AB 558: Horse racing: nonthoroughbred races.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2016-03-29
(1)The Horse Racing Law generally requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair is only for one type of racing, thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, as the case may be, except that the California Horse Racing Board may authorize the entering of thoroughbred and Appaloosa horses in quarter horse races at a distance not exceeding 5 furlongs at quarter horse meetings, mixed breed meetings, and fair meetings under specified conditions. That law, notwithstanding these provisions, empowers the board to authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization or a race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
This bill would empower the board to authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to 6 nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to the Horse Racing Law from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to these provisions would be required to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race. By expanding the provisions of the Horse Racing Law, a violation of which is a crime, the bill would create new crimes and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)The Horse Racing Law generally requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair is only for one type of racing, thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, as the case may be, except that the California Horse Racing Board may authorize the entering of thoroughbred and Appaloosa horses in quarter horse races at a distance not exceeding 5 furlongs at quarter horse meetings, mixed breed meetings, and fair meetings under specified conditions. That law, notwithstanding these provisions, empowers the board to authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization or a race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
This bill would empower the board to authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to 6 nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to the Horse Racing Law from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to these provisions would be required to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race. By expanding the provisions of the Horse Racing Law, a violation of which is a crime, the bill would create new crimes and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)The Horse Racing Law generally requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair is only for one type of racing, thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, as the case may be, except that the California Horse Racing Board may authorize the entering of thoroughbred and Appaloosa horses in quarter horse races at a distance not exceeding 5 furlongs at quarter horse meetings, mixed breed meetings, and fair meetings under specified conditions. That law, notwithstanding these provisions, empowers the board to authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization or a race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
This bill would empower the board to authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to 6 nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to the Horse Racing Law from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to these provisions would be required to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race. By expanding the provisions of the Horse Racing Law, a violation of which is a crime, the bill would create new crimes and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)The Horse Racing Law generally requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair is only for one type of racing, thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, as the case may be, except that the California Horse Racing Board may authorize the entering of thoroughbred and Appaloosa horses in quarter horse races at a distance not exceeding 5 furlongs at quarter horse meetings, mixed breed meetings, and fair meetings under specified conditions. That law, notwithstanding these provisions, empowers the board to authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization or a race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
This bill would empower the board to authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to 6 nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to the Horse Racing Law from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to these provisions would be required to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race. By expanding the provisions of the Horse Racing Law, a violation of which is a crime, the bill would create new crimes and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to adopt rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the acquisition and disposal of information technology goods and services. Existing law requires contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects to be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solutions to the states requirements, as specified, and requires evaluation criteria for the acquisition of information technology goods and services, including systems integration, to provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone. Existing law requires the Department of Technology to invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from the private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, and requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that sealed cost proposals be submitted.
This bill would require the Department of Technology, in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, to require the acquisition methodology to use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals. This bill would also require solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that electronic cost proposals be submitted whenever possible.
Existing law requires the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all information technology requests for proposals.
This bill would require the standardized methods to include, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
Existing law requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements governing an information technology acquisition, for which the Department of General Services or the Department of Technology determines that a request for proposal is appropriate, to be communicated in writing to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and to be posted in a public location.\
This bill would require all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements to be communicated electronically and to be posted on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology whenever possible.
Existing law authorizes the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to adopt rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the acquisition and disposal of information technology goods and services. Existing law requires contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects to be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solutions to the state’s requirements, as specified, and requires evaluation criteria for the acquisition of information technology goods and services, including systems integration, to provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone. Existing law requires the Department of Technology to invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from the private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, and requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that sealed cost proposals be submitted.
This bill would require the Department of Technology, in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, to require the acquisition methodology to use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals. This bill would also require solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that electronic cost proposals be submitted whenever possible.
Existing law requires the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all information technology requests for proposals.
This bill would require the standardized methods to include, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
Existing law requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements governing an information technology acquisition, for which the Department of General Services or the Department of Technology determines that a request for proposal is appropriate, to be communicated in writing to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and to be posted in a public location.
This bill would require all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements to be communicated electronically and to be posted on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology whenever possible.
Existing law authorizes the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to adopt rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the acquisition and disposal of information technology goods and services. Existing law requires contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects to be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solutions to the states requirements, as specified, and requires evaluation criteria for the acquisition of information technology goods and services, including systems integration, to provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone. Existing law requires the Department of Technology to invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from the private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, and requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that sealed cost proposals be submitted.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to this provision.
This bill would require the Department of Technology, in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, to require the acquisition methodology to use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals. This bill would also require solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that electronic cost proposals be submitted whenever possible.
