BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 522|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 522
Author: Burke (D), et al.
Amended: 8/31/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 10-1, 7/14/15
AYES: Hall, Block, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hill,
Hueso, Lara, McGuire
NOES: Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Runner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public contracts: information technology:
contractor performance assessment report
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the Director of Technology, by
January 1, 2017, to develop a standardized contractor
performance assessment report system to evaluate the performance
of a contractor on any information technology (IT) contract or
project reportable to the Department of Technology (Caltech), as
provided.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 522
Page 2
1)Establishes Caltech within the Government Operations Agency.
2)Provides that Caltech is responsible for the approval and
oversight of specified IT projects.
3)Sets forth requirements for the acquisition of goods and
services by state agencies and sets forth the various
responsibilities of the Department of General Services (DGS)
and other state agencies in overseeing and implementing state
contracting procedures and policies.
4)Requires, generally, that all contracts for the acquisition of
IT goods or services be made by or under the supervision of
DGS.
This bill:
1)Requires the Director of Technology, by January 1, 2017, to
develop a standardized contractor performance assessment
report system to evaluate the performance of a contractor on
any IT contract or project reportable to Caltech.
2)Specifies that the contractor performance assessment report
system shall include, but is not limited to, multiple
evaluations before the final evaluation, a minimum 30-day
response period for the contractor to respond to the final
evaluation, an objective evaluation of the performance of the
contractor, information about the type of contract or project
and whether or not that contract or project was completed on
time, and information about the number of completed contracts
or projects by the contractor.
3)Provides that upon the development of the contractor
performance assessment report system, the Director of
Technology shall implement the contractor performance
assessment report system for all IT contracts and projects.
4)Specifies that the contractor performance assessment report
system shall, in addition to any other applicable information
technology procurement procedures, be utilized to evaluate and
award any IT contract or project awarded pursuant to the
provisions of this bill.
AB 522
Page 3
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author, "over the past
several years, the State of California has experienced many
difficulties with IT projects that have resulted in projects
going over budget, over time, and in some cases not working at
all. As indicated in the recent state auditor report between
1994 and 2013 the state terminated or suspended seven IT
projects after spending nearly $1 billion and currently the
state has 45 IT projects under development that are reported to
cost more than $4 billion."
The author further argues that, "currently the federal
government relies heavily on past performance of vendors as an
evaluation criterion and has implemented a system known as the
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
This provides real-time data that is collected through the use
of a report card that evaluates vendor performance in key areas
that are directly correlated to the quality of work, including
project schedule, cost control, project management,
communication, and compliance. Providing a means to collect
real-time data on vendor's performance during an IT project
offers a significant benefit to California by offering a
relevant way to assess quality of work, gauging actual customer
satisfaction, and creating an incentive to maximize performance
on contracts."
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System. CPARS is a
web-enabled application that collects and manages the library of
automated Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR). A
CPAR assesses a contractor's performance and provides a record,
both positive and negative, on a given contractor during a
specific period of time. Each assessment is based on objective
facts and supported by program and contract management data,
such as cost performance reports, customer comments, quality
reviews, technical interchange meetings, financial solvency
assessments, construction/production management reviews,
contractor operations reviews, functional performance
evaluations, and earned contract incentives.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 2523 (Cooley, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2014) required Caltech
to review a specified project management methodology manual and,
AB 522
Page 4
based on that review, provide a report to the Legislature by
July 1, 2016, recommending how a team of senior consulting IT
experts can assist senior department executives charged with
oversight of major IT projects.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Caltech
estimates annual costs of approximately $350,000 to develop a
performance assessment system, and to maintain the information
received from evaluations of contractors and vendors (General
Fund). In addition, unknown ongoing costs to state departments
or agencies acquiring IT projects to perform contractor
evalutions. These costs are likely to be built into overall
contracts costs (General Fund or special funds, as applicable).
SUPPORT: (Verified8/28/15)
Natoma Technologies
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/28/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Natoma Technologies,
"currently, State IT procurements qualify vendors via irrelevant
and arbitrary data points that include the vendor's annual
revenue, the size of previous contracts the vendor has acquired,
and whether a vendor can provide a positive reference. To be
clear, most vendors can identify someone associated with the
project who will speak positively about it, rendering the highly
used reference method rather arbitrary. While conclusions can
be made from collecting this type of data, it falls short of
providing key evaluation criteria that actually matter for
successful IT projects."
AB 522
Page 5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/2/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chávez, Grove
Prepared by:Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530
8/30/15 19:42:15
**** END ****