BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 633
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 633 (Olsen)
As Amended May 22, 2012
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |60-0 |(April 14, |SENATE: |28-4 |(June 4, 2012) |
| | |2011) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: B.,P. & C.P.
SUMMARY : Removes the California State University (CSU) from the
definition of "state agency" for the purposes of state fleet
purchasing requirements and oversight by the Department of General
Services (DGS).
The Senate amendments :
1)Require CSU, to the greatest extent feasible, to purchase vehicles
using statewide commodity contracts.
2)Require CSU, beginning July 1, 2012, and by June 30th of each year
thereafter until June 30, 2017, to report to the Legislature on
its motor vehicle procurement, including the following:
a) An inventory, by campus, of motor vehicles that includes the
type of vehicle, consistent with the fleet asset management
system reports; and,
b) The number of motor vehicles purchased during the prior
fiscal year (FY), disaggregated by campus and type of vehicle
if the passenger vehicle or truck was purchased through
statewide commodity contracts, and the purchase price.
3)Takes effect immediately as an urgency measure.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "state agency" to include every state office, officer,
department, division, bureau, board, and commission.
2)Defines "state agency" to include each campus of the CSU, as of
July 1, 2012, and subjects CSU to DGS acquisition and replacement
of motor vehicles.
AB 633
Page 2
3)Requires CSU, by June 30, 2008, and by June 30th of each year
thereafter until July 1, 2012, to report to the Legislature on its
motor vehicle procurement, including the following:
a) An inventory of motor vehicles by campus and type,
consistent with the fleet report to DGS;
b) The number of vehicles purchased during the prior FY, by
campus and type;
c) The average time taken to complete procurement of each motor
vehicle purchased during the prior FY;
d) Any changes in policies or procedures made during the prior
FY relative to motor vehicle procurement and contracts, and the
identification of any vehicles procured pursuant to the new
policy or procedure; and,
e) The estimated cost savings associated with management by CSU
of motor vehicle procurement, including average time to
complete procurements, reduced administrative costs, reduced
charges paid to DGS, and competitive or reduced market prices
obtained for vehicles.
4)Provides that no surplus mobile equipment may be acquired from any
source by any state agency for program support until DGS has
investigated and established its need.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill removed the CSU from the
definition of "state agency" for the purposes of state fleet
purchasing requirements and oversight by the DGS.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : DGS serves as the state's motor vehicle fleet manager.
While some state departments have delegated vehicle purchasing
authority, others must request vehicle purchases through DGS. This
bill eliminates the requirement that CSU obtain approval from DGS
prior to purchasing vehicles and excludes CSU from the executive
orders relating to state fleet reduction by redefining "state
agency" to exclude CSU for vehicle purchases.
The sponsors of this bill, the CSU Board of Trustees, contend that
AB 633
Page 3
CSU previously was authorized to independently purchase goods and
services in AB 1191 (Aguiar), Chapter 1097, Statutes of 1997, and
did so more efficiently than purchasing through DGS. CSU's
procurement of its own vehicles ended in 2005, with the passage of
SB 1757 (Denham), Chapter 926, Statutes of 2004, which established
requirements for the acquisition of motor vehicles under the
supervision of DGS. SB 1757 authorized DGS to collect a fee from
CSU to offset the cost of services provided. CSU contends DGS
charged CSU $80 per vehicle per year for service costs. AB 262
(Coto), Chapter 679, Statutes of 2007, afforded CSU the opportunity
to purchase their own vehicles under their own policies, subject to
DGS oversight and annual reporting requirements to both the
Legislature and DGS, until July 1, 2012. CSU maintains that this
sunset date was negotiated to allow enough time for CSU to collect
data and prove that their vehicle procurement was more cost
effective than vehicle procurement through DGS. If this bill
passes, the statutory provision requiring DGS approval and oversight
of CSU for fleet purchases approved in AB 262 will not take effect.
CSU claims that it has been fiscally responsible in managing its
fleet and was never intended to be captured under DGS vehicle
procurement in SB 1757. CSU purchased 86 vehicles for FY 2007-08,
81 vehicles for FY 2008-09, and 43 vehicles for FY 2009-10. The
decline in purchase of vehicles has been attributed to recent budget
reductions, with a steady purchase of vehicles for campus police.
CSU states that while recent budget reductions have decreased its
number of vehicle purchases, CSU could still acquire vehicles at a
cost savings of approximately $500 per vehicle and 50 days earlier
than if CSU were to utilize DGS to procure its vehicles.
This bill, as amended in the Senate, is consistent with Assembly
actions.
Analysis Prepared by : Joanna Gin / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 319-3301
FN: 0003748