BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1901
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 1901 (Jones) - As Introduced: February 22, 2012
SUBJECT : Counties: construction projects: design-build.
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date by two years for county-based
design-build construction project authorization and deletes the
existing cost threshold. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends provisions for certain design-build procedures to be
used in bidding on county construction projects until July 1,
2016.
2)Deletes the cost threshold on this authorization, which
applies to projects in excess of $2,500,000.
3)Deletes elements related to the impact of design-build dollar
limits on county projects in an annual report to the
Legislative Analyst's Office required from each county.
4)Declares that no reimbursement to local agencies would be
required because this bill creates a new crime or infraction,
eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for,
or definition of, a crime or infraction.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires local officials, under the Local Agency Public
Construction Act, to invite bids for construction projects and
then award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder under
the traditional design-bid-build project delivery system.
2)Until July 1, 2014, authorizes counties to use alternative
procedures, known as design-build, for bidding on construction
projects in the county in excess of $2,500,000, in accordance
with specified procedures.
3)Defines "design-build" as a procurement process in which both
the design and construction of a project are procured from a
single entity.
4)Requires local officials to select the design-build entity by
AB 1901
Page 2
using either a competitive bidding process in which the award
goes to the lowest responsible bidder or a best value
competition in which local officials set the criteria.
5)Authorizes counties to use the design-build method for
projects costing more than $2.5 million.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal and is a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS :
1)This bill is intended to "expand the use of design-build
contracting for county projects costing less than $2.5
million" by extending the sunset date of the existing
design-build authorization by two years and deleting the $2.5
million cost threshold for projects to make design-build
available for any size of project. This bill is sponsored by
the County of San Diego.
2)The Local Agency Public Construction Act (the "Act") requires
local agencies to comply with certain procedures in soliciting
and evaluating bids and awarding contracts for the
construction of public works. The traditional approach to
public contracting is referred to as the "design-bid-build"
method, which requires local officials to invite bids for
construction projects, based on a completed set of engineering
plans, then to award the construction bid to the lowest
responsible bidder. An alternative approach is the
"design-build" method, where both the design and construction
are procured from the same entity.
Under the design-build method, a single contract covers the
design and construction of a project with a single company or
consortium that acts as both the project designer and builder.
The design-build entity arranges all architectural,
engineering, and construction services, and is responsible for
delivering the project at a guaranteed price and schedule
based upon performance criteria set by the public agency. The
design-build method is touted as being faster than the
design-bid-build method, but may also require a higher level
of management sophistication since design and construction may
AB 1901
Page 3
occur simultaneously.
The sponsor cites two potential projects in San Diego County
that could be built using the design-build authority created
by this bill: a $1.8 million dollar, 3,500 square foot
sheriff's substation in Pine Valley; and a $650,000 dollar
renovation of the sheriff's crime lab, which provides forensic
science services to over 30 law enforcement and criminal
justice agencies in the area.
3)The history of design-build legislation reflects several years
of discussion, compromise and conflict between local
governments, labor advocates and contractors. Generally,
local officials want the flexibility and potential cost
savings offered by design-build contracts, labor unions want
to ensure that counties and the contractors they hire protect
workers' interests and respect their right to organize, and
contractors want to be sure they have fair access to county
contracts.
Advocates for the design-build method of contracting for
public works contend that having a single request for proposal
for selecting the project's designer and builder leads to
project schedule savings. The more traditional
design-bid-build project approach requires the separate
selection of the design consultant or contractor, completion
of design, and then advertising for bids and selection of the
construction contractor. By merging design and construction
activities, and avoiding the delays and change orders that
result from the traditional design-bid-build method of
contracting, proponents argue that officials can deliver
public works with greater speed and at reduced cost.
Conversely, opponents like the Professional Engineers in
California Government (PECG) argue that "design-build has been
a failure. Design-build contracting eliminates competitive
building, allows the private contractor or consortium to
inspect and sign off on their own work, and in every instance
in California has greatly increased project delivery costs. To
date, for example, four design-build highway projects in
California have wasted a combined $2.2 billion in
transportation funds without expediting delivery."
PECG also condemns the use of private inspectors of
construction and seismic standards, because this "crucial
AB 1901
Page 4
function should not be performed by a private inspector whose
primary obligation is to the success and profitability of his
company or business partners - not public safety and project
quality." Furthermore, PECG contends that the cost limits and
sunset clause in the current statute were the result of a
compromise, so it would be inappropriate or at least premature
to adjust the threshold and sunset date.
4)In order to help the Legislature evaluate the effectiveness of
the design-build process, Section 20133 of the Public Contract
Code required counties that completed design-build projects by
November 1, 2009, to submit a report to the Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO). In response to this requirement, LAO
received reports on 15 design-build projects from nine
counties.
In January 2010, the LAO issued a report updating the
Legislature on the use of design-build by counties in
California. While its findings were varied, the LAO report
summary found that "although it was difficult to draw
conclusions from the reports received about the effectiveness
of design-build compared to other project delivery methods, we
do not think that the reports provide any evidence that would
discourage the Legislature from granting design-build
authority to local agencies on an ongoing basis."
Moreover, the LAO specifically recommended eliminating the
cost limitation threshold: "�w]e recommend there be no maximum
or minimum project cost threshold imposed on design-build
authority. Design-build could provide additional flexibility
for smaller projects in some cases."
5)The state has debated and enacted numerous bills over the past
decade expanding authority for local governments to use
design-build processes. For example, SB 416 (Ashburn), Chapter
585, Statutes 2007, extended design-build authority to the
construction of buildings and directly related improvements to
all 58 counties in the state through 2010. AB 642 (Wolk),
Chapter 314, Statutes 2008, extended design-build authority to
the construction of buildings and directly related
improvements to all cities in the state. SB 879 (Cox),
Chapter 629, Statutes of 2010, extended the sunset date for
the county authorization to 2014, among other things.
As a result of these and related changes, design-build
AB 1901
Page 5
contracting for building and related construction is currently
authorized for all cities and counties in the state, and more
targeted authorizations exist for other agencies of state and
local government.
6)Support arguments : According to the Regional Council of Rural
Counties, "�t]he design-build procedure has provided counties
the needed flexibility to utilize the method of construction,
whether it is design-build or design-bid-build, that is most
appropriate for the specific project. Additionally, the
removal of the $2.5 million threshold on this narrowly defined
scope of projects will allow counties to continue to utilize
this process as costs continue to rise on these types of
projects."
Opposition arguments : According to the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, the design-build mode
of contracting "diminishes the quality of work performed on
construction projects. Design-build procedures are bad for
the state of California as they encourage corrupt contracting
practices and allow the use of highly subjective selection
criteria that would let public agencies select their preferred
contractors. Additionally, design-build projects can be
excessively cost inefficient, thus adversely affecting tax
payers."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
County of San Diego �SPONSOR]
American Council of Engineering Companies
Associated General Contractors (AGC)
California State Association of Counties
County of San Bernardino
Design-Build Institute of America, Western Pacific Region
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Opposition
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)
California State Pipe Trades Council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG)
AB 1901
Page 6
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958