Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 654

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

requiring local units of government to use the qualifications-based selection process for certain public works consulting contracts.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill requires the use of a new method for the selection of a consultant by

any city, village, town, or county (political subdivision), including a first class city,

which is presently only Milwaukee, special purpose district, including a school

district, or subunit (local governmental unit) if the consultant is required for a project

that relates to certain public works contracts including the inspection of local

bridges. Generally, under the bill, a local governmental unit is required to hire a

consultant for a project based only on the consultant's qualifications.

A consultant is defined under the bill as a person who provides architectural

services, engineering services, land surveying services, landscape architecture

services, photogrammetric services, or professional geology services for a project. A

project under the bill is a project of a local governmental unit that requires a

consultant and relates to the planning, study, design, or construction inspection or

administration of the public work or building, the total cost of which is estimated by

a local governmental unit to be at least $250,000 and that will be funded to some

extent by the state government. A consultant's services on a project are separate,

however, from the contract for the actual construction, repair, remodeling, or

improvement of the public work or building. The value estimate and state funding

requirements do not apply to local bridge inspections, however.

The bill requires a local governmental unit to create a procedure to solicit

proposals from consultants for projects, but the proposals may not contain any

information on proposed fees, level of efforts, or costs. The local governmental unit

must rank the consultants based on the consultants' qualifications as described in

their proposals. The proposals must contain certain information about the

consultants, including their specialized experience, capabilities, and technical

competence; their quality of work and ability to meet schedules; and their proposed

method of project management.

After the local governmental unit ranks the consultants, it must enter into

negotiations with the highest ranked consultant to finalize the terms of the contract,

including the fees, level of efforts, and costs. If the local governmental unit and

consultant are unable to reach an agreement, the local governmental unit must enter

into negotiations with the next highest ranked consultants, in order of their ranking,

until a contract is finalized. If no agreement is reached with any of the consultants,

the local governmental unit may retain a consultant for the project under any other

allowable method.

The provisions created in the bill do not apply to a project that is needed to

protect public health or welfare due to an emergency situation. Also under the bill,

a local governmental unit may enter into a contract with a consultant with whom it

has an established relationship, and who has previously provided similar services,

without evaluating proposals from other consultants.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Clark (D) , Gottlieb (R) , Gunderson (R) , Honadel (R) , Kerkman (R) , Molepske Jr. (D) , Townsend (R) , Zipperer (R)

10 cosponsors

Decker (D) , Hansen (D) , Kedzie (R) , Kreitlow (D) , Lassa (D) , Lehman (D) , Plale (D) , Schultz (R) , Taylor (D) , Wirch (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report passage recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 10, Noes 2

Passed 10–2 Feb 22, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Molepske Jr., Clark, Gottlieb, Zipperer, Honadel, Townsend, Gunderson, A. Ott and Kerkman;Cosponsored by Senators Plale, Taylor, Lehman, Hansen, Kedzie, Lassa, Kreitlow, Schultz, Wirch and Decker

  2. Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business

  3. Feb 3, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Feb 9, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Zipperer

  6. Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Feb 22, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 10, Noes 2

  8. Feb 22, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 3-4-2010 by committee on Rules

  10. Apr 7, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Molepske Jr.

  11. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1