[Publication Date] (text may be duplicated due to spanning and CGJ (Agree/Disagree) [for F#] (text may be duplicated

106. [Publication Date] (text may be duplicated due to spanning and CGJ (Agree/Disagree) [for F#] (text may be duplicated due to spanning and CGJ Response multiple respondent effects) [Response Due Date] multiple respondent effects) [Response Due Date] (Implementation) Open Source Voting F5 Today, only one company can operate California R6 Recommends the Office of the Controller Controller Requires further Based on the Office of Controller's preliminary in San Francisco certified Ranked Choice Voting Elections - [F5, F6] evaluate the premium San Francisco pays for its [Response due: August 28, analysis analysis, there are no California counties using [Published: June 29, Dominion Election Systems. San Francisco has a Voting System compared to (1) the price paid by 2018] Ranked Choice Voting at this time. Moreover, 2018] continuing legal obligation to purchase systems other California counties that use Ranked Choice Secretary of State has only approved Dominion's from Dominion, regardless of cost or Voting, and (2) the price paid by California voting system for conducting ranked-choice competitiveness, due to county RCV rules, counties that do not use RCV, and (3) the price voting elections. The Office of Controller's Office restrictions on procurement due to LGBT paid by cities/counties outside of California who has identified the following non-California discrimination in other states, and state use RCV. This analysis should be published by jurisdictions that currently use Ranked Choice certification requirements. April 1, 2019. Voting and could be used for future analysis, if needed: • Basalt, CO • Santa Fe, NM • Cambridge, MA • St. Louis Park, MN • Minneapolis, MN • St. Paul, MN • State of Maine • Takoma Park, MD • Portland, ME • Telluride, CO Open Source Voting F6 The operational cost charged by Dominion Department of Elections Disagree, wholly Relative to the current contract, operational in San Francisco Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 [Response due: August 28, costs will decrease under the next agreement. [Published: June 29, million per year between the contracts from 2018] Although the contract with Dominion is not 2018] 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco final, the expected annual cost associated with did not have a viable alternative to accepting the agreement is $2 million. The annual cost this price increase. will be comprised of both election-related services and the leasing of all equipment for voting at both polling places and vote-by-mail. Additionally, the City most likely will be able to apply funds allocated under the current State budget for counties to update voting technologies, which will further reduce costs associated with the next system. Open Source Voting F6 The operational cost charged by Dominion Mayor Disagree, wholly Although the contract with Dominion is not in San Francisco Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 [Response due: August 28, final, the FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 budget [Published: June 29, million per year between the contracts from 2018] anticipates a total annual cost of $2.0 million. 2018] 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco However, the annual cost of the new leased did not have a viable alternative to accepting system will be comprised of both election- this price increase. related services and the leasing of all voting equipment. As the Department transitions away from its current voting system to the new leased system, the Department will no longer need to incur the annual operating costs associated with the old system. Open Source Voting F6 The operational cost charged by Dominion R5 Recommends the Office of the Controller set up Controller Will not be The San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter in San Francisco Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 [F5, F6] a process to trigger review of city RFPs that only [Response due: August 28, implemented 21, Acquisition of Commodities and Services, [Published: June 29, million per year between the contracts from receive one bidder, and, when feasible, perform 2018] because it is not already requires the City's Contracting Officers 2018] 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco a market analysis to determine why the warranted or to "review solicitations to determine whether did not have a viable alternative to accepting procurement process has not induced reasonable the solicitation could be altered and reissued in this price increase. participation of additional vendors. This process a manner that would be likely to attract should be in place by April 1, 2019. responsive offers". Also, Administrative Code Chapter 6 provides guidance for construction and professional services contracting. Specifically, Section 6.23 (c), Procedure Upon Rejection or Failure of Bids, provides guidance to Department Heads on appropriate actions to take for no or one bid. Further, the Office of the Controller already conducts audits and investigations of the City's contracting procedures, including those relating to the Requests for Proposals process in fulfillment of the San Francisco Charter, Appendix F, Section