Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session
requiring local units of government to use the qualifications-based selection process for certain public works consulting contracts.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- 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
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 pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- 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
- Jan 14, 2010 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business
- Feb 3, 2010 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Feb 9, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Zipperer
- Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Feb 22, 2010 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 10, Noes 2
- Feb 22, 2010 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 3-4-2010 by committee on Rules
- Apr 7, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Molepske Jr.
- Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1