BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    SB 1214


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          1214 (Allen)


          As Amended  June 23, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  27-9


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Higher          |11-0 |Medina, Baker,        |                    |
          |Education       |     |Chávez, Irwin,        |                    |
          |                |     |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, |                    |
          |                |     |Linder, Low,          |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Weber,      |                    |
          |                |     |Williams              |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-3 |Gonzalez, Bloom,      |Bigelow, Jones,     |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Bonta,       |Wagner              |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Daly, Eggman,         |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher,            |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Holden, Obernolte,    |                    |








                                                                    SB 1214


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood, Chau     |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Extends the sunset on the authority of the University  
          of California (UC) to use the best value procurement method at  
          all its campuses and medical centers.  Specifically, this bill:   



          1)Extends the sunset by one year, until January 1, 2018, on the  
            authority of the UC Regents to use the best value procurement  
            method for projects over $1 million at all its campuses and  
            medical centers.


          2)Deletes obsolete reporting requirements.


          3)Makes several technical and conforming changes.


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Authorizes, until January 1, 2017, a pilot program at the UC  
            to award construction contracts over $1 million, on a "best  
            value" basis, rather than just to the lowest bid (Public  
            Contract Code (PCC) Section 10506.4).
          2)Defines "best value," for purposes of the UC, as a procurement  
            process whereby, the lowest responsible bidder may be selected  
            on the basis of objective criteria with the resulting  
            selection representing the best combination of price and  
            qualifications (PCC Section 10506.5).










                                                                    SB 1214


                                                                    Page  3





          3)Requires the UC Regents, on or before January 1, 2016, to  
            submit a report to the appropriate policy committees of the  
            Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee,  
            regarding the UC's best value pilot (PCC Section 10506.8).


          4)Establishes a pilot program to authorize the Los Angeles  
            Unified School District (LAUSD) to use a best value  
            procurement method, before December 31, 2020, for public  
            projects that exceed $1 million, and requires submission of  
            specified reports on the use of this procurement method (PCC  
            Sections 20119 - 20119.7).


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, based on the results to date of UC's use of best  
          value procurement, the university could realize additional  
          significant savings in contract and contract administration  
          costs for the additional year that this authority is extended  
          under this bill.


          COMMENTS:  History of UC Best Value Pilot.  SB 667 (Migden),  
          Chapter 367, Statutes of 2006, created the UC Best Value Pilot,  
          authorized for five years, solely at UC's San Francisco campus  
          (UCSF).  SB 667 allowed UCSF to award contracts based on the  
          best value for the university.  Under this process, UC  
          prequalifies bidders, then evaluates the bid based on answers to  
          a separate best value questionnaire and assigns a qualification  
          score.  UC then divides each bidder's price by its qualification  
          score.  The lowest resulting cost per quality point represents  
          the best value bid.


          Senate Bill 835 (Wolk), Chapter 636, Statutes of 2011, extended  
          the sunset in SB 667 and expanded the best value pilot to all UC  
          campuses and medical centers for five more years; with a status  
          report due to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, on or  
          before January 1, 2016.








                                                                    SB 1214


                                                                    Page  4







          According to the UC "Report on the Best Value Construction  
          Contract Pilot Program", issued in December 2015, since January  
          2012, UC awarded over 320 construction contracts totaling $4.05  
          billion.  Forty of these contracts, or 13%, totaling $1.19  
          billion, utilized the best value construction authority.   
          Additionally, the report finds that given the additional time  
          and administrative requirements associated with the best value  
          selection process, the UC screens its projects carefully to  
          maximize the value obtained from said process.  


          To note, according to the author's office, when SB 835 was  
          initially debated in the Legislature, some legislators expressed  
          concerns that granting best value authority to the UC would  
          allow for subjectivity and favoritism to enter into the  
          selection process.  However, according to the report, "To date,  
          no bidder, or third-party for that matter, has protested any  
          qualification score determined by the University's BV [best  
          value] Contractor Selection scoring committees."  Lastly, the  
          report finds that UC's best value pilot has fostered improved  
          cooperative project administration, better quality work, less  
          labor and safety violations, better qualified contractors, more  
          on-time completion of projects, and increased on-budget  
          performance.


          Need for the measure.  According to the author, "Best Value  
          contracting is far more effective at selecting contractors who  
          will provide the lowest finished cost as opposed to selecting  
          contractors on the basis of the lowest first cost."  The author  
          contends that best value contracting has been met with praise  
          from the design and contracting community and that the loss of  
          UC's authority to offer best value contracting would be to the  
          detriment of students, patients, researchers, faculty, and the  
          taxpayers of California.










                                                                    SB 1214


                                                                    Page  5





          Related legislation.  SB 667 (Migden), SB 835 (Wolk) - as  
          described in the "History of the UC Best Value Pilot" section of  
          this analysis, and AB 1185 (Ridley-Thomas), Chapter 786,  
          Statutes of 2015, which, among others, authorizes the Los  
          Angeles Unified School District to utilize a best value  
          procurement process as a pilot project until January 1, 2021,  
          for construction projects over $1 million.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960   
          FN: 0003786