Existing law requires the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all information technology requests for proposals.
This bill would require the standardized methods to include, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
Existing law requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements governing an information technology acquisition, for which the Department of General Services or the Department of Technology determines that a request for proposal is appropriate, to be communicated in writing to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and to be posted in a public location.\
This bill would require all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements to be communicated electronically and to be posted on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology whenever possible.
Existing law authorizes the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology to adopt rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the acquisition and disposal of information technology goods and services.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to this provision.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize the following mixed breed racing:
(1)An association licensed to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(2)A race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 19533, an association licensed to conduct quarter horse racing or a fair may conduct races that include paint horses racing with quarter horses or Appaloosa horses in the same race. When paint horses race with quarter horses, the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen shall first be obtained. A quarter horse association may write a race for paint horses only to replace an Appaloosa or Arabian race without increasing the average number of races run per race day with the consent of the organization representing the quarter horsemen and horsewomen.
(c)A quarter horse race with seven or more entries shall not be replaced by a race that includes paint horses, without the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen.
(d)Notwithstanding any other law, a quarter horse racing association or fair conducting barrel racing, paint horse racing, show jump racing, or steeplechase racing shall pay to the quarter horsemens organization the amount specified in Section 19613 for purposes of representing the horsemen and horsewomen conducting these races.
(e)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 19617.8, amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to this chapter from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to this section shall be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the horse racing industry may continue to offer the highest level of racing possible and promote horse racing in California, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize the following mixed breed racing:
(1)An association licensed to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(2)A race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 19533, an association licensed to conduct quarter horse racing or a fair may conduct races that include paint horses racing with quarter horses or Appaloosa horses in the same race. When paint horses race with quarter horses, the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen shall first be obtained. A quarter horse association may write a race for paint horses only to replace an Appaloosa or Arabian race without increasing the average number of races run per race day with the consent of the organization representing the quarter horsemen and horsewomen.
(c)A quarter horse race with seven or more entries shall not be replaced by a race that includes paint horses, without the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen.
(d)Notwithstanding any other law, a quarter horse racing association or fair conducting barrel racing, paint horse racing, show jump racing, or steeplechase racing shall pay to the quarter horsemens organization the amount specified in Section 19613 for purposes of representing the horsemen and horsewomen conducting these races.
(e)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 19617.8, amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to this chapter from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to this section shall be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the horse racing industry may continue to offer the highest level of racing possible and promote horse racing in California, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize the following mixed breed racing:
(1)An association licensed to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(2)A race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 19533, an association licensed to conduct quarter horse racing or a fair may conduct races that include paint horses racing with quarter horses or Appaloosa horses in the same race. When paint horses race with quarter horses, the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen shall first be obtained. A quarter horse association may write a race for paint horses only to replace an Appaloosa or Arabian race without increasing the average number of races run per race day with the consent of the organization representing the quarter horsemen and horsewomen.
(c)A quarter horse race with seven or more entries shall not be replaced by a race that includes paint horses, without the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen.
(d)Notwithstanding any other law, a quarter horse racing association or fair conducting barrel racing, paint horse racing, show jump racing, or steeplechase racing shall pay to the quarter horsemens organization the amount specified in Section 19613 for purposes of representing the horsemen and horsewomen conducting these races.
(e)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Amounts Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 19617.8, amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to this chapter from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to this section shall be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the horse racing industry may continue to offer the highest level of racing possible and promote horse racing in California, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize the following mixed breed racing:
(1)An association licensed to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(2)A race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemens organization contracting with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
(b)Notwithstanding Section 19533, an association licensed to conduct quarter horse racing or a fair may conduct races that include paint horses racing with quarter horses or Appaloosa horses in the same race. When paint horses race with quarter horses, the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen shall first be obtained. A quarter horse association may write a race for paint horses only to replace an Appaloosa or Arabian race without increasing the average number of races run per race day with the consent of the organization representing the quarter horse men horsemen and women. horsewomen.
(c)A quarter horse race with seven or more entries shall not be replaced by a race that includes paint horses, without the consent of the organization that represents quarter horse horsemen and horsewomen.
(d)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any a quarter horse racing association or fair conducting barrel racing, paint horse racing, show jump racing, or steeplechase racing shall pay to the quarter horsemens organization the amount specified in Section 19613 for purposes of representing the horsemen and horsewomen conducting these races.
