BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1358
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1358 (Dababneh) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill aligns the process for school districts awarding
contracts through the design-build method with the process
established for state and local agencies, thereby allowing a
AB 1358
Page 2
school district to procure design-build contracts for school
construction projects in excess of $1 million, and award the
contract through the low bid or the best value method.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No direct costs as use of the design-build process is voluntary
and should result in potential savings. Presumably K-12
districts will choose design-build for a specific project upon
determining a potential for savings in terms of project schedule
and/or costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. There are two primary construction delivery
systems used in the public and private sectors: the
traditional design-bid-build method and the more recently used
design-build method. Under design-bid-build, an
architect/engineering firm is first awarded a design contract
based on subjective criteria. After detailed project plans and
specifications are completed, a contract for the construction
work, which accounts for over 80% of the project's costs, is
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder based on competitive
bidding. Under design-build, the public agency enters into a
single contract with an entity responsible for both project
design and construction.
Legislation in 2001 authorized the design-build process for
all K-12 school districts and three community college
districts, plus five projects in other community college
districts, but only for projects where total costs were at
least $10 million. K-12 districts were authorized to use this
process until January 1, 2007, while the five community
college districts were authorized through January 1, 2008.
Proposition 1D extended these sunset dates until 2010 and
AB 1358
Page 3
2011, respectively. SB 614 (Simitian), Chapter 471, Statutes
of 2007, lowered the threshold for using design-build from $10
million to $2 million, extended the authority for design-build
to all CCC districts, and extended the sunset dates for both
K-12 and CCC district authorization until January 1, 2014. In
2012, legislation extended this sunset through January 1,
2020.
In addition to K-12 schools and CCC districts, a number of
design-build authorizations have been given to various cities
and counties, state building projects, and transit districts.
Last year, SB 785 (Wolk), Chapter 931, Statutes of 2014,
repealed the authorization for a number of state and local
agencies and enacted uniform provisions for the Department of
General Services, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, and specified local agencies using the
design-build method. SB 785 did not include the authorization
for school districts.
2)Purpose. This bill repeals the provisions authorizing school
districts to utilize the design-build method and instead
re-establishes provisions that are aligned to SB 785. The
premise and the basic structure of the current authorization
for school districts and this bill are very similar. The
differences between the existing process for school districts
and this bill are as follows:
a) The threshold for participation is lowered from $2.5
million to $1 million; thereby expanding the pool of
projects eligible to be awarded through a design-build
method.
b) The sunset is extended from January 1, 2020 to January
1, 2025, consistent with the sunset established for SB 785.
AB 1358
Page 4
c) This bill deletes the provision requiring a school
district governing board to make written findings of the
benefits by using the design-build process for a particular
project prior to exercising the authority to use
design-build (e.g., will reduce project costs or expedite
the project's completion).
d) The process for issuing a request for proposal under the
current authorization is more prescriptive than the process
established by this bill. For example, under the existing
process, 50% of the factors used for best value selection
must include price, technical expertise, life-cycle costs
over 15 years or more, skilled labor force availability and
acceptable safety record. This bill requires only price,
technical design and construction expertise, and life-cycle
costs over 15 or more years to be required factors in the
evaluation and gives districts the authority to determine
the weight of each factor.
e) This bill and the current authorization require the use
of registered apprentices. However, this bill requires the
employment of specified percentages of skilled
journeypersons who are graduates of state approved
apprenticeship programs by specified dates.
f) The existing process requires a project inspector. This
bill does not include a project inspector.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1358
Page 5