BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 20|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 20
Author: Solorio (D), et al
Amended: 7/14/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/10/09
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Maldonado,
Padilla, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 06/23/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/20/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Public Post Secondary Education: contract
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : 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 or
inadequate for the use of a model contract.
CONTINUED
AB 20
Page
2
ANALYSIS : Existing law does not require nor prescribe
any standardized format, provisions or language to be
included in contracts between UC and the state.
This bill:
1. Requires DGS to negotiate and establish a model contract
with standard provisions with the UC and the CSU by July
1, 2010.
2. Requires the CSU and urges the UC to negotiate and
establish a model contract with the DGS applicable to
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
K. 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 or inadequate.
5. Authorizes the DGS, the UC, and CSU, in consultation
with affected state agencies and department, to
determine those contracts for which use of the model
contract will be inappropriate or inadequate.
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
AB 20
Page
3
to include any research, training, or service agreement
or grant between the state and the UC or the CSU.
8. Requires the CSU and the UC, if the UC participates in
the model contracting process, to be responsible for the
facilitation and associated support costs of DGS
required to implement the provisions of this chapter,
excluding DGS's legal costs.
9. Make a number of related findings and declarations.
Prior Legislation
This bill is substantively similar to AB 3033 (Laird) of
2008 which was vetoed by the Governor. The veto message
read:
"This 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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/13/09)
California State University
University of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
the current system of negotiating and executing contracts
between the universities and the state is slow and lengthy
and, therefore, expensive. In 2004-05, the UC entered into
1,100 contracts with 72 different state agencies. In
2006-07, the UC entered into 1,266 contracts with 102
different state agencies. In 2007-08, the 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 1,100 active individual stat agency contracts
representing total funding of $175 million. Each of these
contracts, apparently, were individually developed and
AB 20
Page
4
drafted by separate groups of attorneys and other
personnel. According to the 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.
Currently, state agencies do not use standardized language
in their agreements with CSU and the UC. All state
programs have their own extensive documentation
requirements, which are time-consuming and costly for the
UC to prepare and for agencies to review. Unlike the
pre-determined and mutually agreeable terms that expedite
the federal contract process, both the UC and the state
agencies spend weeks and months individually negotiating
the terms of each agreement. The enactment of this bill
will streamline the contracting process between CSU and the
UC and the state agencies while reducing the costs and time
associated with negotiating standard governmental
agreements. This bill will also expedite CSU's and the
UC's ability to conduct research for the State. This bill
seeks to address the lack of standardized contract
provisions in agreements entered between the CSU and the UC
and the State. The process will be similar to the
agreements entered by UC and the federal government as
dictated by the Federal Demonstration Project. State
contracting costs the UC three times as much as the federal
process for one tenth of the dollar amount of a contract.
These high costs result form non-uniformity of contract
terms, non-uniform and complex financial
accounting/invoicing requirements, and the lack of
harmonization with relatively uniform federal contracting
terms.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Caballero, Carter, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis,
De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng,
Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight,
AB 20
Page
5
Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A.
Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Chesbro,
Gaines, Hall
DLW:do 7/15/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****