BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 4, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

              AB 740 (Blumenfield) - As Introduced:  February 17, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              Business and 
          Professions  Vote:                            8-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires a state agency to immediately discontinue a 
          contract that has been disapproved by the State Personnel Board 
          (SPB). Specifically, this bill:

          1)Requires a state agency to immediately discontinue a contract 
            that SPB or its delegate disapproves, unless otherwise ordered 
            by SPB or its delegate.

          2)Prohibits the state agency from entering into another contract 
            for the same or similar services, or from continuing the 
            services that were the subject of the disapproved contract.

          3)Requires a state agency ordered to discontinue a contract to 
            notify the vendor within 15 days from SPB's final action, 
            unless another time period is specified, and requires the 
            state agency to provide a copy of the notice to SPB and the 
            employee organization that filed the contract challenge. 

          4)Stipulates that failure to provide the required notices per 
            (3) may be grounds for rejection of future contracts for the 
            same or similar services as those discontinued.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Other than minor administrative costs, there will be little net 
          fiscal impact, as the bill more explicitly implements the 
          requirements of current law per Government Code Section 19130.   
           The bill provides SPB with flexibility regarding the timing of 
          contract termination, so as not to conflict with the specific 
          terms of a contract.  To the extent implementation of the bill 








                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  2

          leads to a shift of state services from contracts to civil 
          servants, there could be costs or savings depending on the 
          circumstances.

          For example, in its report on this subject, the State Auditor 
          estimated that the Department of Health Care Services saved more 
          than $1.7 million when it converted information technology (IT) 
          contracts to state IT positions.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Background and Purpose  .  A September 2009 report by the state 
            auditor on the use of information technology (IT) personal 
            services and consulting contracts at the Department of Health 
            Care Services (DHCS) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) 
            found that, over the preceding five years, SPB had disapproved 
            17 IT contracts because the departments, upon formal 
            challenges from a union, could not adequately justify 
            contracting under Government Code Section 19130-the statute 
            providing conditions allowing for the use of contracting in 
            lieu of civil servants to perform state services.  Although 
            the union prevailed in 17 of its 23 IT contract challenges, 
            many of SPB's decisions were moot because the contracts had 
            already expired before SPB rendered its decisions. 

            According to the auditor, because SPB lacks a mechanism for 
            determining whether state agencies comply with its decisions, 
            the departments experienced no repercussions for failing to 
            terminate these contracts. Although not prohibited by law from 
            doing so, the departments entered into numerous subsequent 
            contracts for the same services as those in the contracts 
            previously disapproved by SPB. 

            The auditor recommended that the Legislature specify that 
            contracts disapproved by SPB be terminated and require state 
            agencies to provide documentation to SPB and the applicable 
            unions to demonstrate to the satisfaction of SPB the 
            termination of these contracts. AB 740 implements this 
            recommendation.

           2)Prior Legislation  . In 2010, an almost identical bill (AB 2494, 
            Blumenfield) was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who argued 
            that "The abrupt termination of contracts that may be 
            providing critical services could leave departments unable to 
            meet their programmatic responsibilities and cause unknown 








                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  3

            fiscal and operational problems.  Furthermore, it is unclear 
            if the immediate discontinuation of a contract as a result of 
            this bill may conflict with the termination language in the 
            terms and conditions of that contract." It should be noted 
            that, like AB 2492, this bill allows the board to order other 
            than an immediate contract termination.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081