BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SB 975|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                 UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 975
          Author:   Lieu (D)
          Amended:  6/25/14
          Vote:     21


           SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE  :  7-2, 4/8/14
          AYES:  Correa, Cannella, De Le�n, Galgiani, Lieu, Padilla,  
            Torres
          NOES:  Berryhill, Vidak
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Hernandez, Vacancy

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  5-2, 5/23/14
          AYES:  De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
          NOES:  Walters, Gaines

           SENATE FLOOR  :  23-10, 5/28/14
          AYES:  Beall, Block, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n,  
            DeSaulnier, Evans, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson,  
            Lara, Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley,  
            Steinberg, Torres, Wolk
          NOES:  Anderson, Berryhill, Gaines, Huff, Knight, Morrell,  
            Nielsen, Vidak, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Calderon, Fuller, Hancock, Liu, Roth, Wright,  
            Yee

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  56-22, 08/27/14 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Personal services contracts:  legal compliance

           SOURCE  :     AFSCME

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 975
                                                                     Page  
          2


           DIGEST  :    This bill requires every bidder on a state personal  
          services contract to complete, under penalty of perjury, a  
          standardized questionnaire as to whether the bidder has ever  
          violated state tax law or laws and regulations related to health  
          and safety, labor and employment, or licensing of the  
          contractor's employees, worksite, bid and contract, and if so,  
          to explain the circumstances; and prohibits awarding a contract  
          to a bidder who does not complete the questionnaire.

           Assembly Amendments  delete the provision placing responsibility  
          on the Department of General Services (DGS) and state agencies  
          to require personal services contract bidders to complete  
          specified forms, and instead place the responsibility on bidders  
          to complete the forms.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1.Requires a competitive bidding process for all contracts  
            entered into by any state agency for services to be rendered  
            to the state, whether or not the services involve the  
            furnishing or use of equipment, materials, or supplies, or are  
            performed by an independent contractor.

          2.The State Contract Act requires a state agency or department  
            to require a prospective bidder on a public works project to  
            answer questions inquiring whether, and if so, to explain the  
            circumstances under which the prospective bidder has ever been  
            disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on,  
            or completing a federal, state, or local government project  
            because of a violation of law or a safety regulation.  The  
            questionnaire must be completed under penalty of perjury.

          3.Authorizes a state agency or department to reject the bid of a  
            bidder who has been disqualified, removed, or otherwise  
            prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or  
            local public works project because of a violation of law or a  
            safety regulation.

          4.Establishes standards for the use of personal services  
            contracts by state agencies.  Provides that personal services  
            contracting is permissible to achieve cost savings when  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 975
                                                                     Page  
          3

            certain conditions are met.

          This bill:

          1.Requires every bidder on a state personal services contract to  
            complete, under penalty of perjury, a standardized  
            questionnaire as to whether the bidder has ever violated state  
            tax law or laws and regulations related to health and safety,  
            labor and employment, or licensing of the contractor's  
            employees, worksite, bid and contract, and if so, to explain  
            the circumstances.

          2.Prohibits awarding a contract to a bidder who does not  
            complete the questionnaire.

           Comments  

          The author's office states that this bill will bring  
          transparency to the state contract bidding process by requiring  
          prospective contractors to disclose if they have ever violated  
          state laws or safety regulations.  The author's office states  
          that, if taxpayers are going to trust a for-profit company to  
          provide vital services, the company should show it can be  
          trusted.  It is important to know the track records of all  
          companies with which the state or a local agency is contracting,  
          to ensure that only law abiding companies receive taxpayer  
          dollars for public contracts.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs for  
          DGS to develop the standard questionnaire will be minor and  
          absorbable.  To the extent prospective contractors elect not to  
          compete for a state contract rather than take the effort to  
          complete a questionnaire, for which they could be subject to  
          perjury charges, there will be less competition on state  
          contracts, which tends to increase contract prices.  This will  
          not likely occur often, but given the large volume of state  
          contracting, additional contract costs may be significant.  In  
          addition, depending on the information provided by prospective  
          contractors as required, there may be an increase in bid  
          protests, which will increase contract administration costs for  
          DGS and state contracting agencies.

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 975
                                                                     Page  
          4


           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/27/14)

          AFSCME (source)
          California Labor Federation
          In the Public Interest
          Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
          Working Partnerships, USA

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/27/14)

          Department of Finance

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The bill's sponsor, AFSCME, states that  
          the concept behind this bill is simple:  a for-profit company  
          that receives taxpayer dollars to ensure that state agencies can  
          effectively execute the law should not be a tax dodger or a  
          lawbreaker.  The agencies seeking the services have a right to  
          know the contractors' track records, and to receive a promise  
          that they will comply with the same rules expected of everyone  
          else.

          Supporters also note that the underlying assumption driving  
          state contracts for services is that the private sector can  
          provide the service more effectively and efficiently at a better  
          price.  However, low bids may be the result of contractors  
          cutting corners by not paying overtime, payroll taxes or  
          maintaining safe worksites.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The Department of Finance (DOF)  
          opposes this bill because state agencies already review tax  
          registries prior to the award of a contract and, depending on  
          the scope of the contract, may require licensure and insurance,  
          which state agencies could request proof of prior to the  
          contract award.  DOF states that DGS has cited various policy  
          concerns related to this bill's impact on competitive bidding  
          processes and the legal ramifications of violating its  
          provisions.  DOF writes, "This bill would create a barrier for  
          businesses to win state personal services contracts based on an  
          adjudicated record of noncompliance, regardless of whether  
          remediation has been made.  In addition, the prohibition would  
          penalize the bidder twice by forbidding the bidder from winning  
          a state personal services contract after a judge has rendered a  
          decision in a court of law or an administrative hearing.   

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     SB 975
                                                                     Page  
          5

          Furthermore, 'adjudicated' is not defined.  It can be presumed  
          to mean a decision rendered in an administrative hearing or a  
          court of law.  However, according to DGS, there are unanswered  
          questions over its application as it applies to this bill."  DOF  
          states that it would be challenging and time-consuming for a  
          state agency to investigate a bidder's adjudicated record of  
          repeated noncompliance.  DOF additionally states that this bill  
          is silent on penalties. 


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  56-22, 8/27/14
          AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla,  
            Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,  
            Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong,  
            Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,  
            Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine,  
            Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea,  
            John A. P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,  
            Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,  
            Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
          NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle, Donnelly, Fox, Beth  
            Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein,  
            Mansoor, Melendez, Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner,  
            Waldron, Wilk
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Harkey, Vacancy


          MW:e  8/27/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****













                                                                CONTINUED