(e)Notwithstanding Section 19533, the board may authorize an association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred race meeting to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen, provided, however, that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meeting without that fairs consent. Amounts deducted and distributed pursuant to this chapter from wagering on nonthoroughbred races authorized pursuant to this section shall be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 3.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the horse racing industry may continue to offer the highest level of racing possible and promote horse racing in California, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.Section 12102.2 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12102.2.(a)Contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects shall be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solution to the states requirements, as determined by the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation document. Evaluation criteria for the acquisition of information technology goods and services, including systems integration, shall provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone.
(1)The Department of Technology shall invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from the private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and to make the acquisition process more efficient, including, but not limited to, consideration of comprehensive statements in the request for proposals of the business needs and governmental functions, access to studies, planning documents, feasibility study reports and draft requests for proposals applicable to solicitations, minimizing the time and cost of the proposal submittal and selection process, and development of a procedure for submission and evaluation of a single proposal rather than multiple proposals. The acquisition methodology shall use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals.
(2)Solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone shall provide that sealed cost proposals or, whenever possible, electronic cost proposals, shall be submitted and that they shall be opened at a time and place designated in the solicitation for bids and proposals. Evaluation of all criteria, other than cost, shall be completed prior to the time designated for public opening of cost proposals, and the results of the completed evaluation shall be published immediately before the opening of cost proposals. The states contact person for administration of the solicitation shall be identified in the solicitation for bids and proposals, and that person shall execute a certificate under penalty of perjury, which shall be made a permanent part of the official contract file, that all cost proposals received by the state have been maintained sealed and under lock and key or sufficiently secured electronically until the time cost proposals are opened.
(b)The acquisition of hardware acquired independently of a system integration project may be made on the basis of lowest cost meeting all other specifications.
(c)The 5 percent small business preference provided for in Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 14835) of Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and the regulations implementing that chapter shall be accorded to all qualifying small businesses.
(d)For all transactions formally advertised, evaluation of bidders proposals for the purpose of determining contract award for information technology goods shall provide for consideration of a bidders best financing alternatives, including lease or purchase alternatives, if any bidder so requests, not less than 30 days prior to the date of final bid submission, unless the acquiring agency can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of General Services that a particular financing alternative should not be so considered.
(e)Acquisition authority may be delegated by the Director of General Services to any state agency that has been determined by the Department of General Services to be capable of effective use of that authority. This authority may be limited by the Department of General Services. Acquisitions conducted under delegated authority shall be reviewed by the Department of General Services on a selective basis.
(f)To the extent practical, the solicitation documents shall provide for a contract to be written to enable acquisition of additional items to avoid essentially redundant acquisition processes when it can be determined that it is economical to do so.
(g)Protest procedures shall be developed to provide bidders an opportunity to protest any formal, competitive acquisition conducted in accordance with this chapter. The procedures shall provide that protests must be filed no later than five working days after the issuance of an intent to award. Authority to protest may be limited to participating bidders. The Director of Technology, or a person designated by the director, may consider and decide on initial protests of bids for information technology projects conducted by the Department of Technology and telecommunications procurement made pursuant to Section 12120. The Director of the Department of General Services, or a person designated by the director, may consider and decide on initial protests of all other information technology acquisitions. A decision regarding an initial protest shall be final. If prior to the last day to protest, any bidder who has submitted an offer files a protest with the department against the awarding of the contract on the ground that his or her bid or proposal should have been selected in accordance with the selection criteria in the solicitation document, the contract shall not be awarded until either the protest has been withdrawn or the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board has made a final decision as to the action to be taken relating to the protest. Within 10 calendar days after filing a protest, the protesting bidder shall file with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board a full and complete written statement specifying in detail the grounds of the protest and the facts in support thereof.
(h)Consistent with the procedures established and administered by the Department of General Services, information technology goods that have been determined to be surplus to state needs shall be disposed of in a manner that will best serve the interests of the state. Procedures governing the disposal of surplus goods may include auction or transfer to local governmental entities.
(i)A supplier may be excluded from bid processes if the suppliers performance with respect to a previously awarded contract has been unsatisfactory, as determined by the state in accordance with established procedures that shall be maintained in the State Administrative Manual. This exclusion may not exceed 36 months for any one determination of unsatisfactory performance. Any supplier excluded in accordance with this section shall be reinstated as a qualified supplier at any time during this 36-month period, upon demonstrating to the Department of General Services satisfaction that the problems that resulted in the suppliers exclusion have been corrected.
SEC. 2.Section 12104 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12104.(a)(1)The State Contracting Manual shall set forth all procedures and methods that shall be used by the state when seeking to obtain bids for the acquisition of information technology.
(2)Revisions to the manual must be publicly announced, including, but not limited to, postings on the Internet Web site homepage of the Department of General Services. The Department of Technology shall provide a link to the State Contracting Manual on its Internet Web site homepage.
