Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/05/2013 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 63-CONTRACTS FOR PREPARATION OF BALLOTS
9:07:20 AM
CHAIR DYSON stated that SB 63 was before the committee.
LAURA PIERRE, staff, Senator Anna Fairclough, presented SB 63 on
behalf of the sponsor. She related that SB 63 requires the
Division of Elections to go out to bid for the preparation of
ballots for state elections. The Division of Elections offers a
sole-sourced contract to whomever they wish. The company that is
currently printing the ballots has had the contract for about 12
years. The price is just under $600,000 a year.
She reported that the SB 63 would require the division to go out
to bid for the preparation of ballots. It does not put the
process under the procurement code, but under the director of
the division, which would provide for more flexibility when
writing the bid and determining the best company. The division
would have to issue the contract to the lowest bidder, with
discretion as to the bidder's qualifications.
9:09:03 AM
SENATOR GIESSEL questioned the statement that the bid process
lies outside the procurement process. She referred to Section 2
(b) where the consideration of the Alaska bidder preference of 5
percent and the Alaska product preference of 7 percent are
mentioned.
MS. PIERRE clarified that the bidders could still qualify for
those two preferences. She explained that the bidding process
would not be handled by the State Procurement Office in General
Services, which usually handles multi-agency procurements.
Senate Bill 63 would require the Division of Elections to handle
the competitive proposal process.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked why the percentages are specified in (b).
She questioned what would happen if those preferences change.
MS. PIERRE replied that the percentages in (b) are what are
currently found in statute. The legislature can choose to change
them in the future and Section 2 would be amended to comply.
SENATOR GIESSEL suggested it would be better to say just "Alaska
bidder preference" and "Alaska product preference" rather than
include actual percentages.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the amounts of both preferences are
established in code somewhere else.
MS. PIERRE said yes. She said the same language is found in
procurement statutes. The maximum percentage deduction that an
Alaska bidder/product preference could receive is 12 percent.
CHAIR DYSON said the awarding of the contract for preparation of
election ballots does not fall under the procurement code, but
some preferences found in the code would still apply.
MS. PIERRE said yes; only the two preferences would apply.
CHAIR DYSON thought it meant an Alaska bidder qualifies for the
deduction under state contracts.
9:12:00 AM
MS. PIERRE explained the sections of the bill. Section 1 changes
current language when preparing for bids and makes technical
changes. The drafting attorney chose to update some of the words
used. On line 11, "assure" was changed to "ensure," and on line
14, "may" was changed to "shall."
CHAIR DYSON asked the difference between "assure" and "ensure."
MS. PIERRE thought ensure was more of a guarantee.
MS. PIERRE continued to explain Section 1. She said that page 2
of the bill is current statute. Page 3 has drafting changes.
Lines 4 and 5 on page 3, "and provisions shall be made for
marking each question 'yes' or 'no'" are moved from lines 15 and
16.
She explained that new Section 2 is on page 4 and outlines for
the division the process for going out to bid and includes the
Alaska bidder and Alaska product preferences.
9:15:05 AM
CHAIR DYSON asked if there were preferences for women-owned or
Native-owned bidders.
MS. PIERRE did not think any other preferences applied to
Section 2.
CHAIR DYSON agreed.
MS. PIERRE related that Section 3 is found on page 5 and deals
with applicability; the bill would apply to the printing of
ballots for elections conducted on or after January 1, 2014.
CHAIR DYSON expressed Senator Fairclough's wish to give the
department time to prepare for the changes.
9:16:17 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how a "responsible" bidder is determined,
as stated in Section 2 (b).
MS. PIERRE said the RFP provides the director of the division
some flexibility in determining and evaluating "responsible."
SENATOR COGHILL guessed that the RFP determines the
responsibility.
MS. PIERRE said yes.
CHAIR DYSON said his experience with bidding on state work is
that the state wants to see a positive track record from the
bidder and criteria is clearly stated in the RFP.
MS. PIERRE explained a previous concern of the sponsor with
issues of changing a printing company. She emphasized that the
sponsor understands that the division tests ballots prior to
elections to ensure that everything runs smoothly.
