BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 740 (Blumenfield)
          As Introduced  February 17, 2011
          Majority vote 

           BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS     8-0  APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Hayashi, Bill Berryhill,  |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Allen, Butler,            |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |Eng, Hill, Ma, Nestande   |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |                          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :   Requires a state agency to immediately discontinue a 
          contract that has been disapproved by the State Personnel Board 
          (SPB), unless otherwise ordered.  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 contract disapproved by 
            SPB or its delegate.

          3)Requires a state agency ordered to discontinue a contract to 
            serve notice to 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)Declares that failure of the state agency to provide notice to 
            the vendor, SPB, and employee organizations may be grounds for 
            rejection of future contracts for the same or similar services 
            that were discontinued.

          5)Makes findings and declarations.








                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  2



           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Governs contracting between state agencies and private 
            contractors, and sets forth requirements for the procurement 
            of supplies, materials, equipment, and services by state 
            agencies.

          2)Provides that contracting is permissible to achieve cost 
            savings when specified conditions are met, and all efforts are 
            made to use civil servants to provide services.   

          3)Provides that contracting is permissible, after all efforts 
            are made to use civil servants to provide services, and when 
            any of the following can be met:

             a)   The services are exempt as defined by the State 
               Constitution; 

             b)   The services are for new state functions and the 
               Legislature has specifically authorized contracting for the 
               services;

             c)   The work is of a highly technical nature and the skills 
               needed cannot be provided by civil servants;

             d)   The services are incidental to the purchase of goods;

             e)   The services are contracted to avoid a conflict of 
               interest;

             f)   Emergency services are being provided;

             g)   Legal services are provided to avoid a conflict of 
               interest;

             h)   It is infeasible for the state to provide the services;

             i)   Service providers are training civil servants on an 
               interim basis; or, 

             j)   Services provided are temporary, urgent, or of an 
               occasional nature.









                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  3


           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, 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 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 
          (Auditor) estimated that the Department of Health Care Services 
          (DHCS) saved more than $1.7 million when it converted 
          information technology (IT) contracts to state IT positions.

           COMMENTS  :   According to the author's office, "The state in 2009 
          paid an estimated $34 billion for 13,600 personal services and 
          consulting contracts.  A recent report by the Auditor cited 
          serious flaws in the process for personal services contracts 
          ordered terminated.  AB 740 would implement key recommendations 
          by the Auditor to remedy the serious flaws.  The Auditor 
          concluded that a serious problem was the lack of knowing whether 
          state agencies are complying with SPB's decision to disapprove a 
          contract.  The Auditor also stated that under current law state 
          departments are able to enter into new contracts for 
          substantially the same services that had already been reviewed 
          and rejected."

          On March 12, 2008, the Assembly Business and Professions 
          Committee along with the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement 
          and Social Security Committee, held a joint hearing entitled, 
          "Use of Personal Services Contracts for Informational Technology 
          Services in State Government."  A memo provided by SPB outlines 
          the civil service mandate:  "Government Code Section 19130 
          codifies the exceptions to the civil service mandate recognized 
          in various court decisions.  The purpose of SPB's review of 
          contracts under Government Code Section 19130 is to determine 
          whether, consistent with Article VII and its implied civil 
          service mandate, state work may legally be contracted to private 
          entities or whether it must be performed by state employees."

          In September 2009, the Auditor prepared an audit report on the 
          use of information technology personal services and consulting 








                                                                  AB 740
                                                                  Page  4


          contracts (IT contracts) at DHCS and Department of Public Health 
          (DPH), following a request by the Joint Legislative Audit 
          Committee.  According to the Auditor, over the last five years, 
          SPB has disapproved 17 IT contracts because the departments, 
          upon formal challenges from a union, could not adequately 
          justify contracting under the Government Code Section 19130.  
          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.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Joanna Gin / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 
          319-3301 


                                                                FN: 0000512