BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 635| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 635 Author: Assembly Accountability & Administrative Review Committee Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate Vote: 27 - Urgency SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE : 6-2, 8/10/10 AYES: Harman, Florez, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Price, Wyland NOES: Wright, Yee NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Denham, Oropeza ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant SUBJECT : Public contracts: roof projects SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill adds a new article to the Public Contract Code to promote competition and enhance bidding practices for the replacement or repair of roofing projects for public schools, and community colleges. ANALYSIS : Under existing law, the Department of General Services generally governs state procurement activities, including acquisition of materials, supplies, and services. Under existing law (the State Contract Act) and various provisions in the Local Agency Public Construction Act, state and local agencies awarding contracts are required to CONTINUED AB 635 Page 2 award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Existing law prohibits a state agency or political subdivision of the state letting a bid from requiring public works specifications that require specific brand materials (sole-sourcing) or that limits bidding to one material, product, or service, unless an "or equal" clause is applied, allowing bidders to provide equal materials, products, or services as a substitute. Existing law also requires that the bid specifications provide a time period prior to, after, or prior to and after, the award of a contract for the contractor to submit data substantiating that items are equal when requesting permission to use substitutes. If no time period is specified, data may be submitted any time within 35 days after the award of a contract. (Section 3400 of the Public Contract Code) Existing law provides for the State Allocation Board (SAB) which is responsible for determining the allocation of state resources (proceeds from general obligation bond issues and other designated state funds) used for the new construction and modernization of local public school facilities. The SAB is the policy level body for the programs administered by the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). The OPSC facilitates the processing of school applications and makes funding available to qualifying school districts. The OPSC is also charged with the responsibility of verifying that all applicant school districts meet specific criteria based on the type of funding which is being requested. It is also incumbent on the OPSC staff to prepare regulations, policies and procedures which carry out the mandates of the SAB, and to work with school districts to assist them throughout the application process. The OPSC is responsible for ensuring that funds are disbursed properly and in accordance with the decisions made by the SAB. This bill: 1. Provides that for any roofing project, a material, product, thing, or service shall be considered "equal" if it meets all the following requirements: (a) it is CONTINUED AB 635 Page 3 at least equal in quality, durability, design, and appearance but not necessarily of an identical color, (b) it will perform the intended function at least equally well, and (c) it conforms substantially, even with deviations, to the detailed requirements contained in the specifications. 2. Requires financial disclosure on each roofing project of any financial relationship between any manufacturers, contractors, architects, engineers or consultants involved in the project. This disclosure must be filed with the district initiating the roofing project. Also provides that any person who knowingly provides false information and fails to disclose a financial relationship shall be liable to the district for any reasonable costs and also subject to a civil penalty, as specified, in addition to any other available remedies. 3. Provides a toll-free phone line, as specified, for contractors and others to report bid rigging and to file a complaint. 4. Provides that this bill does not apply to a school district operating in accordance with Section 20113 or a community college district operating in accordance with Section 20654 of the Public Contract Code. Comments According to the author's office, this bill is the result of a lengthy investigation by the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee and a June 30, 2010 hearing that uncovered evidence of consistent overcharging on school roofing projects in amounts commonly between 30 and 100 percent. The author's office notes that despite Public Contract Code provisions that require competitive bidding in publicly-funded construction, the Committee found widespread efforts to limit competition in school roofing projects throughout the state. The author's office points out that in both large and small school districts, community college districts and state universities, proprietary specifications are used in bidding documents to force contractors to use a specific roofing manufacturer's CONTINUED AB 635 Page 4 products, even though there are more than a dozen roofing manufacturers selling similar products in California. The author's office contends that bidding documents examined by the Committee for school re-roofing projects throughout the state all limited roofing products to a specific manufacturer and created significant hurdles for any contractor attempting to substitute an alternative product that could be similar in quality but at less cost. The author's office emphasizes that roofing industry officials, contractors and school district officials interviewed by the Committee all suggested this limited competition occurs routinely in numerous school districts, community college districts and universities, and leads to non-competitive bidding and higher prices. School roofing projects are typically awarded to a contractor with the lowest bid through a procurement process set up by the purchaser. The author's office points out that while the bidding processes that the Committee reviewed indicated that multiple contractors bid on these jobs, the contractors were often limited to the products they could use by the specifications put forth by the school district. Some contractors also could not bid on certain jobs because they were not approved by the manufacturer singled out for the project in the specifications. It was found that such a process often leads to inflated project costs amounting to 25 percent or more. Industry officials who testified at the June 30th hearing indicated that at least three roofing manufacturers have specific business models aimed at subverting the competitive bidding process. It was reported that sales representatives from these roofing manufacturers provide free consultations for the district officials, design consultants or architects who do the construction planning and procurement for schools. Additionally, the Committee found that the manufacturers' representatives routinely provided bidding documents with specifications favoring their company. It was disclosed that school district officials use these documents because they often lack in-house roofing expertise. According to the author's office, this bill is intended to provide additional tools and requirements to deter such activity without taking the decision-making authority away CONTINUED AB 635 Page 5 from state entities or school districts regarding what products to use. Specifically, this bill requires active financial disclosure on each roofing project (replacement or repair) for state buildings or public schools of any financial relationships between any manufacturer, contractor, architects, engineers or consultants involved in the project. Additionally, this bill requires an independent licensed architect, engineer, or certified roofing consultant to make decisions on whether a proposed "or equal" product meets bid specifications. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/10) Coalition for Procurement Reform TSM:mw 8/25/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED