Skip to content

Bills · 2013-2014 Regular Session

AB 432

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: the purchase of food by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin-System. (FE)

Food Purchasing, government University of wisconsin — Regents

  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

Current law generally authorizes state agencies to purchase materials,

supplies, or equipment under certain circumstances. With some exceptions,

purchases for which the estimated cost exceeds $50,000 require bids to be invited or

proposals to be solicited and the order must be awarded to the lowest responsible

bidder or most competitive sealed proposal. In determining the lowest responsible

bidder the agency must consider the location of the agency, the quantities of the

articles to be supplied, the conformity of the bids with the specifications in the

invitation to bid, and the purpose for which the materials, supplies, or equipment are

required and the delivery date. In determining the most competitive sealed proposal,

the agency must consider factors outlined in the solicitation for competitive sealed

proposals.

This bill creates several exceptions to these provisions if the Board of Regents

of the University of Wisconsin System (board) is purchasing food. First, when the

board is considering bids or proposals for the purchase of food, factors other than

price may not comprise more than 25 percent of the total factors used to determine

the lowest bid or most competitive proposal. In addition, under this bill, if the food

is produced within a 100-mile radius of the site to which the food will be delivered,

the board may purchase that food without inviting bids or soliciting proposals if the

estimated cost does not exceed $100,000. Finally, this bill creates an exception to the

requirement to award to the lowest responsible bidder or most competitive sealed

proposal by allowing the board to give the award to a person who submits a bid or

proposal that is no more than 20 percent higher than the apparent low bid or than

the most competitive proposal if the food was produced within a 100-mile radius of

the site to which the food will be delivered.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Barca (D) , Barnes (D) , Berceau (D) , C. Taylor (D) , Clark (D) , Danou (D) , Doyle (D) , Goyke (D) , Hebl (D) , Hulsey (D) , Ohnstad (D) , Pope (D) , Richards (D) , Smith (D) , Zepnick (D)

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 Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 adoption recommended by Committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 9, Noes 4

Passed 9–4 Mar 7, 2014 official source full page

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

Assembly: Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 8, Noes 5

Passed 8–5 Mar 7, 2014 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 withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 37, Noes 54

Failed 37–54 Mar 20, 2014 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. Oct 17, 2013 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Smith, Clark, Barnes, Berceau, Danou, Doyle, Goyke, Hebl, Hulsey, Ohnstad, Pope, Richards, C. Taylor, Zepnick and Barca

  2. Oct 17, 2013 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Colleges and Universities

  3. Nov 8, 2013 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Dec 19, 2013 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Jan 30, 2014 · Assembly

    Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representatives Clark and Smith

  6. Feb 13, 2014 · Assembly

    Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 offered by Representatives Clark and Smith

  7. Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. Mar 7, 2014 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 adoption recommended by Committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 9, Noes 4

  9. Mar 7, 2014 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 8, Noes 5

  10. Mar 7, 2014 · Assembly

    Referred to Committee on Rules

  11. Mar 20, 2014 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 37, Noes 54

  12. Apr 8, 2014 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1