9:18:54 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, answered questions related to SB 63. She
addressed impacts the bill would have on the division. She
provided the history of ballot printing. Prior to 2002 the
division changed from the ballot vendor in California to an
instate printer who had the appropriate equipment and had been
through the training in order to produce ballots. She said that
has been a successful relationship ever since.
She shared her opinion that, though the division likes the idea
of competition, the low bidder is not practical or feasible when
printing ballots. She stressed the importance of having a
correctly printed ballot.
9:22:13 AM
MS. FENUMIAI emphasized that the division needs a measure of
certainty when it comes to ballots. She spoke of the political
environment, public scrutiny, and challenges from political
parties. She said the rapport and trust of the vendor has to be
considered. A vendor has to be able to take ownership in their
product and stick with the division when things go bad, which
the current vendor does. She did not think the low bid award
would give the division the best value. She said the bill does
allow for Alaska bidder product preferences, but the other
preferences that are contained in AS 36.30, such as minority
business owners, disabled bidders, or Alaska veteran
preferences, are not considered in this bill.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that she would like to see a competitive
process that includes additional evaluating criteria, such as
prior experience and ability to meet a contract on time. She
thought that SB 63 would not allow for that; instead, the
division must go with the lowest bid. She said she would hate to
take such a risk when choosing a printer.
She maintained if the division is required to "outbid" ballots,
the best way would be to do a competitive field proposal. The
advantages of an RFP would include things like being able to
evaluate factors other than cost. She concluded that an RFP
could possibly work if the process was started early enough,
although it would not be ideal under the division's timeline.
9:25:22 AM
SENATOR COGHILL said he shared the same concern. He asked if the
"responsible" language would give the division the ability to
write criteria into the RFP.
MS. FENUMIAI did not think the bill allowed for the full
competitive field bid process. She did not know what
restrictions were involved.
CHAIR DYSON said he appreciates Ms. Fenumiai's dedication to
getting a satisfactory product in a very timely fashion. He
requested information about the division's time restraints.
MS. FENUMIAI recalled the 2012 primary election when the
division had 22 days between the date the ballot were certified
for printing and the date the ballots were required to be in the
various offices. There were only 7 days between the date the
ballots were certified and the date the test ballots were needed
in the offices in order to perform testing. It was a very tight
timeline. In 2004 there was a court challenge which required
general election ballots to be reprinted due to ballot measure
initiative language. She added that it was a very time-
compressed printing process and not simple.
9:28:24 AM
CHAIR DYSON requested information about printing local
elections.
MS. FENUMIAI said they do not handle local election ballots.
CHAIR DYSON asked if Ms. Fenumiai had any suggestions for
providing more flexibility with criteria. He assumed reliable
performance was primary and cost was secondary.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed that experience and reliability are the most
important factors in the confidence of the division and in
voters knowing that their ballots will work. She said that she
is not a procurement expert, but she wished to see those two
factors included in the evaluation criteria of a RFP.
CHAIR DYSON asked if her office could consider suggestions for
changes to the bill, if given more time.
MS. FENUMIAI said she would be glad to do so. She offered to
work with Senator Fairclough's office.
9:31:16 AM
CHAIR DYSON voiced concern that the division could be locked
into a vendor situation that takes advantage of their contract.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that the current vendor has kept prices
steady. She understood that his prices are lower than prices of
ballot printing companies in the Lower 48. She thought Ms.
Pierre had a spreadsheet that lists the amount the division has
spent on ballots over the years.
CHAIR DYSON concluded that reliability and dependability should
be included as high criteria at the division's request after
discussing it further.
MS. FENUMIAI said she would be very interested in working with
the sponsor, her staff, and the procurement officer in order to
get a successful product to put out to competitive bid that
would meet the desire of the legislature and the sponsor.
CHAIR DYSON agreed with Senator Coghill that the bill does allow
the division to make the evaluation with respect to requirements
and criteria set out in it, and to look for a vendor that is
responsible and responsive. He said he would hold the bill over
in order to allow the division to work on criteria which will
result in getting accurate ballots out on time.
