BILL ANALYSIS
AB 20
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 20 (Solorio)
As Amended July 15, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(April 20, |SENATE: |35-0 |(Aug 17, 2009) |
| | |2009) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY : Requests the University of California (UC) and
requires the California State University (CSU) and the
Department of General Services (DGS) to establish standard
contract provisions for research contracts between UC, CSU, 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)Requires DGS to negotiate and establish a model contract with
standard provisions with UC and CSU by July 1, 2010.
2)Requires CSU and urges 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;
AB 20
Page 2
i) Travel;
j) Termination; and,
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
or inadequate.
5)Authorizes DGS, 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 this bill's provisions to
include any research, training, or service agreement or grant
between the state and UC or CSU.
8)Requires CSU and UC, if 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)Makes a number of related findings and declarations.
The Senate amendments add CSU to this bill and requires CSU and
UC, if UC participates in the model contracting process, to be
responsible for the facilitation and associated support costs
DGS requires to implement the provisions of this bill, excluding
DGS's legal costs.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the current version, except that it applied only to UC.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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
AB 20
Page 3
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 all parties' 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
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:
0001988