Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Senate Bill 447

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

Topics: Administration, Department of: Agency and general functions, Claims, Contracts, State agencies, Transportation, Department of: Administration

Stopped before the full Senate voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Senate never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jan 7, 2010

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Senate never voted on it.

  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 ⁠”

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.

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. 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.

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 DOA to review each cost-benefit analysis or continued appropriateness review and certify them as accurate, and requires each contracting agency to perform periodic audits on its cost-benefit analyses and continued appropriateness reviews and on its subsequent contracts.

Read the full summary

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.

Under current law, if a state agency for which services are performed concludes that the services were unsatisfactory, the agency must file an evaluation with DOA, and DOA must ensure that future contracts are not awarded to contractors whose past performance was unsatisfactory. This bill adds that a state agency must file an evaluation with DOA if the contractual services are unsatisfactory according to the standard performance measures or benchmark indicators developed by the Division of Legal Services or if the state agency recovers expenditures from the contractor under the guidelines developed by the Division of Legal Services.

Currently, if a contractor or vendor does business with this state or a local government, the terms of the contract or order govern the performance of, and the price to be paid to, the contractor or vendor. If the contractor or vendor claims payment for materials, supplies, equipment, or services that are not provided in accordance with the contract or order, or at a price that is different from the price specified in the contract or order, the state or a local government has a remedy against the contractor or vendor for breach of contract. If the contractor or vendor is asked to swear to the truth of a claim for payment and the claim is false, the contractor or vendor may be prosecuted for false swearing. Currently, except with regard to medical assistance, a private person has no means to recover, on behalf of the state, damages sustained by the state as a result of a fraud committed against the state.

This bill provides that whoever knowingly presents or causes to be presented a false claim under any contract or order for materials, supplies, equipment, or services to be provided to a state agency is subject to a forfeiture (civil penalty) of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000, plus three times the amount of the damages that were sustained by the state or would have been sustained by the state, whichever is greater, as a result of the false claim. The bill permits the attorney general to bring an action to recover any forfeiture for which a contractor or vendor is liable as a result of a false claim submitted to a state agency. This bill contains similar provisions that apply to local governmental units.

The bill creates separate prohibitions against state contractors, grantees, vendors, and other recipients of state resources who knowingly commit certain fraudulent acts against the state. The bill makes these persons liable for treble the amount of damages sustained by the state resulting from such acts and imposes additional forfeitures of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 for each violation. The bill permits the attorney general to pursue an alternate remedy, such as an administrative remedy, against an alleged offender in lieu of an action in court.

With certain exceptions, the bill provides that a person who brings an action on behalf of the state is entitled to receive his or her reasonable expenses of bringing the action, including his or her costs and reasonable, actual attorney fees, which are assessed against the defendant.

The bill entitles an employee to all relief to make the employee whole if the employee is discriminated against by an employer as a result of lawful actions the employee took to further the investigation of any act of fraud, as defined in the bill, the employer committed against the state. Under the bill, the relief may include reinstatement and double back pay with interest from the time of any discharge to the time of reinstatement. The bill also permits the employee to recover any costs, including reasonable, actual attorney fees, from his or her employer.

This bill also does all of the following relating to state contracts:

1. Requires executive branch state agencies to submit to DOA and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, by September 15 of the even-numbered year, information on the number of contracted positions, including the number of service hours and recurring service rate payments, providing services for the agency that are paid from the agency's base level funding and an identification of the appropriation or appropriations used to fund the contracted positions; the total amount of agency base level funding used to pay for the contracted positions; and the amount of funding requested for contracted positions and an identification of the appropriation or appropriations that will be used to fund the contracted positions.

2. Requires the secretary of administration to include in the biennial budget report all of the information specified in Item 1.

3. Provides that if in any fiscal year an executive branch agency is prohibited from hiring employees to fill vacant positions or its employees are required to serve an unpaid leave of absence, the agency may not enter into, renew, or extend any contractual services contracts with private contractors or consultants for the remainder of that fiscal year for the performance of services of agency employees who would have performed the services had they been hired or had they not have been required to take an unpaid leave of absence. This provision, however, does not apply to certain contracts of the Office of the State Public Defender, as well as certain contractual services contracts funded with federal economic stimulus funds. The bill further provides that an agency may submit a written request to the JCF to exempt an agency with respect to a specific contractual services contract. If the cochairpersons of JCF do not notify the agency within 14 working days after the date of the agency's submittal that JCF intends to schedule a meeting to review the request, approval of the request is granted. If, within 14 working days after the date of the agency's request submittal, the cochairpersons notify the agency that JCF intends to schedule a meeting to review the request, the request may be granted only as approved by JCF.

The bill also requires the Department of Transportation (DOT), not a contractor, to conduct all tests of concrete thickness on its highway improvement projects. Under the bill, DOT must also submit a report to JCF containing recommendations on actions that DOT and local governments can take to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and timeliness of local road construction projects and proposed legislative changes to implement these recommendations.

Who's behind it

12 senators are its ⁠. 11 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.

18 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 30 names

Authors (12)

Signed on in support (18)

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.

How lawmakers voted

There were 4 votes on this bill.

Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations vote on an amendment

Passed, 5 to 0 · Feb 10, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations vote to recommend it

Passed, 5 to 0 · Feb 10, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Joint Committee on Finance vote on an amendment

Passed, 15 to 0 · Apr 20, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report introduction of Senate Amendment 3 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Joint Committee on Finance vote to recommend it

Passed, 11 to 4 · Apr 20, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 11, Noes 4”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Apr 20, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 11 to 4.

  3. Apr 20, 2010

    “Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 12, Noes 3” (the official wording)

  4. Apr 20, 2010

    “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 11, Noes 4” (the official wording)

  5. Apr 20, 2010

    “Report introduction of Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance” (the official wording)

  6. Apr 20, 2010

    “Report introduction of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 12, Noes 3 by joint committee on Finance” (the official wording)

  7. Apr 20, 2010

    “Report introduction of Senate Amendment 3 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance” (the official wording)

  8. Apr 2, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  9. Mar 19, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  10. Feb 23, 2010

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  11. Feb 10, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.

  12. Feb 10, 2010

    “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  13. Feb 10, 2010

    “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  14. Feb 10, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  15. Jan 25, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  16. Jan 21, 2010

    1 more senator signed on in support.

  17. Jan 20, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  18. Jan 7, 2010

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

  19. Jan 7, 2010

    Introduced in the Senate.

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

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

  2. Jan 7, 2010 · Senate

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

  3. Jan 20, 2010 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  4. Jan 21, 2010 · Senate

    Senator Ellis added as a coauthor

  5. Jan 25, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Lassa

  9. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 2 offered by Senator Lassa

  10. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  11. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  12. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  13. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  14. Feb 10, 2010 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  15. Feb 23, 2010 · Senate

    Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)

  16. Mar 19, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  17. Apr 2, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  18. Apr 19, 2010 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  19. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report introduction of Senate Amendment 3 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance

  20. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report introduction of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 12, Noes 3 by joint committee on Finance

  21. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance

  22. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report introduction of Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance

  23. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

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

  24. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 15, Noes 0 by joint committee on Finance

  25. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 12, Noes 3

  26. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 11, Noes 4

  27. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  28. 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

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

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. 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.

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

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote