BILL ANALYSIS SB 258 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 258 (Oropeza) - As Amended: June 10, 2010 Policy Committee: Business and Professions Vote: 7-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes SUMMARY This bill requires school districts to prequalify contractors on public works projects exceeding $1 million, pursuant to specified procedures. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires a school district, when requiring contractors to prequalify on any public works project, to use a prequalification questionnaire and a rating system that, at a minimum, are substantially similar to standard forms developed by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to current law. 2)Requires every school district to prequalify contractors for all projects exceeding $1 million, using either a district questionnaire rating system meeting the requirements in (1) or using the DIR standard questionnaire and rating system. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Unknown, but significant ongoing state-reimbursable General Fund (Proposition 98) costs to school districts related to establishing and administering the prequalification process-likely as an additional contract cost for construction management consultants-for projects exceeding $1 million. Additional costs would be incurred to address appeals from contractors denied qualification. If this process added 0.5% to project costs, for every $500 million in school construction projects exceeding $1 million, state mandated costs would be $2.5 million. 2)To the extent this process eliminated unqualified contractors SB 258 Page 2 who would otherwise be the winning bidder, districts might avoid certain costs associated with an underperforming contractor, such as time delays or inferior construction. COMMENTS 1)Background . AB 574 (Hertzberg)/Chapter 972 of 1999 authorized certain public agencies to prequalify contractors wishing to bid on public works projects. AB 574 further required the DIR, in collaboration with affected agencies and interested parties, to develop a standardized questionnaire and model guidelines for rating bidders that public entities may use for prequalification. AB 574 applied to cities, counties, and special districts, but not to school districts, which already had statutory authority to prequalify contractors. Currently, no government entity of any type is required to prequalify contractors. 2)Purpose . According to the author's office, given current economic conditions, school districts are receiving bids from contractors with little or no experience with public works, which increases the risk that contractors will not be able to successfully complete projects. This bill is sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council, which argues that the prequalification process, using the standard documents developed by DIR, "will help minimize the risk of awarding a contract to an unqualified and inexperienced contractor." 3)Another School Mandate ? The state currently owes school districts about $3 billion in deferred mandate payments. Moreover, annual state costs for district mandates total almost $200 million. Given these significant costs, and the state's massive structural budget deficit, is this an appropriate time to enact yet another state reimbursable mandate on school districts? 4)This bill was a gut and amend in the Assembly, and was not heard in the Senate. 5)Opposition . The Coalition of Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) notes that, for large construction projects, school districts, in lieu of having a single prime contractor, typically hire a construction manager to coordinate the bidding and oversight of 30-40 separate, trade-specific SB 258 Page 3 contracts. C.A.S.H. argues that mandating prequalification would result in significant administrative costs to review huge volumes of documentation-given the large number of contracts involved-or would dissuade districts from using the construction management approach. The California School Boards Association, the California Association of School Business Officials, and the Small School Districts Association also oppose. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081