SAN FRANCISCO (Diya TV) — San Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder has called for a public hearing into a multimillion-dollar contract Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office signed with software company OpenGov. The contract aims to streamline the city’s permitting process but has raised concerns over cost, quality, and potential conflicts of interest.

Fielder, chair of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, said the contract warrants scrutiny. “My concerns around the OpenGov contract boil down to four elements: the cost, the quality, the procedure, and OpenGov’s relationships to the mayor,” she said. “Any one of them on their own is eyebrow-raising, but combined, they are cause for serious concern.”

The one-year, $5.9 million contract drew attention after city staff expressed doubts about its cost and performance. An investigation by The Standard revealed that Ned Segal, a top policy official in the mayor’s office, took unusual steps to secure the deal.

OpenGov, a San Francisco-based company, counts more than 2,000 government agencies nationwide as clients. The company has connections to Lurie’s former nonprofit, Tipping Point, with its founders donating tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. Katherine August-deWilde, an OpenGov advisory board member and leader of Lurie’s Partnership for San Francisco, has contributed as much as $2.85 million to the nonprofit.

City staff and contracting experts said Segal’s actions were highly unusual. Email records show Segal communicated with OpenGov CEO Zac Bookman over a month before the city issued a “request for information” to assess potential vendors. Segal wrote to Bookman and Florence Simon, the mayor’s innovation director, noting that Bookman had been “patiently waiting for the right partner.”

The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21 filed a complaint, prompting the city’s Civil Service Commission to launch an investigation. The commission reviews contracts, hiring, and employee treatment. Sandra Eng, the commission’s executive director, said the contract was initially expected to be reviewed by the commission but was redirected by the mayor’s office and the Department of Technology.

Sarah Perez, Local 21 vice president, criticized the process. “Too often we see millions of dollars wasted on private contracts that are unnecessary or overpriced,” she said. “We’re alarmed and disturbed that the city had no intention to see if our existing staff could perform this work.”

The OpenGov contract will cost the city $4 million annually, plus $1.9 million in implementation fees. By comparison, Clariti, another software company rated higher by city staff, could have resolved the permitting issues for $1.6 million in implementation and $528,000 annually. Clariti is already working with the Department of Public Works on a separate project.

Fielder criticized the timing and cost of the OpenGov contract. “When we are told repeatedly that there is not enough money to fully fund critical services like food banks, domestic violence prevention, and immigration legal services, it is very odd to see the mayor’s office go out of its way to offer a contract to a company that scored worse and cost more than its competitors,” she said.

Mayor Lurie’s spokesperson Charles Lutvak defended the contract, saying the city’s permitting system is “slow, complicated, and opaque.” Lutvak said the city reviewed 50 proposals and determined OpenGov is the best partner to improve efficiency.

Segal also defended the decision in a recent meeting with Planning Department staff. He argued that while OpenGov’s software scored lower than Clariti’s, it offers a better roadmap for future city operations. Elizabeth Watty, the new lead of the PermitSF initiative, also advised on the contract decision.

“I’ve been here nine months now,” Segal said. “I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I’m going to keep making mistakes. They’re always going to be well-intended, hard-working, ethical mistakes, but this was not one of them.”

Fielder is requesting that the hearing be held before the Government Audit and Oversight Committee. Other city officials continue to scrutinize the deal as the investigation by the Civil Service Commission unfolds. The hearing will aim to clarify the contract’s process, cost, and future impact on San Francisco’s permitting system.