Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/08/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| HB225 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to the State Procurement Code;
relating to the procurement of supplies, services,
professional services, construction services, state
fisheries products, state agricultural products, state
timber, and state lumber; relating to procurement
preferences; relating to procurement by the office of
the ombudsman, the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority, the Alaska Energy Authority, and
other state agencies and public corporations; and
providing for an effective date."
3:48:19 PM
Representative Fairclough introduced HB 225 as a technical
and comprehensive way to streamline the procurement
processes in the state of Alaska. She stated that her office
started with the Veteran's Preference bill which has passed
the House. She would like to hear from those who have voiced
concerns regarding Section 18 of the bill. She noted that
Vern Jones, Chief Procurement Officer, believes that
technical issues raised in Section 18 are being
misinterpreted. She wanted those who had flown to Juneau to
testify regarding their concerns and then set aside the
bill.
3:49:51 PM
JOHN MACKINNEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF ALASKA, voiced his concern regarding two
areas of this bill. He referred to past history where there
were commonplace practices among some contractors who won
bids then would go back to subcontractors that bid with him
and negotiate on the side. Many people considered unethical.
This process was known as bid shopping. Many contractors in
the industry enlisted the help of the Department of
Transportation, the prime contractor in the state, to pass a
bill resulting in AS 36.30.115 requiring a contractor to
list their subcontractors within five working days of a bid
opening. This process has worked very well. He referred to
HB 225, Section 14, which allows for multi-step revised
sealed bidding. This would allow the contracting agency to
include successive sets of sealed bids in a process. He
believed this was not intended for construction contracting
business therefore it should be stated as such. Mr.
MacKinnen elaborated that the present management in the
Department of Transportation says that it would not use the
multi-step revised sealed bidding and he believes them, but
is concerned that some future management may change this. He
indicated that Section 18 has a similar provision that
allows multiple rounds of best and final offers. He would
like language in the provision that says it is not for
construction contracting.
Representative Doogan asked how the language as Mr.
MacKinnon fears it might be applied, would work.
Mr. MacKinnen replied that a contracting agency would put a
project out for a competitive bid and once the bids were in
the agency might want to see if there was a better offer and
put it out for a second round of competitive bids. He
indicated that there are cases where projects are rebid
which puts the contractors in difficult position because the
numbers are known.
Representative Doogan asked if this was a situation where
the first successful bidder may be pitted against everyone
else, including themselves. Mr. MacKinnon agreed.
3:56:10 PM
VERN JONES, CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES, agreed with Mr. MacKinnon that the Department of
Transportation does not plan to use this in construction
procurement. The reason behind the changes is that there is
seldom a chance to do a comprehensive review and updating of
the procurement codes, so things were added that were
believed could be useful at a future point. He noted that in
Sections 14 and 18 there are techniques that private sector
companies have used with some success. He pointed out that
these changes were not aimed at construction. He thought it
important to put in all the tools possible in the
procurement codes to be successful to get cost effective
contracts. He added that the points brought up by Mr.
MacKinnon were valid and had no problem with making an
amendment to limit or exempt construction.
3:58:19 PM
Representative Fairclough explained it was never the intent
of the bill to make unfair business practices. She wanted to
propose a tool to save the state money. The Department of
Transportation does not plan to use this practice so she is
not opposed to an amendment.
Representative Gara mentioned that in the past some
procurement bills have been hugely divisive, but often it
was a housekeeping method to make things work better. He
wondered if there were cleanups necessary to get items for
the state at a cheaper point than might be arrived with the
bidding process.
Mr. Jones responded there are many housekeeping provisions
specific to modernizing and streamlining the procurement
code contained in HB 225. One of the provisions raised the
threshold for a formal bid from $50,000 to $100,000.
Construction bids would be raised from $100,000 to $200,000.
This would avoid the time consuming publicly noticed bidding
process until the threshold is met thereby simplifying the
process.
Representative Gara wondered once the bids were turned in
there might still be circumstances where going to the store
to buy the item is easier and cheaper.
Mr. Jones responded that the procurement officer must
certify that the bids are appropriate in price. If an
unanticipated high price occurs, then it can be revisited.
4:03:30 PM
Representative Salmon noticed approximately 45 changes in
the bill and wondered if this speeds up the procurement
process. Mr. Jones replied that the bill attempts to
streamline, modernize, simplify and speed up the procurement
process.
4:05:17 PM
Representative Fairclough interjected that she would like an
opportunity to address the issues that have been raised and
reach out to the business community for comments.
Representative Kelly commented that if the Associated
Builders and Contractors (ABC) have not weighed in then to
try and get their comments before rather than after the bill
is passed. Representative Fairclough raised her concern to
make the extra efforts to get businesses to respond. She
indicated talking with Wayne Stevens directly and asked him
to look at Section 14 and 18 and ABC was in her office
earlier. Both have been tracking the issue. She added that
there is an elimination of two preferences that might be
controversial to the two individuals that access that
preference.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that Wayne Stevens is with the Alaska
State Chamber of Commerce and ABC is a building and
construction organization. Representative Kelly suggested
consulting the state bidders list.
4:09:10 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that bid shopping is a tool or dirty
word depending on the individual perspective.
SB 225 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB36 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 06 HB36 Letters SupportOpposition.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 07 HB36 Legal Opinions.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sectional Analysis Version S CSSSHB36 Recent.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 02 HB 225 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/11/2010 9:00:00 AM HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| 03 HB 225 Sectional Analysis.doc |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HSTA 4/14/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 225 |
| CSHB225 Explanation of Changes HFIN.doc |
HFIN 4/16/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 225 |
| SSHB 36 Backup.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 NEW Fiscal Note Admin.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Thoma Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |