BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 20
AUTHOR: Solorio
AMENDED: May 26, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 10, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on
Education and Judiciary. A "do pass" motion should include
referral to the Committee on Judiciary.
SUBJECT : University Contracting
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Department of General Services (DGS)
and the California State University (CSU) and urges the
University of California (UC) to negotiate and establish a
model contract with standard contract provisions applicable
to the UC and CSU by July 1, 2010. The bill also
authorizes the DGS, UC, and CSU, in consultation with
affected state agencies and departments, to determine the
types of contracts inappropriate for the use of a model
contract.
BACKGROUND
Current law does not require nor prescribe any standardized
format, provisos or language to be included in contracts
between UC and the state.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the Department of General Services to
negotiate and establish a model contract with standard
provisions with the University of California and the
California State University by July 1, 2010.
2) Requires the CSU and urges the UC to negotiate and
establish a model contract with the DGS applicable to
AB 20
Page 2
their university by July 1, 2010.
3) Requires, to the extent feasible, the model contract
to include, but not be limited to provisions relating
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 direct costs
4) Requires the use of these provisions in the model
contract unless mutually determined between the
university and the contracting party that a specified
provision is inappropriate.
5) Authorizes the DGS, UC, and CSU, in consultation with
affected state agencies and department, to determine
those contracts for which use of the model contract
would be inappropriate.
6) Clarifies that it is not the Legislature's intent that
the model contract provisions waive requirements of
law.
7) Defines"contract" for purposes of the bill's
provisions to include any research, training, or
service agreement or grant between the state and the
UC or the CSU.
8) Makes a number of related findings and declarations.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) What's the problem ? According to the author, the
current system of negotiating and executing contracts
between the universities and the state is slow and
lengthy and, therefore, expensive. In 2004-05, UC
AB 20
Page 3
entered into 1,100 contracts with 72 different state
agencies. In 2006-07, UC entered into 1,266 contracts
with 102 different state agencies. In 2007-08 UC
entered into 1,383 contracts for a total of $421
million in services. CSU reports that between
February and March, there were more than 1100 active
individual state agency contracts representing total
funding of $175 million. Each of these contracts,
apparently, were individually developed and drafted by
separate groups of attorneys and other personnel.
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" which expedites the
process resulting in significant cost savings. If the
federal government can successfully use a standardized
contract form, shouldn't California be able to also?
2) Prior Legislation . This bill is substantively similar
to AB 3033 (Laird) of 2008 which was vetoed by the
Governor. The veto message read:
The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State
Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent
to my desk at the end of the year's legislative
session. Given the delay, I am only signing
bills that are the highest priority for
California. This bill does not meet that
standard and I cannot sign it at this time.
SUPPORT
California State University
University of California
OPPOSITION
None received.