Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 522

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

Topics: Engineer, Surveying and surveyors, Transportation, Department of: Administration

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Mar 15, 2012, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to ⁠. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 3, 2012

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 54 to 39

  4. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Failed to concur in 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.

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.

Who's behind it

13 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 13 are Republicans.

1 more lawmaker ⁠.

See all 14 names

Authors (13)

Signed on in support (1)

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 6 votes on this bill. Taking a bill up right away needs two-thirds of the members, a higher bar than passing it, so that vote can draw more yeses than the final one.

Assembly Committee on Transportation vote to recommend it

Passed, 8 to 4 · Feb 29, 2012

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

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 8, Noes 4”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 60 to 37 · Mar 6, 2012

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

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 60, Noes 37”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 59 to 38 · Mar 6, 2012

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

Official motion: “Assembly substitute amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 59, Noes 38”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to take it up right away

Passed, 60 to 37 · Mar 6, 2012 · 2 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (60)

No (37)

Didn't vote (2)

Official motion: “Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 60, Noes 37”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 54 to 39 · Mar 15, 2012 · 6 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (54)

No (39)

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 54, Noes 39”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to take it up right away

Passed, 58 to 35 · Mar 15, 2012 · 6 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (58)

Official motion: “Rules suspended to order immediately messaged, Ayes 58, Noes 35”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Mar 15, 2012

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Senate Organization.

  3. Mar 15, 2012

    The Senate received it.

  4. Mar 15, 2012

    The Assembly passed it, 54 to 39.

  5. Feb 29, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. Feb 29, 2012

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 4.

  7. Feb 21, 2012

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  8. Feb 7, 2012

    The committee held a public hearing.

  9. Feb 3, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Transportation.

  10. Feb 3, 2012

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  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

    Read a second time

  11. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

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

  12. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

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

  13. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

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

  14. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

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

  15. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  16. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

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

  17. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

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

  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

Terms on this page

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence. 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

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence

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