BILL ANALYSIS
AB 20
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 20 (Solorio)
As Amended March 10, 2009
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 9-0 BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS
10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Portantino, Conway, |Ayes:|Hayashi, Cook, Conway, |
| |Block, Cook, Fong, | |Eng, Hernandez, Nava, |
| |Galgiani, Huber, Ma, | |Niello, |
| |Ruskin | |John A. Perez, Ruskin, |
| | | |Smyth |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Ammiano, Davis, Duvall, |
| |Fuentes, Hall, Harkey, |
| |Jones, Miller, John A. |
| |Perez, Price, Skinner, |
| |Solorio, Audra |
| |Strickland, Torlakson |
| | |
--------------------------------
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 by July 1, 2010, and requires those provisions to
be used in contracts between the entities unless they mutually
agree otherwise. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requests the UC Regents and requires DGS, acting for the
state, to establish standard provisions for research contracts
undertaken by UC for the state, including, but not limited to,
the following: liability, intellectual property, the right to
undertake additional research, the right to publish, hiring
and other personnel-related matters, invoicing, payments,
dispute resolution, travel, termination, and administrative
overhead and indirect costs.
AB 20
Page 2
2)Requires the standard provisions be used in research contracts
between UC and the state unless both contracting parties
mutually determine that a specified standard contract
provision is inappropriate for a specified contract.
3)Authorizes DGS and UC to determine those types of contracts
for which the use of the model contract would be
inappropriate.
4)Requires DGS to seek the participation of state agencies and
departments that have contracts with UC.
5)Clarifies that it is not the intent of the Legislature that
the model contract provisions waive the requirements of the
law.
6)Codifies legislative findings that it is unnecessarily costly
and time consuming for UC and the state to develop research
contracts, and it would be more cost effective and efficient
if the state and UC established "boilerplate" provisions that
would apply to all research contracts between the two,
allowing for variations only in unusual situations.
EXISTING LAW establishes UC as the state's research body.
FISCAL EFFECT : Minor absorbable one-time costs for UC and DGS
to develop each of the standard contract provisions followed by
substantial ongoing savings from approved efficiencies in the
contracting process.
COMMENTS : The current process for negotiating contracts is
lengthy and time consuming as each provision of each contract
must be negotiated. Many of these contracts have similar
provisions yet may take a considerable amount of time to
negotiate and complete-some as long as six months to a year.
Considering that UC and the state entered into 1,383 contracts
in 2007-08, for a total of $21 million in services, this is an
inefficient use of UC's and the state's time and resources.
The federal government issues grants and contracts under
pre-determined and mutually agreeable terms and conditions, as
set forth under the federal demonstration partnership and the
federal acquisition regulations. Therefore, almost all federal
AB 20
Page 3
grants and contracts can be accepted by a university campus
without further delay to negotiate terms with the agency. In
comparison, each state contract is negotiated on an individual
basis between the state agency program and the university
campus, causing significant delays to negotiate each provision
of the award.
An identical bill, AB 3033 (Laird), was vetoed by the Governor
last year because it was not considered a priority in light of
the Budget delay.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0000304