BILL ANALYSIS
SB 694
Page 1
REPLACE - 06/28/10 Changes per consultant.
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 694 (Correa)
As Amended May 18, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :36-0
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0 BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 11-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Smyth, Caballero, |Ayes:|Hayashi, Conway, Eng, |
| |Arambula, Bradford, | |Hernandez, Hill, Ma, |
| |Davis, Knight, Logue, | |Nava, Niello, Ruskin, |
| |Solorio, Swanson | |Smyth, Cook |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a request for a review by the California
Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission (Commission)
from an interested party who has presented evidence that the
work is to be performed by a public agency after rejecting all
bids, claiming work can be done less expensively by the public
agency, to be in writing and sent by certified or registered
mail received by the Commission postmarked no later than eight
business days from the date the public agency has rejected all
bids. Specifically, this bill requires:
1)A request for a review by the Commission from an interested
party who has presented evidence that the work is to be
performed by a public agency after rejecting all bids,
claiming work can be done less expensively by the public
agency, to be in writing and sent by certified or registered
mail received by the Commission postmarked no later than eight
business days from the date the public agency has rejected all
bids.
2)A request for a review by the Commission from an interested
party who has presented evidence that the work exceeded the
force account limits or the work has been improperly
classified as maintenance to be in writing and sent by
certified or registered mail received by the Commission
postmarked no later than eight days from the date an
interested party formally complains to the public agency.
SB 694
Page 2
3)The Commission to commence immediately and conclude within 45
days from the receipt of the request for Commission review of
the accounting procedures of a participating public agency
when an interested party presents evidence the work is to be
performed by a public agency after rejecting all bids,
claiming work can be done less expensively by the public
agency.
4)The Commission to commence immediately and conclude within 90
days from the receipt of the request for Commission review of
the accounting procedures of a participating public agency
when an interested party presents evidence the work exceeded
the force account limits or the work has been improperly
classified as maintenance.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes local agencies to opt in to the Uniform Public
Construction Cost Accounting Act (UPCCAA).
2)Requires the Commission to review the accounting procedures of
a participating public agency when an interested party
presents evidence that the work undertaken by the public
agency falls within any of the following categories:
a) The work is to be performed by a public agency after
rejecting all bids, claiming work can be done less
expensively by the public agency;
b) The work exceeded the force account limits; or,
c) The work has been improperly classified as maintenance.
3)Requires a request for a review by the Commission to be in
writing and sent by certified or registered mail received by
the Commission postmarked no later than five business days
from the date the public agency has rejected all bids,
claiming the work can be done less expensively by the public
agency.
4)Requires a request for a review by the Commission to be in
writing and sent by certified or registered mail received by
the Commission postmarked no later than five days from the
SB 694
Page 3
date an interested party formally complains to the public
agency.
5)Requires the Commission to commence the review immediately and
conclude within 30 days from the receipt of the request for
Commission review.
6)Prohibits the public agency being reviewed by the Commission
for work that is to be performed by a public agency after
rejecting all bids, claiming work can be done less expensively
by the public agency, from proceeding on the project until a
final decision is received by the commission.
7)Authorizes the Commission, if it finds a public agency has
violated UPCCAA, to require the public agency to abandon the
project or award the project to the lowest responsible bidder,
or compel the public agency to submit the Commission's finding
to the local governing body.
8)Authorizes the Commission to suspend a public agency's ability
to use the UPCCAA for five years if the public agency has
violated UPCCAA three times within a 10-year period.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : UPCCAA took effect in 1983. UPCCAA, which allows any
city, county, redevelopment agency, special district, school
district, and community college district to voluntarily opt in,
provides for a streamlined awards process so long as the local
agency follows the cost accounting procedures set forth in the
Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual of the
Commission. UPCCAA's thresholds are $30,000 for force account,
$125,000 or less for informal bidding procedures, and $125,000
or more for formal bidding procedures. As of June 10, 2009, 708
local agencies have opted in to UPCCAA. A local agency can
withdraw at any time from UPCCAA.
The 14-member Commission also provides the State Controller with
recommended policies and procedures for public projects. The
Commission membership is comprised of representatives from both
public agencies and private industry. Every five years, the
Commission reviews the informal bid limits for inflation and
other factors to determine when increases should be made. The
last limit increases were in July 1, 2005. However, many local
SB 694
Page 4
agencies operate under the Local Agency Public Construction Act
(LAPCA). LAPCA provides competitive bidding thresholds that
vary depending on the agency or kind of work. In a few
districts competitive bidding is required for all contracts,
regardless of threshold, and for others there is no competitive
bidding required at all.
According to the author, five business days does not provide a
fair and reasonable amount
of time for an objection to be compiled and filed with both the
public entity and the Commission. With many local agencies
meeting on Wednesday evenings, a complainant is unable to obtain
documents from the necessary parties, review the documents, and
get a certified/registered complaint sent. With the short time
span in current law, complaints are filed immediately to meet
the deadline and then must be withdrawn after the complainant
has had proper time to review the information and see that no
commission review is needed. According to the author, this
change would save local agencies and the Commission time and
money.
Furthermore, the author says extending the deadline for
Commission review ensures the Commission has an adequate amount
of time to make a sound decision regarding the complaint.
Support arguments: Supporters, Engineering Contractors'
Association, say extending the deadlines on when requests for
review can be submitted to the Commission and the deadlines for
the Commission to render a decision help the entire process run
more smoothly and efficiently.
Opposition arguments: Opponents might say extending the
deadlines for submitting requests and the timelines for the
Commission to review those requests unnecessarily slows down the
review process.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer R. Klein / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0005012