Board approves elections vendor master services agreement and delegates contracting authority

San Mateo County supervisors voted Dec. 2 to authorize a master services agreement (MSA) for elections materials and services and to delegate contracting authority to the county’s chief elections officer.

The MSA identifies eight vendors to support the elections operation and sets an overall funding placeholder of $15,000,656 to cover printing, mailing, e‑pollbook services and other election needs. Assistant elections staff told the board that state law (Elections Code) governs elections procurement and limits the pool of state‑certified vendors the county may use.

Why it matters: The county runs complex elections — nearly 450,000 registered voters and hundreds of ballot styles — and officials said flexibility and quick vendor access are essential to meeting statutory timelines. Supervisors said the public benefits from transparency about how taxpayer money is spent and asked staff for clearer public postings and historical price trends.

Elections presentation and board questions “I’ll just emphasize the transparency and openness of this process,” the elections presenter said, explaining the MSA model and that the county uses long‑standing relationships — for example with K&H Ballot Services — to secure specialized materials such as ballot paper and high‑volume printing during constrained markets. The presenter said the department had conducted targeted RFIs and checks with other counties and that some critical supplies (ballot paper) and vendor capacity remain limited.

Supervisors pressed staff for specificity. One asked how many vendors can provide particular services (answers ranged from “two or three” state‑certified vendors for certain specialized services to a larger set for other printing and mailing functions). Another asked staff to provide annual percentage increases in vendor costs; elections staff said they would return with that information.

Public comment and safeguards Members of the public raised concerns about voting machine software, foreign‑manufactured components, and adjudication rates. The elections presenter responded that the code used in county equipment is subject to the secretary of state’s certification and that vendor code must be tested and retested for each election.

Board action and next steps The board voted by roll call to adopt the MSA/delegation item. Supervisors directed staff to provide follow‑up details — including cost trends and the procurement outreach process — and staff said they would provide additional documentation and reports to the board.

What the vote means: The delegation preserves the chief elections officer’s ability to react quickly during election cycles while requiring continued board oversight through identified safeguards. The office said it will return cost details and the results of targeted RFIs when available.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the measure passed.