SB 63-CONTRACTS FOR PREPARATION OF BALLOTS  9:55:23 AM CHAIR DYSON announced that the final order of business would be SB 63. LAURA PIERRE, Staff, Senator Anna Fairclough, provided information related to SB 63 on behalf of the sponsor. She noted a work draft in the packets for the members to consider. CHAIR DYSON asked if it was the N version of SB 63. MS. PIERRE said that was correct. 9:56:05 AM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt CSSB 63, labeled 28-LS0459\N, as the working draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered. MS. PIERRE addressed the committee's concerns from the last hearing of the bill. She noted the sponsor worked with the Division of Elections to find new language that would satisfy the director regarding the flexibility of accepting bids based on criteria other than low bid. The work draft now includes the bid for the preparation of ballots under the Request For Proposal (RFP) process in the state procurement code. 9:57:12 AM CHAIR DYSON requested to know the changes made to version A, resulting in version N. MS. PIERRE explained that there is a title change in version N. The new title now reads, "An Act making contracts for the preparation of election ballots subject to the provisions of the state procurement code." She related that language was removed from subsection (3) of Section 1, which now reads, "The director shall contract for the preparation of ballots under AS 36.30 (State Procurement Code)." She described another change on page 4 - Section 2 was removed and replaced with, "AS 36.30.850(b)(7) is amended to read: contracts for the transportation of ballots under AS 15." This includes the preparation of ballots under the procurement code. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the bill applies to both paper ballots and electronic ballots. MS. PIERRE deferred to Ms. Fenumai to answer. 9:59:40 AM GAIL FENUMAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, answered questions related to SB 63. She said the bill would address printed paper ballots. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI requested information about transparency in the procurement process. MS. FENUMAI deferred to Mr. Jones. 10:00:29 AM VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General Services, Department of Administration, answered questions related to SB 63. He stressed that the procurement code is completely transparent, depending on the method that is used. There are four formal procurements. At the $50,000 and above level, the ITB Process, which is a low bid process, is used and it is advertised on the on-line public notice web site for 21 days. It is the same process for an RFP, plus results are published. Small procurements for under $50,000 have informal quotes or RFP's and use the same methods of advertising. There are also exceptions built into the procurement process, such as for emergencies and limited competition, which are less transparent. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked, if there was a special election, would the procurement process in place be able to meet the timelines. MR. JONES said the code is flexible and could adapt to a special election timeframe and allow other types of procurements. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI envisioned a primary election situation that requires a fast turnaround. He wondered if a blanket procurement would be used for the entire election season. 10:04:27 AM MS. FENUMAI said the division would procure ballots for the entire calendar year. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that it would not be known who would be on the general election ballot until after the primary and there would be tight deadlines. MS. FENUMAI said that was correct; however, the RFP would go out based on quantity. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI concluded that the procurement process would not have to be repeated. MS. FENUMAI said yes; an RFP would be issued based on estimated quantities for both the primary and the general election. CHAIR DYSON assumed the contract would have provisions in it if there was a special election. MS. FENUMAI agreed. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the division supports the bill. 10:05:46 AM MS. FENUMAI related that the exception for ballot printing in the procurement code has been in place since 1986. The division has experienced no problems with the current printer since 2002. She stated that if it is the will of the legislature to have the ballots printed by a competitive bidder, the way the bill is drafted now would be in the best interest of the division. CHAIR DYSON stressed the importance of elections and the necessity to find a reliable vendor. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed. He inquired if the procurement code allows for quality. 10:07:04 AM MR. JONES replied that within the procurement code, the RFP process specifically allows for the evaluation of prior experience, qualifications, and quality of equipment, rather than just price. SENATOR COGHILL commented that there is a limited scope in Alaska as to who can do the work. He noted the division has contracted with the same vendor for a while. He wondered if past performance could become part of the criteria. MS. FENUMAI posited several possible questions the division could ask in order to determine past performance and experience in printing ballots. SENATOR COGHILL gave an example, "Have you printed for a municipality?" MS. FENUMAI said it's obvious that no other printer has printed ballots on a statewide basis so that would not be a fair criteria to use in an RFP. 10:09:18 AM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report CSSB 63, version 28-LS0459\N, from committee with individual recommendations and a forthcoming fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 63(STA) was reported from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.