Item 3: Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

improvement contracts, these standards are already used and included in the contracts, so this amendment would not have a noticeable effect on them. However, this requirement will add a lot of administration time to other City contracts for little if any benefit. I recommend we oppose this amendment. 1b. Record-keeping and audits of quality compliance. Contractors must keep records proving compliance with quality standards. These records are subject to audit for 6 years after the contract is closed. The public agency must designate a person to perform audits, and the audits shall comply with standards set by the State. Response. This requirement would add administrative cost to the City to perform audits for little if any benefit. 2. Prohibits hiring contractors to manage projects. The bill also prohibits public agencies from hiring a contractor to administer, manage or oversee public contracts, even if the agency does not have the technical expertise to do so. Response. This requirement is problematic for the public agencies, especially small cities and counties. For example, it is common practice with smaller cities and counties without qualified engineering staff to hire consultants to handle all phases of public improvement projects, including the contract administration during construction. To prohibit public agencies from hiring qualified consultants to provide these services places public agencies in a very difficult position. This is an amendment we should oppose. 3. Prohibition on contractors hiring public employees. The bill also places a one year prohibition, unless they are retired, on public employees seeking employment or taking employment with a contract who has done work for the agency if the employee worked on the contract or in a field closely related to the subject of the contract, or if the employee would be performing work for the contractor related to the contract. Conversely, the bill requires the agency to force the contractor to hire an employee who lost a job as a result of the services the contractor will provide. Response. I see no significant issues with this amendment. 4. Cost comparison required. The bill also requires a public agency to perform a written cost analysis, per the guidelines in the bill, that shows that a contractor can provide goods or services cheaper than the agencies own employees or prove that it's not feasible, per the guidelines in the bill, for the agency's employees to provide the goods or services, for procurements that exceed $25,000. Conversely, if the agency has previously hire a contractor to provide these goods or services, the agency must perform a cost analysis to show the the agency could provide them cheaper if the agency wants to provide the goods or services with it's own employees. Response. Adds significant administrative time to local agencies regardless whether they want to contract out whether they don't want to contract out--it's not good either way. Imposing these requirements are unlikely to change how public agencies make decisions about what to contract for and what not to contract for, but it will certainly add time and expense to that decision process. We should oppose this amendment because of cost and because it reduces home-rule authority. 5. Criteria to determine if bidder is responsible. The bill also modifies the criteria, and adds criteria, that must be used to determine whether a bidder is responsible or not. Modifications shift the burden to the bidder to provide information to the agency that demonstrates bidder is responsible. The additional criteria the contractor must demonstrate include showing that the contractor provides adequate wages and benefites to it's employees and their families, that the contractor is not in a legal dispute with another public agency in another state, that the contractor complies with all labor law and environmental law, and that the contractor has a record of success completing public and/or private contracts without complaints. Response. No significant impact to the City. 6. Limit on prequalification period. The bill also requires bidders be prequalified every 3 years, if the agency requires prequalification. Response. No significant impact to the City, however, this should be a decision that the City has the right to make, and shouldn't be governed by law. Overall, I believe we should oppose this bill due to the negative impacts I identified above. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Lauren Sommers ATTNY 3/9/2009 Pri 3 Yes YesVIII. B Oppose Comments: Agree with comments from Mike Penwell and Paul Klope, with two additional observations. The provisions of the bill preventing an employee of a contracting 9