(b)The Department of General Services and the Department of Technology in accordance with this chapter shall develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all information technology requests for proposals, including, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
(c)All information technology requests for proposals shall be reviewed by the Department of Technology prior to release to the public.
SEC. 3.Section 12104.5 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12104.5.(a)All rules and requirements governing an information technology acquisition, for which the Department of General Services or the Department of Technology determines that a request for proposal (RFP) is appropriate, shall be communicated in writing or, whenever possible, electronically, to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and shall be posted in a public location or, whenever possible, on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology. Any changes to the rules and requirements governing that RFP shall be communicated in writing or, whenever possible, electronically, to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and shall be posted in a public location or, whenever possible, on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology. Requirements other than those provided by law or outside of the published RFP and posted addendums shall not be used to score bids.
(b)(1)All requests for proposals shall contain the following statement:
It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a loss leader as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code.
(2)The Department of General Services shall post in the State Contracting Manual instructions for including the statement required by paragraph (1) in all affected contracts.
(3)The statement required by paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be part of a request for proposal even if the statement is inadvertently omitted from the request for proposal.
(c)The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other requirement provided by law.
(a)Contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects shall be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solution to the state’s requirements, as determined by the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation document. Evaluation criteria for the acquisition of information technology goods and services, including systems integration, shall provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone.
(1)The Department of Technology shall invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from the private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and to make the acquisition process more efficient, including, but not limited to, consideration of comprehensive statements in the request for proposals of the business needs and governmental functions, access to studies, planning documents, feasibility study reports and draft requests for proposals applicable to solicitations, minimizing the time and cost of the proposal submittal and selection process, and development of a procedure for submission and evaluation of a single proposal rather than multiple proposals. The acquisition methodology shall use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals.
(2)Solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone shall provide that sealed cost proposals or, whenever possible, electronic cost proposals, shall be submitted and that they shall be opened at a time and place designated in the solicitation for bids and proposals. Evaluation of all criteria, other than cost, shall be completed prior to the time designated for public opening of cost proposals, and the results of the completed evaluation shall be published immediately before the opening of cost proposals. The state’s contact person for administration of the solicitation shall be identified in the solicitation for bids and proposals, and that person shall execute a certificate under penalty of perjury, which shall be made a permanent part of the official contract file, that all cost proposals received by the state have been maintained sealed and under lock and key or sufficiently secured electronically until the time cost proposals are opened.
(b)The acquisition of hardware acquired independently of a system integration project may be made on the basis of lowest cost meeting all other specifications.
(c)The 5 percent small business preference provided for in Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 14835) of Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and the regulations implementing that chapter shall be accorded to all qualifying small businesses.
(d)For all transactions formally advertised, evaluation of bidders’ proposals for the purpose of determining contract award for information technology goods shall provide for consideration of a bidder’s best financing alternatives, including lease or purchase alternatives, if any bidder so requests, not less than 30 days prior to the date of final bid submission, unless the acquiring agency can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of General Services that a particular financing alternative should not be so considered.
(e)Acquisition authority may be delegated by the Director of General Services to any state agency that has been determined by the Department of General Services to be capable of effective use of that authority. This authority may be limited by the Department of General Services. Acquisitions conducted under delegated authority shall be reviewed by the Department of General Services on a selective basis.
(f)To the extent practical, the solicitation documents shall provide for a contract to be written to enable acquisition of additional items to avoid essentially redundant acquisition processes when it can be determined that it is economical to do so.
(g)Protest procedures shall be developed to provide bidders an opportunity to protest any formal, competitive acquisition conducted in accordance with this chapter. The procedures shall provide that protests must be filed no later than five working days after the issuance of an intent to award. Authority to protest may be limited to participating bidders. The Director of Technology, or a person designated by the director, may consider and decide on initial protests of bids for information technology projects conducted by the Department of Technology and telecommunications procurement made pursuant to Section 12120. The Director of the Department of General Services, or a person designated by the director, may consider and decide on initial protests of all other information technology acquisitions. A decision regarding an initial protest shall be final. If prior to the last day to protest, any bidder who has submitted an offer files a protest with the department against the awarding of the contract on the ground that his or her bid or proposal should have been selected in accordance with the selection criteria in the solicitation document, the contract shall not be awarded until either the protest has been withdrawn or the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board has made a final decision as to the action to be taken relating to the protest. Within 10 calendar days after filing a protest, the protesting bidder shall file with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board a full and complete written statement specifying in detail the grounds of the protest and the facts in support thereof.
(h)Consistent with the procedures established and administered by the Department of General Services, information technology goods that have been determined to be surplus to state needs shall be disposed of in a manner that will best serve the interests of the state. Procedures governing the disposal of surplus goods may include auction or transfer to local governmental entities.
