Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Comments: Agree with the other comments and with Mike's assertion that there could be retaliatory effects from other states as a result of this. The current reciprocal preference application is difficult enough when attempting to decipher some states' preferences and determining the contract price from an initial proposal is not necessarily going to be indicative of the final pricing. This proposed bill does not seem to provide an adequate way of providing preferences. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Mike Penwell CS-FAC 01/18/2011 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: I agree with Paul Klope that this bill would increase the cost of procuring goods and services for the City of Eugene. In addition, passage of this bill could spur retaliatory bills in neighboring states that penalize OR companies by an equivalent amount making it harder for OR companies to do business in those states. Since CA and WA are more populous than OR, this would likely hurt OR companies more than help. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Paul Klope PWE 01/19/2011 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: Relates to contracts for goods and services (not public infrastructure or architect, engineer or surveyor contracts). Requires contracting agency to require a proposer for a contract to provide a personnel deployment disclosure to indicate the number of workers that will be employed locally and within the state, and whether the proposer is located locally. Requires the contracting agency to give preference to proposers within the local county (7.5%), or within the same state (5%), or within the U.S. (2.5%). This preference is in addition to the percentage preference added to the bid of an out of state bidder as required by ORS 279.120. This bill has the potential to increase the cost of public contracts for goods and services and to decrease the competition to provide them. Given the budget tightening the City is experiencing, this bill would make it more difficult to meet our budget. I recommend the City oppose this bill. If the bill is amended to clarify that the preferences are not additive, and to remove the county preference, and to modify the state preference such that the total of the preference provided by this bill when added to the preference provided in ORS279A does not exceed 5%, then I would recommend "drop". Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Jenifer Willer PWE 01/19/2011 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: I agree with comments made by Mike and Paul. SB 0004 Relating Clause: Relating to healthy lifestyles for children; creating new provisions; amending ORS 329.498, 336.631 and 338.115 and section 9, chapter 839, Oregon Laws 2007, and section 15, chapter 50, Oregon Laws 2008; and declaring an emergency. 39