BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 31
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 22, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                  AB 31 (Price) - As Introduced:  December 1, 2008 

          Policy Committee:                              Jobs Vote:7 - 0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill makes several changes to state procurement procedures  
          for the purpose of increasing small business and disabled  
          veteran-owned business enterprise (DVBE) participation.  
          Specifically, this bill: 

          1)Increases the maximum contract threshold amount for  
            streamlined procurement from $100,000 to $250,000 for small  
            businesses and DVBEs. 

          2)Requires contractors that committed to including small  
            business or DVBE participation as a requirement in their  
            contract to report at the conclusion of their contract on the  
            actual percent of the contract amount that was allocated to  
            those small businesses and DVBEs.

          3)Increases the minimum threshold for projects covered under the  
            State Contract Act from $100,000 to $250,000, which increases  
            the value of the contracts not covered by the advertising,  
            bidding and protest provisions under the act. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Costs for these contracts could increase, as the competitive  
            pressure would be reduced if an awarding department solicited  
            only two small businesses or two DVBEs, rather than allowing  
            all potential vendors, including non-small businesses, to bid  
            on the contracts. However, because this option is faster and  
            administratively simpler, increased costs might be offset by  
            reduced administrative workload associated with advertising  
            and more complex bidding procedures.









                                                                  AB 31
                                                                 Page  2

          2)The Department of General Services indicates that in 2006-07,  
            there were 393 contracts for goods, services, and information  
            technology between $100,000 and $250,000, and 266 contracts  
            for construction between $131,000 and $250,000. The combined  
            value of those contracts was $96.8 million.  Less than five  
            percent of the contracts up to $100,000 that were eligible for  
            the streamlined procurement process were actually awarded  
            using that process.  Therefore, if five percent of the 650  
            contracts up to $250,000 were awarded through the streamlined  
            procurement process and those contract amounts increased by  
            five percent due to a lack of competition, it would cost the  
            state approximately $250,000 per year.  It is likely, however,  
            that amount would be largely offset by the administrative  
            savings associated with the streamlined process. 
           

          COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . This bill, sponsored by the Department of General  
            Services, is designed to increase the number of small  
            businesses and DVBEs that participate in the state's contract  
            procurement process.  With the approval of $40 billion in  
            general obligation infrastructure development bonds in 2006,  
            the state is poised to begin a large number of infrastructure  
            improvement projects over the next 10 years.  The author is  
            concerned that this will place a burden on the state's  
            contracting industry to provide enough qualified contractors.   
            By making it easier for small businesses and DVBEs to compete  
            for these contracts, the sponsor, the Department of General  
            Services, hopes to increase the pool of available contractors.  



           2)The Infrastructure Bond Acts of 2006   authorized the issuance  
            of general obligation bonds for five distinct infrastructure  
            programs including the Proposition 1B transportation bond  
            ($19.9 billion), the Proposition 1C housing bond ($2.9  
            billion), the Proposition 1D education bond ($10.4 billion),  
            the Proposition 1E flood control bond ($4.1 billion), and the  
            Proposition 84 natural resources bond ($5.4 billion).  
            Collectively, these five bonds are known as the Infrastructure  
            Bond Acts of 2006. The Infrastructure Bond Acts create over 60  
            funding programs for the purpose of constructing physical  
            infrastructure improvements for roads, parks, schools, water  
            resources, sewage treatment, and more. 








                                                                  AB 31
                                                                  Page  3



           3)Related Legislation  . This bill is substantially similar to  
            last year's AB 2773 (Price).  That bill was held on the  
            suspense file of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 



           Analysis Prepared by  :    Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081