(i)A supplier may be excluded from bid processes if the supplier’s performance with respect to a previously awarded contract has been unsatisfactory, as determined by the state in accordance with established procedures that shall be maintained in the State Administrative Manual. This exclusion may not exceed 36 months for any one determination of unsatisfactory performance. Any supplier excluded in accordance with this section shall be reinstated as a qualified supplier at any time during this 36-month period, upon demonstrating to the Department of General Services’ satisfaction that the problems that resulted in the supplier’s exclusion have been corrected.
SEC. 2.Section 12104 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12104.(a)(1)The State Contracting Manual shall set forth all procedures and methods that shall be used by the state when seeking to obtain bids for the acquisition of information technology.
(2)Revisions to the manual must be publicly announced, including, but not limited to, postings on the Internet Web site homepage of the Department of General Services. The Department of Technology shall provide a link to the State Contracting Manual on its Internet Web site homepage.
(b)The Department of General Services and the Department of Technology in accordance with this chapter shall develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all information technology requests for proposals, including, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
(c)All information technology requests for proposals shall be reviewed by the Department of Technology prior to release to the public.
SEC. 3.Section 12104.5 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12104.5.(a)All rules and requirements governing an information technology acquisition, for which the Department of General Services or the Department of Technology determines that a request for proposal (RFP) is appropriate, shall be communicated in writing or, whenever possible, electronically, to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and shall be posted in a public location or, whenever possible, on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology. Any changes to the rules and requirements governing that RFP shall be communicated in writing or, whenever possible, electronically, to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and shall be posted in a public location or, whenever possible, on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology. Requirements other than those provided by law or outside of the published RFP and posted addendums shall not be used to score bids.
(b)(1)All requests for proposals shall contain the following statement:
“It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a “loss leader” as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code.”
(2)The Department of General Services shall post in the State Contracting Manual instructions for including the statement required by paragraph (1) in all affected contracts.
(3)The statement required by paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be part of a request for proposal even if the statement is inadvertently omitted from the request for proposal.
(c)The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other requirement provided by law.
(a)Contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects shall be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solution to the states requirements, as determined by the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation document. Evaluation criteria for the acquisition of information technology goods and services, including systems integration, shall provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone.
(1)The Department of Technology shall invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from the private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and to make the acquisition process more efficient, including, but not limited to, consideration of comprehensive statements in the request for proposals of the business needs and governmental functions, access to studies, planning documents, feasibility study reports and draft requests for proposals applicable to solicitations, minimizing the time and cost of the proposal submittal and selection process, and development of a procedure for submission and evaluation of a single proposal rather than multiple proposals. The acquisition methodology shall use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals.
(2)Solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone shall provide that sealed cost proposals or, whenever possible, electronic cost proposals, shall be submitted and that they shall be opened at a time and place designated in the solicitation for bids and proposals. Evaluation of all criteria, other than cost, shall be completed prior to the time designated for public opening of cost proposals, and the results of the completed evaluation shall be published immediately before the opening of cost proposals. The states contact person for administration of the solicitation shall be identified in the solicitation for bids and proposals, and that person shall execute a certificate under penalty of perjury, which shall be made a permanent part of the official contract file, that all cost proposals received by the state have been maintained sealed and under lock and key or sufficiently secured electronically until the time cost proposals are opened.
(b)The acquisition of hardware acquired independently of a system integration project may be made on the basis of lowest cost meeting all other specifications.
(c)The 5 percent small business preference provided for in Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 14835) of Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and the regulations implementing that chapter shall be accorded to all qualifying small businesses.
(d)For all transactions formally advertised, evaluation of bidders proposals for the purpose of determining contract award for information technology goods shall provide for consideration of a bidders best financing alternatives, including lease or purchase alternatives, if any bidder so requests, not less than 30 days prior to the date of final bid submission, unless the acquiring agency can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of General Services that a particular financing alternative should not be so considered.
(e)Acquisition authority may be delegated by the Director of General Services to any state agency that has been determined by the Department of General Services to be capable of effective use of that authority. This authority may be limited by the Department of General Services. Acquisitions conducted under delegated authority shall be reviewed by the Department of General Services on a selective basis.
(f)To the extent practical, the solicitation documents shall provide for a contract to be written to enable acquisition of additional items to avoid essentially redundant acquisition processes when it can be determined that it is economical to do so.
