Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Master Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves master service agreements to speed hiring of planning consultants amid council concerns
Summary
The council adopted a resolution authorizing master service agreements to create a prequalified consultant list for citywide planning work; the measure passed 8–3 after debate over scoring thresholds, conflicts of interest, and accountability.
The San Jose City Council voted 8–3 on Oct. 7 to establish new master service agreements (MSAs) that create a prequalified list of consultants the city may hire for planning, environmental review, transportation, engagement and related technical work.
City planning staff said the agreements will replace a 2015 list and expedite contracting when departments need technical help. “We are asking council to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager or her designee to negotiate and execute the master service agreements and to allow us to execute amendments to increase or decrease the maximum compensation up to $4,000,000 annually or $1,000,000 for any one organization,” Martina Davis, division manager for citywide planning, told the council.
Staff described six technical areas covered by the MSAs: land use planning and urban design; transportation and circulation; community engagement; environmental review; traffic impact analysis; and public finance and economic feasibility. City officials said multiple departments — primarily Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) but also Public Works, Transportation, Housing, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services, the Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs and others — could use the contracts.
The memorandum and discussion disclosed procurement details that prompted questions from councilmembers. Councilmember Mulcahy and others noted that the department received 53 applications and selected 50 firms for the list. Councilmember Mulcahy said the scoring cutoff in the memorandum was 60 out of 100 and observed that 11 of the finalists scored in the 60–70 range; she noted one selected firm scored 43 in a public finance criterion. “It doesn't sort of feel like a super competitive, highly qualified shortlist if 50 out of 53, 94%, got sort of moved to the next level,” Mulcahy said.
City staff and the department’s director, Chris Burton, defended the threshold as a tradeoff to ensure sufficient capacity and flexibility for future projects. “If you only select a few, you do run out pretty quickly,” Burton said. Staff emphasized that each individual service order will include conflict screening and a tailored scope, and that performance milestones and contract outs are available if a consultant underperforms.
Paige Benway, a senior analyst who coordinated the procurement, explained that panels of subject-matter experts scored proposals across experience and expertise and that selection cutoffs were set per technical area. “Each technical area was scored by a panel of subject matter experts,” she said.
Several councilmembers raised accountability concerns, including how consultants’ incentives and hours are managed on CEQA and project analyses, and whether repeated contractor usage should prompt in‑house hiring. Staff said work orders will include milestones, deliverables and budgets and that the city can remove poor performers from the list.
Councilmember Kamey moved the staff recommendation; Councilmember Cohen seconded. The motion passed 8–3. The public record named Councilmember Mulcahy and Councilmember Casey among the dissenting votes; the clerk recorded the final tally as 8–3.
