Skip to content

Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session

AB 522

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

the engagement of engineering and similar services by the Department of Transportation.

  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

Under current law, the Department of Transportation (DOT) may engage

engineering, consulting, surveying, or other specialized services and this

engagement of services is exempt from certain provisions of law relating to state

procurement. Any engagement of services involving an expenditure of $3,000 or

more must be by formal contract approved by the governor. For an engagement of

services of more than $25,000, DOT must conduct a uniform cost-benefit analysis

before the engagement and must review periodically, and before any renewal, the

continued appropriateness of the engagement.

This bill eliminates the requirements that DOT: 1) conduct a uniform

cost-benefit analysis before an engagement of engineering, consulting, surveying,

or other specialized services involving an expenditure of more than $25,000; and 2)

review periodically and before any renewal the continued appropriateness of such an

engagement. The bill also requires DOT to annually submit a report to the

legislature limited to identifying, for the preceding fiscal year: 1) the total cost of

engineering services provided on projects performed predominantly by DOT

employees; 2) the total cost of engineering services provided on projects performed

predominantly through an engagement of engineering services; and 3) the total cost

of engineering services provided on projects performed jointly by DOT employees and

through an engagement of engineering services. The bill also includes requirements

for DOT to follow in computing the total cost of engineering services.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Ballweg (R) , Bies (R) , Endsley (R) , Honadel (R) , Krug (R) , LeMahieu (R) , Marklein (R) , Spanbauer (R) , Stone (R) , Strachota (R) , Stroebel (R) , Van Roy (R)

1 cosponsors

Olsen (R)

Votes

Suspending the rules (to take a vote immediately) needs a two-thirds majority — a higher bar than passing the bill, which needs a simple majority. That's why a suspension motion can show more Ayes than the passage vote that follows it. Glossary

Assembly: Report passage recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 8, Noes 4

Passed 8–4 Feb 29, 2012 official source full page

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

Assembly: Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 60, Noes 37

Passed 60–37 Mar 6, 2012 official source full page

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

Assembly: Assembly substitute amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 59, Noes 38

Passed 59–38 Mar 6, 2012 official source full page

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

Assembly: Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 60, Noes 37

Passed 60–37 Mar 6, 2012 official source full page

Aye · 60

Not voting · 2

Assembly: Read a third time and passed, Ayes 54, Noes 39

Passed 54–39 Mar 15, 2012 official source full page

Aye · 54

Nay · 39

Assembly: Rules suspended to order immediately messaged, Ayes 58, Noes 35

Passed 58–35 Mar 15, 2012 official source full page

Aye · 58

Full history

  1. Feb 3, 2012 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Honadel, Krug, Ballweg, Bies, Endsley, LeMahieu, Marklein, A. Ott, Spanbauer, Stone, Strachota, Stroebel and Van Roy;Cosponsored by Senator Olsen

  2. Feb 3, 2012 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation

  3. Feb 7, 2012 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Feb 17, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Bernard Schaber, Jorgensen, Vruwink, Bewley, Steinbrink and E. Coggs

  5. Feb 21, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Feb 28, 2012 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Feb 29, 2012 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 8, Noes 4

  8. Feb 29, 2012 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Mar 2, 2012 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 3-6-2012 by committee on Rules

  10. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Representatives Molepske Jr, Vruwink and Jorgensen

  11. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 59, Noes 38

  12. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Roys, C. Taylor and Clark

  13. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 60, Noes 37

  14. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  15. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 60, Noes 37

  16. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Made a special order of business at 11:21 A.M. on 3-13-2012 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 22

  17. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  18. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 54, Noes 39

  19. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Rules suspended to order immediately messaged, Ayes 58, Noes 35

  20. Mar 15, 2012 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  21. Mar 15, 2012 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Senate Organization

  22. Mar 15, 2012 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  23. Mar 23, 2012 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1