(g)Protest procedures shall be developed to provide bidders an opportunity to protest any formal, competitive acquisition conducted in accordance with this chapter. The procedures shall provide that protests must be filed no later than five working days after the issuance of an intent to award. Authority to protest may be limited to participating bidders. The Director of Technology, or a person designated by the director, may consider and decide on initial protests of bids for information technology projects conducted by the Department of Technology and telecommunications procurement made pursuant to Section 12120. The Director of the Department of General Services, or a person designated by the director, may consider and decide on initial protests of all other information technology acquisitions. A decision regarding an initial protest shall be final. If prior to the last day to protest, any bidder who has submitted an offer files a protest with the department against the awarding of the contract on the ground that his or her bid or proposal should have been selected in accordance with the selection criteria in the solicitation document, the contract shall not be awarded until either the protest has been withdrawn or the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board has made a final decision as to the action to be taken relating to the protest. Within 10 calendar days after filing a protest, the protesting bidder shall file with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board a full and complete written statement specifying in detail the grounds of the protest and the facts in support thereof.
(h)Consistent with the procedures established and administered by the Department of General Services, information technology goods that have been determined to be surplus to state needs shall be disposed of in a manner that will best serve the interests of the state. Procedures governing the disposal of surplus goods may include auction or transfer to local governmental entities.
(i)A supplier may be excluded from bid processes if the suppliers performance with respect to a previously awarded contract has been unsatisfactory, as determined by the state in accordance with established procedures that shall be maintained in the State Administrative Manual. This exclusion may not exceed 36 months for any one determination of unsatisfactory performance. Any supplier excluded in accordance with this section shall be reinstated as a qualified supplier at any time during this 36-month period, upon demonstrating to the Department of General Services satisfaction that the problems that resulted in the suppliers exclusion have been corrected.
SEC. 2.Section 12104 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12104.(a)(1)The State Contracting Manual shall set forth all procedures and methods that shall be used by the state when seeking to obtain bids for the acquisition of information technology.
(2)Revisions to the manual must be publicly announced, including, but not limited to, postings on the Internet Web site homepage of the Department of General Services. The Department of Technology shall provide a link to the State Contracting Manual on its Internet Web site homepage.
(b)The Department of General Services and the Department of Technology in accordance with this chapter shall develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all information technology requests for proposals. proposals, including, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
(c)All information technology requests for proposals shall be reviewed by the Department of Technology prior to release to the public.
SEC. 3.Section 12104.5 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12104.5.(a)All rules and requirements governing an information technology acquisition, for which the Department of General Services or the Department of Technology determines that a request for proposal (RFP) is appropriate, shall be communicated in writing or, whenever possible, electronically, to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and shall be posted in a public location. location or, whenever possible, on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology. Any changes to the rules and requirements governing that RFP shall be communicated in writing or, whenever possible, electronically, to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and shall be posted in a public location. location or, whenever possible, on the Internet Web site of the Department of General Services and the Department of Technology. Requirements other than those provided by law or outside of the published RFP and posted addendums shall not be used to score bids.
(b)(1)All requests for proposals shall contain the following statement:
It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a loss leader as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code.
(2)The Department of General Services shall post in the State Contracting Manual instructions for including the statement required by paragraph (1) in all affected contracts.
(3)The statement required by paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be part of a request for proposal even if the statement is inadvertently omitted from the request for proposal.
(c)The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other requirement provided by law.
SECTION 1.Section 12106 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:12106.The Department of General Services and the Department of Technology may, in addition to fulfilling the mandatory requirements enumerated in Sections 12102, 12102.1, and 12102.2, adopt rules and regulations as are necessary for the purposes of this chapter.
The Department of General Services and the Department of Technology may, in addition to fulfilling the mandatory requirements enumerated in Sections 12102, 12102.1, and 12102.2, adopt such rules and regulations as are necessary for the purposes of this chapter.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2016 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 24, 2015 | In Senate. Held at Desk. |
| Aug 24, 2015 | Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 24, 2015 | Withdrawn from Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Feb 10, 2016 | Action rescinded whereby the bill was read third time, passed, and to Assembly. |
| Feb 10, 2016 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Feb 11, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Feb 12, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c). |
| Feb 18, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on G.O. |
| Feb 23, 2016 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (February 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Feb 29, 2016 | From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and be amended. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2117.). |
| Mar 3, 2016 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after March 5 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Mar 3, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on G.O. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. |
| Mar 3, 2016 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Mar 3, 2016 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 3172.). |
| Mar 10, 2016 | From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (March 10). |
| Mar 17, 2016 | Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 67. Noes 0. Page 3975.). |
| Mar 21, 2016 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. |
| Mar 29, 2016 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Mar 29, 2016 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 3, Statutes of 2016. |
| May 14, 2015 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| Feb 24, 2015 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 26. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on A. & A.R. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | Referred to Coms. on A. & A.R. and P. & C.P. |
| Apr 6, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on A. & A.R. |
| Apr 15, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P. |
| Apr 15, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P. |
| Apr 22, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 6, 2015 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 6). |
| May 7, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Feb 23, 2015 | Read first time. To print. |
| May 14, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 14, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1448.) |
| May 28, 2015 | Referred to Com. on G.O. |
| Jun 29, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 13, 2015 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Aug 17, 2015 | From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar. |
| Aug 18, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2016 | AB 558 LOW Concurrence - Urgency Added By GRAY | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Mar 10, 2016 | With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in. | Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization |
Passed |
|
| Mar 3, 2016 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB558 Low By Hall Urgency Clause | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Feb 23, 2016 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization |
Passed |
|
| Aug 20, 2015 | Consent Calendar 2nd AB558 Low | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 29, 2015 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization |
Passed |
|
| May 14, 2015 | AB 558 LOW Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 6, 2015 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 21, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection |
Passed |
|
| Apr 15, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| California Thoroughbred Breeders Association | ** Support | Mar 3, 2016 |
| Golden Gate Fields | ** Support | Mar 3, 2016 |
| Los Angeles Turf Club | ** Support | Mar 3, 2016 |
| Santa Anita Park | ** Support | Mar 3, 2016 |
| Tech America | ** Support | Feb 23, 2016 |
| TechAmerica | ** Support | Feb 23, 2016 |
| Thoroughbred Owners Of California | ** Support | Mar 3, 2016 |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA2 Bill Id:AB 558
Author:(Low)
As Amended Ver:March 1, 2016
2/3 vote. Urgency
ASSEMBLY: | 78-0 | (May 14, 2015) | SENATE: | 38-0 | (March 3, 2016) |
COMMITTEE VOTE: | 20-0 | (March 10, 2016) | RECOMMENDATION: | concur |
(G.O.)
Original Committee Reference: G.O.
SUMMARY: Provides that the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) may authorize a racing association licensed to conduct a Thoroughbred race meet to include up to six non-Thoroughbred races per calendar year pursuant to specified conditions.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and instead:
- Provide that the CHRB may authorize a licensed Thoroughbred racing association to conduct up to six non-Thoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing Thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen.
- Make it explicit that a non-Thoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meet without that fair’s consent.
- Require amounts from those wagers to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a Thoroughbred race.
- Make minor code maintenance changes, as specified.
- Contain an urgency clause, to take effect immediately.
EXISTING LAW:
- Provides that the CHRB shall regulate the various forms of horse racing authorized in this state.
- Requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair be only for one type of racing, Thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, except that the CHRB may authorize the entering of Thoroughbred horses at a distance not exceeding five furlongs at quarter horse meetings, under specified conditions.
- Provides that the CHRB may authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemen’s organization or a race between a quarter horse and a Thoroughbred horse at a Thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the Thoroughbred horsemen's organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
- Provides that an association licensed to conduct quarter horse racing or a fair may conduct races that include paint horses racing with quarter horses or Appaloosa horses in the same race, as specified.
- Authorizes the CHRB to allow pari-mutuel wagering on one non-Thoroughbred race on the day that Breeders' Cup races are run at a host venue in California.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill required the Department of Technology to develop procedures to make large-scale information technology procurements more efficient by requiring electronic submission of bids and other documents whenever possible.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the Assembly-approved provisions of the bill were deleted.
Purpose of the bill: Current law provides for many different types of wagering on horse racing in California including Thoroughbreds, Appaloosas, Standardbreds, Quarter horses, and Arabians. Each type of breed competes in restricted races for their respective breed and generally, at designated race meets throughout California with CHRB approval.
The author's office notes, "There are over 653,000 purebred Arabian horses in the United States. Five states currently offer wagering on Arabian horse racing. Specifically, the author’s office references Churchill Downs and Keeneland (both of which are in Kentucky) and Pimlico Racecourse in Maryland which host grade I Arabian events as part of major race programs. At racetracks around the world, these swift and magnificent purebred horses are capturing the attention and imagination of a large and growing racing public."
The author's office points out that racing in California was legalized via a constitutional amendment in 1933 and since that time Thoroughbred and quarter horses have been allowed to race in virtually all flat races offered in the state while Arabians have generally been restricted to racing at fair race meets throughout California.
This bill is intended to permit Thoroughbred racing associations that conduct Thoroughbred races to run up to 6 non-Thoroughbred races (Arabian) per calendar year, as long as it doesn't conflict with the Northern California fair circuit, which also puts on races for the breed, and gets approval from the CHRB and the owners organization that represents Thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen (Thoroughbred Owners of California).
