Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Senate Bill 442

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

Topics: Contracts, Milwaukee: City, Municipality, Public works, School

Stopped in committee

It had a but no committee vote, so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jan 7, 2010

  2. Committee, stopped here

    Stopped here. It had a hearing but no committee vote.

  3. Senate vote, not reached

  4. Assembly vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

It sat with the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations.

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

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.

Read the full summary

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.

Who's behind it

10 senators are its ⁠. 8 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans.

9 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 19 names

Authors (10)

Signed on in support (9)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Feb 17, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  3. Feb 10, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  4. Jan 7, 2010

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations.

  5. Jan 7, 2010

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jan 7, 2010 · Senate

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

  2. Jan 7, 2010 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations

  3. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  4. Feb 17, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Apr 6, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Plale

  6. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate