Commission asks staff for vendor data as concerns raised about noncompetitive professional-services contracts

The Budget and Finance Commission requested a catalog of professional-services contract data from city staff after a discussion about how such services are procured and paid.

Jim Mueller, who spoke as a public commenter and described experience in municipal procurement, told the commission that the municipal code treats many professional categories as noncompetitive and cited examples where sole-source contracts and extensions raised questions about cost and local sourcing. He cited a $66,000 engagement for commercial analysis awarded to a San Francisco firm and a $44,000 contract for a cannabis survey as examples he thought warranted review.

Staff (Stephanie) told commissioners the city maintains contract documents, invoices and supporting materials and can pull vendor-level data; records retention is typically five years. Staff said the city sometimes issues RFPs for professional services and sometimes relies on quotes or past relationships, depending on the project and dollar threshold.

Commissioners agreed the first step is informational: they voted to ask staff to provide a census of what contract and vendor data are available (by vendor, by department, by year) and to deliver a sample dataset that the commission can use to decide whether further analysis or code changes are needed.

The county and staff also noted a simultaneous staff-led city review of purchasing policies to identify thresholds and possible municipal-code updates; commissioners asked staff to coordinate so the commission’s work is complementary and not duplicative.

The commission approved the motion to request the data by voice vote; staff agreed to provide an overview of the available fields and a small sample for the commission’s review.