9:34:48 AM
KEVIN FRALEY, Owner, Print Works and Super Software, related
that he is the vendor that has produced ballots for the state of
Alaska since 2002. He testified in opposition to SB 63 because
it would take away the division's ability to insure a secure and
trouble-free viable election. He said the most troubling part of
the bill is on page 4, "the director shall award a contract for
preparation of election ballots to the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder." He voiced opposition to the bill because of
the risky nature of giving the most critical part of Alaska's
election process to the lowest bidder. The bill will tie the
hands of the division because it will take away their ability to
choose the best and surest option.
MR. FRALEY maintained that SB 63 does not take into account the
care needed to produce ballots. He shared details about ballot
preparation and delivery. He noted in 2004 the ballots had to be
reprinted, and his company delivered the ballots in 4 days. He
stressed that the division must have confidence in the ballot
printer and the election must proceed without incident every
time.
He requested that the committee allow the director to retain her
ability to ensure a quality election. The division was given an
exemption from the bid process because of the sensitivity and
importance of statewide and national elections.
He spoke of the reference to the testing of ballots before
elections. He said a set of test ballots are made, but not every
ballot can be tested to see that the database works and the
printing works. If the process is mishandled it would be very
easy for wrong ballots to be produced. It is critical that the
division maintain control of how and who produces ballots.
9:40:48 AM
SENATOR COGHILL thanked Mr. Fraley for a job well done. He
wondered how a new entrant would ever qualify for this job.
MR. FRALEY imagined the division would use the same process they
used to choose Print Works. He described the battery of tests to
ensure they could deliver and could understand the ballot
process. He said they also did multiple site inspections and
used Print Works on small elections at first. He compared
printing ballots to printing currency.
SENATOR COGHILL agreed that it is like printing currency. He
suggested reliability should be included in the bidding process.
CHAIR DYSON thanked Mr. Fraley for his testimony.
9:43:27 AM
PATRICK FOSTER, Sales Representative, A.T. Publishing &
Printing, Inc., testified in support of SB 63 because he thought
it was unfair to continue to sole source the printing of
Alaska's election ballots. He thought it reasonable to think
that other printing companies could benefit by the contract. He
maintained that the job is not that difficult. There are many
companies that are fully capable of handling the work, and the
work is not beyond the scope of printing companies.
He related that A.T. Publishing printed the ballots for
Anchorage from 2004 to 2006 and it intends to bid on them again
in 2014. He noted that Anchorage saved money and received a
quality ballot.
He suggested that the state create a performance renewal process
that would take place every four years. He said the division is
currently prevented from having to seek competitive bids for
ballot printing. He encouraged a level playing field and spoke
of advantages of not relying on one company to print ballots. He
urged passage of SB 63.
9:48:33 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how Mr. Foster envisioned a performance
expectation included in an RFP. He wondered if it was reasonable
for a company to prove it could meet a performance schedule.
MR. FOSTER said there are a number of ways that performance can
be written into an RFP. He spoke of other companies such as
Chugach Electric that have ballot printing, use the lowest
bidder process, and require detailed criteria. He said there are
many companies in the printing community that could handle the
ballot printing process.
SENATOR COGHILL said the big question is whether "responsible"
could be included in an RFP and not be out of line.
MR. FOSTER thought it would be reasonable.
9:51:44 AM
CHAIR DYSON asked how long the original contract was.
MS. PIERRE thought the current contract was for 12 years.
CHAIR DYSON asked how long Print Work's first contract was. He
asked Mr. Foster how long a contract should be.
MR. FRALEY suggested that four years would be sufficient.
Currently, there is a year-by-year contract; there is no
standing contract. Every year the division has asked for pricing
information.
CHAIR DYSON stated he would hold SB 63 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 63 Fiscal Note SB063-OOG-DOE-2-28-13.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Version A.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Support Letter ADVANCE PRINTING.PDF |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Support Letter SERVICE BUSI PRINT.PDF |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Support Letter TECHNI PRINT.PDF |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63- Witness List.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 Support Letter AT PUBLISHING.PDF |
SSTA 3/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |