San Diego County subcommittee launches review of $2.3 billion in contracting to seek savings and transparency

Supervisor Anderson and Chair Pro Tem Aguirre opened San Diego County’s first Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Subcommittee meeting with a pledge to scrutinize contracting and leasing as the county prepares for possible fiscal pressures next year. Anderson said the county delivered an $8.6 billion budget after closing a $138 million gap and urged finding savings inside the organization before weighing new taxes.

"We should be looking inward at the potential savings, accountability, and efficiency before we consider balancing the budget on the backs of our hardworking constituents," Supervisor Anderson said.

The subcommittee focused on how the county buys goods, services and leases land. County staff told the panel the county spent about $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2024–25 on contracts; staff presentations also referenced a $2.2 billion annual figure when describing contract expenditures, a discrepancy staff attributed to different accounting snapshots. Staff said procurement is governed by the county administrative code and key board policies including Board Policy A‑81 (contracting rules), Board Policy A‑87 (competitive procurement preference) and the CAO Administrative Manual, which together centralize oversight in the Department of Purchasing and Contracting (DPC).

"Our work is established through our county administrative code," staff said, describing DPC's role in developing solicitations, negotiating terms and supporting departments on contract administration.

Presenters outlined the county’s BuyNet portal as the primary place solicitations are posted and explained procurement methods by complexity and dollar value: P‑Card for micro purchases (under $5,000), requests for quote (RFQ) and requests for bid (RFB) for lower‑complexity work, and requests for proposal (RFP) for more complex procurements. Staff gave timing guidance—RFQs can take 5–60 days, RFBs typically 45–120 days, and RFPs often 90–180 days—and said awards above certain thresholds require additional board authorization.

The presentation covered contract administration after award: departments designate contracting officer representatives (CORs) who oversee performance, supported by a COR Academy and ongoing compliance checks. Staff described a staged enforcement pathway for underperforming contractors—corrective action letters, cure notices and termination for cause if problems persist.

Krista Ellis summarized the county’s real‑estate and lease portfolio, saying the county manages roughly 280 land agreements (about 147 leases), with around 60% of leases located in districts 1 and 2 and about 38% on parks land. Annual lease revenue was cited as over $4 million. Jamie Abbott explained airport leases follow Federal Aviation Administration grant assurances, that the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) is separate from the general fund and that the AEF’s current fiscal year budget is $28.3 million.

The subcommittee ended with a public‑facing Q&A. Supervisors pressed staff on selection‑committee formation, transparency for single‑source contracts, and how the county measures and enforces contractor compliance. Staff said departments typically recruit source‑selection committee members and that DPC screens for conflicts; they noted single‑source letters under $200,000 do not routinely post to the Board but are public records on request, while items exceeding $200,000 are brought to the Board.

The co‑chairs said meeting materials and slide decks would be posted at engage.sandiegocounty.gov/fiscaltransparencyandaccountability and set a follow‑up meeting for April 13, 3:30–5:30 p.m.

Ending: The subcommittee will continue fact‑finding at future meetings to identify where procurement, contracting and leasing reforms could produce savings, while balancing service continuity and equity goals.