Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contractor Debarment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ordinance to expand contractor debarment and add suspension authority amid corruption probes
Summary
The committee unanimously recommended amending Administrative Code Chapter 28 to clarify debarment grounds, include grant applicants in the contractor definition, and add suspension authority to bar indicted contractors from obtaining new city contracts or grants pending resolution; Chief Deputy City Attorney Ron Flynn framed the changes using recent DOJ complaints as examples.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Oct. 29 recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider amendments to Administrative Code Chapter 28 to strengthen the city's ability to suspend and debar contractors implicated in alleged corruption.
Ron Flynn, Chief Deputy City Attorney, told the committee the ordinance performs three primary functions: it clarifies that failure to comply with any San Francisco municipal code (including the campaign and government conduct code) can be grounds for debarment; it expressly includes grant applicants and recipients within the definition of "contractor"; and it authorizes an order of suspension that would prevent a contractor from seeking new city contracts or grants while criminal or civil charges are pending.
Flynn described recent federal charges and investigations tied to former Public Works Director Mohamed Nuru and others, and cited a contracting company referenced in charging documents whose chief financial officer was later indicted; he said the city’s new suspension authority would prevent similarly situated contractors from bidding for new work while criminal matters proceed. "The suspension is critical," Flynn said, adding that the existing local regime required either a separate city investigation and charges or waiting for criminal cases to resolve before preventing a contractor from seeking new work.
Because debarment raises constitutional issues — including potential Fifth Amendment concerns — Flynn proposed a non-substantive amendment to require that the appointed hearing officer be an attorney licensed to practice in California with at least five years' experience.
Supervisor Matt Haney asked whether the proposal would cover activities such as permit applications; Flynn responded that debarment applies to contracts and grants (i.e., entities that receive government money) and does not, in its current form, bar permit applications. Flynn suggested a separate or parallel approach would be required to address permitting concerns.
The committee heard no public callers on the item. Chair Marr moved to amend the ordinance as presented and to forward it to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation; the committee approved the motion by a 3-0 vote.
The ordinance amends city procurement oversight tools and would be considered by the full Board, where supervisors could adopt the proposed changes, make further amendments, or decline them.
