Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Forecast topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City presents $1.2B procurement forecast; council asks whether contracts can set wage standards
Summary
CFO Troy Elliott briefed council on the annual procurement forecast covering about 382 solicitations, 82 high‑profile items, and recommended paths (audit committee, B sessions, consent). Council asked whether concession/maintenance contracts could mandate wage minimums after hearing contractor wage concerns.
Chief Financial Officer Troy Elliott presented the City of San Antonio’s annual procurement forecast, describing procurement methods, local preference programs and a living list of roughly 382 solicitations for the fiscal year, of which 82 met the administration’s 'high‑profile' definition.
Elliott said high‑profile procurements generally have values of $1 million or more, feature significant community interest or technical complexity, or include unusual contract terms. Of the 82 high‑profile items, staff recommended that seven be presented at B sessions (four tied to aviation special B sessions), 22 go to the audit committee for briefing, and 49 proceed directly to the city council consent agenda. The forecast is posted online as a detailed backup resource for vendors and the public.
Elliott outlined typical procurement methods (invitation for bid, request for competitive sealed proposals, requests for qualifications, request for proposals and requests for offer), described local preference programs (local preference, veteran‑owned small business, SBD/DBE programs) and reviewed outreach practices for solicitations.
The presentation flagged several high‑value items by name and estimate, including a proposed residential rehab contractors contract (about $67M), communications/marketing consolidation (about $23M, recommended for B session), parking access and revenue control systems ($6.5M) and multiple aviation‑related concessions and contracts (food/beverage retail concessionaire at Terminal C, advertising concession, and maintenance contracts). Elliott also described proposed thresholds for B session review (for example, >$25M or contracts with public‑safety or long‑term policy implications).
Council members raised policy questions during the discussion. One council member reported talking to concession employees who said their wages had fallen; she asked whether the procurement process can be used to raise wages or require wage disclosures. Elliott said current solicitations request information about wages and benefits as evaluation criteria but do not mandate pay rates; he agreed to follow up with the city attorney’s office and procurement staff to explore options and to share wage‑and‑benefit data with council when feasible.
Members also asked for district‑specific briefings on high‑profile capital projects tied to bond work so council offices can better track contractors on local projects, and asked the administration to coordinate follow‑up with the audit committee and relevant departments where policy changes are under consideration.
Next steps include continued outreach with stakeholders, audit committee briefings for recommended items, and follow up on wage policy and district briefing requests.
