Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 792

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

state contractual services and false claims submitted to state and local governments, requiring the exercise of rule-making authority, and providing penalties.

  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

Currently, the Department of Administration (DOA) or any state agency to

which DOA delegates purchasing authority may contract for services if the services

can be performed more efficiently or economically by contract than by state

employees. This bill allows contracting for services if at least two of the following

three conditions are met: 1) The services may be performed more economically by

contract than by state employees; 2) When considering expertise, the services can be

performed more efficiently by contract than by use of current full-time state

positions; or 3) When considering timeliness, the services can be performed more

efficiently by contract than by state employees. If the estimated cost of the services

exceeds $25,000, DOA must solicit bids or competitive sealed proposals. Under

current law, DOA must provide notice of the solicitation and the notice may be

provided either by a class 2 notice or on an Internet site determined by DOA. Under

this bill the notice must provided on the Internet site determined by DOA and may

be posted as a class 2 notice.

Currently, under rules promulgated by DOA, certain persons aggrieved by a

solicitation for, or an award of, a contract have five days from the solicitation or

award to file a notice of intent to protest with the agency soliciting the services or

awarding the contract and ten days to serve that agency with the written protest.

This bill extends the time to file a notice of intent to protest to seven working days

and the time to file a protest to 12 working days and permits both to be done

electronically.

Under current law, if a state agency enters into or renews a contract for services

that involves an estimated expenditure of more than $25,000, the agency must

conduct either a uniform cost-benefit analysis, for a new contract, or a continued

appropriateness review, for a contract renewal. This bill requires a cost-benefit

analysis or continued appropriateness review to consider all relevant costs including

salaries and benefits, training requirements, liability insurance, overhead, facility

costs, and taxes. Under this bill, no cost-benefit analysis may be shown to any bidder

until a letter of intent to contract has been issued. This bill generally requires that,

if a contract is for more than $25,000, any expenditures of the contractor that exceed

the bid by more than 10 percent may be paid only if the secretary of administration

approves payment of the increased amount and submits to the Joint Committee on

Finance (JCF) his or her rationale for approval. In addition, this bill requires each

contracting agency to perform periodic audits on its cost-benefit analyses and

continued appropriateness reviews and on its subsequent contracts.

The bill requires the Division of Legal Services in DOA to develop standard

performance measures, as well as benchmark indicators, to evaluate services

performed by contract for a state agency and to determine what actions taken by the

contractor would result in the state agency recovering the expenditures it paid to the

contractor. The division also must promulgate rules on signing bonuses,

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Barca (D) , Berceau (D) , Cullen (D) , Grigsby (D) , Hilgenberg (D) , Hixson (D) , Jorgensen (D) , Mason (D) , Milroy (D) , Molepske Jr. (D) , Pasch (D) , Pocan (D) , Pope-Roberts (D) , Roys (D) , Sinicki (D) , Smith (D) , Turner (D) , Vruwink (D) , Zepnick (D)

13 cosponsors

Carpenter (D) , Coggs (D) , Darling (R) , Ellis (R) , Hansen (D) , Holperin (D) , Kreitlow (D) , Lassa (D) , Lehman (D) , Risser (D) , Taylor (D) , Vinehout (D) , Wirch (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Labor, Ayes 7, Noes 1

Passed 7–1 Mar 30, 2010 official source full page

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

Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 11, Noes 4

Passed 11–4 Apr 20, 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. Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Jorgensen, Barca, Mason, Roys, Vruwink, Berceau, Cullen, Hilgenberg, Hixson, Milroy, Molepske Jr., Pasch, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Sinicki, Smith, Turner, Zepnick and Grigsby;Cosponsored by Senators Lassa, Carpenter, Coggs, Darling, Hansen, Holperin, Kreitlow, Lehman, Risser, Taylor, Vinehout, Wirch and Ellis

  2. Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Labor

  3. Mar 10, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Mar 10, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Mar 10, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Mar 10, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Mar 10, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  8. Mar 23, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Jorgensen

  9. Mar 24, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  10. Mar 30, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Labor, Ayes 5, Noes 3

  11. Mar 30, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to joint committee on Finance

  12. Mar 30, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Labor, Ayes 7, Noes 1

  13. Apr 6, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Representative Jorgensen

  14. Apr 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  15. Apr 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by joint committee on Finance

  16. Apr 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by joint committee on Finance

  17. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 11, Noes 4

  18. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 to Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0

  19. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 adoption recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 12, Noes 3

  20. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 10, Noes 5

  21. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  22. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1