The city of Berkeley spent millions of dollars on service contracts without consistently requiring competitive bidding, exposing the city to potential overspending and reduced accountability, according to an audit released by the Berkeley City Auditor. The findings come at a time when the city faces a million-dollar budget deficit.
While auditors found no evidence of misconduct in Berkeley, they identified gaps in the city’s policies and inconsistent rules, making it difficult for staff to know when to waive competition. City auditor Jenny Wong said the audit focused on identifying deficiencies that affected contracts and included recommendations to help Berkeley improve moving forward.
The audit found that neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code requires competitive bidding for service contracts, despite an internal purchasing policy mandating formal competition for contracts more than $50,000, according to Wong in an email.
In fiscal year 2022, the city authorized nearly $85 million in long-term recycling contracts over 10 years without competitive bidding. In fiscal year 2024, Berkeley approved 94 contracts worth $43 million without documented competition.
According to Wong, competition is important in order to achieve the “best return” on the government’s investment. Wong referenced the U.S. Government Accountability Office, stating that competitive contracts improve contractor performance, save taxpayers money, curb fraud and prompt accountability for results.
“Competition among vendors is an important tool for the City to ensure that it is getting the best value and best fit for the goods and services it purchases,” Wong said in the email. “Competition also helps ensure that Berkeley is accountable and transparent in how public dollars are spent. As the City faces a budget deficit, competition is even more important to make sure we are not overpaying for goods and services.”
Wong added that the competitive process encourages additional contractors to seek city contracts, including from “historically excluded groups.”
The audit didn’t quantify the financial impact of the noncompetitive contracts, but Wong said the benefits of competition are “well-established.” The review noted that overreliance on noncompetitive agreements may increase the risk of overpaying, receiving lower-quality services, limiting opportunities for small businesses and creating conditions for bribery or corruption between staff, officials and contractors.
The audit recommends adding explicit competition requirements for service contracts to the municipal code, updating the Purchasing Manual, improving training, strengthening ethics disclosure requirements and developing written guidance on contract amendments.
Wong said incorporating competition requirements to the Municipal Code would better ensure that some of the city’s largest contracts are subject to open competition, helping the city secure better value and avoid overpaying.
“These are some of the City’s largest dollar value contracts,” Wong said in the email, referring to the $85 million in recycling contracts. “While these contractors may offer the best value or best fit for Berkeley, it is difficult for the City to determine that without open competition among all potential contractors.”