BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 20
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 1, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                    AB 20 (Solorio) - As Amended:  March 10, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              Higher  
          EducationVote:  7-0
                        Business and Professions              10-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill urges the University of California (UC) Regents and  
          requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to establish,  
          by July 1, 2010, a model contract with standard provisions for  
          research, training, or services undertaken by the university on  
          behalf of the state.  Specifically, this bill:  

          1)Specifies that the standard provisions shall address, but are  
            not limited to:

               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
               aa)  Administrative overhead and indirect costs.

          2)Specifies that all standard provisions shall be used in  
            contracts entered into between the university and the state,  
            unless both contracting parties mutually determine that a  
            standard provision is inappropriate for a specific contract.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor absorbable one-time costs for UC and DGS to develop each  








                                                                  AB 20
                                                                  Page  2

          of the standard contract provisions followed by substantial  
          ongoing savings from approved efficiencies in the contracting  
          process.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . According to UC, "The federal government utilizes a  
            simplified and streamlined approach by issuing grants and  
            contracts under predetermined and mutually agreeable terms and  
            conditions, as set forth under the federal policy and  
            regulations. The UC collaborated with the federal government  
            to standardize terms and agreements for contracts between both  
            public entities. This practice resulted in almost all federal  
            grants and contracts being accepted by UC campuses without  
            further delay to negotiate standard terms with each federal  
            agency and campus. In comparison, each State grant and  
            agreement is negotiated on an individual basis between the  
            State program and the university campus. This can cause  
            significant and unnecessary delays when most provisions could  
            be standardized by the UC and the Department of General  
            Services.

            "In 2006-07, the University of California and 102 State  
            agencies and programs entered into more than 1,250 new  
            contracts or amendments for a total of more than $321 million.  
            Both State agencies and the UC could realize potential savings  
            and provide faster service by reducing the time it takes to  
            individually negotiate these agreements."

           2)Prior Legislation  . This bill is almost identical to AB 3033  
            (Laird) of 2008, which was one of numerous bills summarily  
            vetoed by the governor without a stated objection. AB 3033  
            passed this committee 16-0 and passed the Assembly Floor 75-0.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081