BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 20
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   March 17, 2009

                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
                                 Mary Hayashi, Chair
                    AB 20 (Solorio) - As Amended:  March 10, 2009
           
          SUBJECT  :   University of California: contracts.

           SUMMARY  :   Requests the University of California (UC) and  
          requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to establish  
          standard contract provisions for research contracts between UC  
          and the State of California (state).  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Codifies legislative findings that it is unnecessarily costly  
            and time consuming for UC and the state of California to  
            develop separate research contracts, and that it would be more  
            cost effective and efficient if the state and the UC  
            established "boilerplate" provisions that would apply to all  
            contracts between the two, allowing for variations only in  
            unusual situations.

          2)Requests the UC Regents and requires DGS, acting for the  
            state, to establish standard provisions by July 1, 2010 for  
            contracts between UC and the state, including, but not limited  
            to, the following:

             a)   Liability;

             b)   Intellectual property;

             c)   The right to undertake additional research;

             d)   The right to publish;

             e)   Hiring and other personnel-related matters;

             f)   Invoicing;

             g)   Payments;

             h)   Dispute resolution;

             i)   Travel;

             j)   Termination; and,








                                                                  AB 20
                                                                  Page  2


             aa)  Administrative overhead and indirect costs.

          3)Authorizes DGS and UC, in consultation with state agencies and  
            departments that have contracts with UC, to determine those  
            types of contracts for which use of the model contract would  
            be inappropriate.

          4)Requires that any and all agreed upon standard provisions be  
            used in contracts between UC and the state unless both  
            contracting parties mutually determine that a specified  
            standard contract provision is inappropriate for a specific  
            contract.

          5)Requires DGS to seek the participation of state agencies and  
            departments that have contracts with UC, and permits the model  
            contract to be revised in a manner determined by UC and DGS in  
            consultation with state agencies and departments that have  
            contracts with the university.

          6)Clarifies that it is not the intent of the Legislature that  
            the model contract provisions waive the requirements of the  
            law.

           EXISTING LAW  establishes the UC as a public trust administered  
          by the UC Regents, with 10 campuses throughout the state.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :  

           Purpose of this bill  .  According to the author's office, "AB 20  
          seeks to address the lack of standardized contract provisions in  
          agreements entered into between UC and the state of California.   
          The process would be similar to the agreements entered into by  
          UC and the federal government as dictated by the Federal  
          Demonstration Project. State contracting costs UC three times as  
          much as the federal process for one-tenth of the dollar amount  
          of a contract.  These high costs result from non-uniformity of  
          contract terms, non-uniform and complex financial  
          accounting/invoicing requirements and lack of harmonization with  
          relatively uniform federal contracting terms.

          "AB 20 will streamline the contracting process between UC and  
          state agencies while reducing the costs and time associated with  








                                                                  AB 20
                                                                  Page  3

          negotiating standard governmental agreements.  AB 20 will also  
          expedite UC's ability to conduct research for the state."

           Background  .  According to UC, from 2006 to 2007, it entered into  
          more than 1,250 new contracts or contract amendments with 102  
          state agencies and programs worth over $321 million.  Many of  
          these contracts have similar provisions dealing with issues such  
          as intellectual property and liability, yet often take  
          considerable amount of time to negotiate and complete - some as  
          long as a year.  As of June 30, 2007, UC incurred almost $70  
          million in expenses that had not yet been reimbursed by the  
          state.  These expenses may not all be from unpaid invoices but  
          could be a combination of delays in paying invoices, late  
          issuance of contracts (so invoices could not be submitted and  
          payment received), and recent expenses not yet invoiced.

          In contrast, the federal government issues grants and contracts  
          with UC under pre-determined and mutually agreeable terms and  
          conditions.  The UC collaborated with the federal government to  
          standardize terms for contracts between both public entities.   
          This practice has resulted in almost all federal grants and  
          contracts being accepted by UC campuses without delay to  
          negotiate terms.  In comparison, each state contract is  
          negotiated on an individual basis between each state agency  
          program and each university campus, causing significant delays  
          to negotiate each provision of the agreement.

           Previous legislation  .  This bill is substantially similar to AB  
          3033 (Laird) of 2008 which the Governor vetoed.  The Governor  
          vetoed a substantial number of bills that year with the same  
          message that, due to the delay in passing the 2008-2009 State  
          Budget, he would only sign bills that were "the highest priority  
          for California."  AB 3033 was vetoed for this reason.  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :   

           Support 
           
          None on file.

           Opposition 
           
          None on file.
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Ross Warren / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 








                                                                  AB 20
                                                                  Page  4