference point for large government software failures, and proof that salvage is possible with enough money and expertise.

Why this matters now

OpenGov's PermitSF is smaller in scale but has followed a similar arc: high-profile launch, missed deadlines, limited functionality, and heavy public criticism. The open question is whether the fix comes before the money runs out.

October 2013 - April 2014

Cover Oregon (2013-2014)

Oregon's state health insurance exchange, built by Oracle, never functioned properly. The state paid over $300 million before abandoning the system and using the federal exchange instead.

Then

Oregon rejected Oracle's system and launched an independent review of the project's failures.

Now

The exchange became a cautionary tale of sunk costs: paying a large vendor for software that simply doesn't work.

Why this matters now

San Francisco's one-year termination clause is essentially a Cover Oregon escape hatch. If OpenGov keeps missing deadlines, the city's exit option is the realistic worst case.

Sources

(3)