Additionally, the author's office contends that this bill contains an urgency clause to help facilitate a tentative promotional and marketing agreement that the Los Angeles Turf Club has reached with Arabian horse racing interests to showcase Arabian horses over the Santa Anita Derby weekend (April 9 and 10).
On February 26, 2016, the CHRB approved a proposal from Santa Anita Park to offer wagering on an Arabian race in April 2016, pending the passage of this bill.
Prior legislation: SB 819 (Committee on Governmental Organization), Chapter 438, Statutes of 2013, among other things, provided that the CHRB may authorize pari-mutuel wagering on Breeders’ Cup races to be run at the host venue and on one non-Thoroughbred race, as specified.
Analysis Prepared by: Eric Johnson / G.O. / (916) 319-2531 FN: 0002656
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 558
: 3/1/16
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 2/23/16
AYES: Hall, Block, Gaines, Glazer, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Lara, McGuire, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Galgiani, Runner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
DIGEST: This bill provides that the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) may authorize a racing association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred racing meet to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year pursuant to specified conditions.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Provides that the CHRB shall regulate the various forms of horse racing authorized in this state.
- Requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair is only for one type of racing, thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, as the case may be, except that the CHRB may authorize the entering of thoroughbred and Appaloosa horses in quarter horse races at a distance not exceeding five furlongs at quarter horse meetings, mixed breed meetings, and fair meetings under specified conditions.
- Provides that the CHRB may authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemen’s organization or a race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemen’s organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
This bill:
- Provides that the CHRB may authorize a licensed thoroughbred racing association to conduct up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen.
- Makes it explicit that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meet without that fair’s consent.
- Requires amounts from those wagers to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race.
- Makes minor code maintenance changes, as specified.
- Contains an urgency clause, to take effect immediately.
Background
Purpose of AB 558. Current law provides for many different types of horse racing, including flat racing, jump racing, harness racing, and endurance racing. Each type of racing has different breeds that excel in a specific type of race and generally, entry in such races is restricted to certain breeds.
The author’s office states “that Arabian horses are widely known for being the oldest purebred horse in the world and were originally bred for war. Today the Arabian horse is primarily used in endurance flat racing. On tracks around the world, these swift and magnificent purebred Arabians are capturing the attention and imagination of a large and growing racing public.”
The author’s office also notes that there are over 653,000 purebred Arabian horses in the United States with five states offering limited Arabian horse racing. Specifically, the author’s office references Churchill Downs and Keeneland (both of which are in Kentucky) and Pimlico Racecourse in Maryland which host grade I Arabian events as part of major race programs.
The author’s office points out that racing in California was legalized via a constitutional amendment in 1933 and since that time thoroughbred and quarter horses have been allowed to race in virtually all flat races offered in the state while Arabians have been restricted to race dates at fairs. This bill is intended to permit racing associations that conduct thoroughbred races to organize a limited number of races per year for other breeds, such as Arabian horses. Additionally, the author’s office contends that this bill contains an urgency clause to help facilitate a tentative promotional and marketing agreement that the Los Angeles Turf Club has reached with Arabian horse racing interests to showcase Arabian horses over the Santa Anita Derby weekend (April 9 & 10).
Prior/Related Legislation
SB 819 (Committee on Governmental Organization, Chapter 438, Statutes of 2013), among other things, provided that the CHRB may authorize pari-mutuel wagering on Breeders’ Cup races to be run at the host venue and on one nonthoroughbred race, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/1/16)
Los Angeles Turf Club (source)
California Thoroughbred Breeders Association
Golden Gate Fields
Santa Anita Park
Thoroughbred Owners of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/1/16)
None received
3/2/16 11:25:38
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Isadore Hall, III
Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: 558 Hearing Date: 2/23/2016
Author: | |||
Version: | 2/10/2016 | ||
Urgency: | Yes | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Arthur Terzakis | ||
SUBJECT: Horse racing: nonthoroughbred races
DIGEST: This bill provides that the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) may authorize a racing association licensed to conduct a thoroughbred racing meet to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year pursuant to specified conditions.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Provides that the CHRB shall regulate the various forms of horse racing authorized in this state.
- Requires that any license granted to an association other than a fair is only for one type of racing, thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse racing, as the case may be, except that the CHRB may authorize the entering of thoroughbred and Appaloosa horses in quarter horse races at a distance not exceeding 5 furlongs at quarter horse meetings, mixed breed meetings, and fair meetings under specified conditions.
- Provides that the CHRB may authorize mixed breed racing that sanctions, among other things, either an association to conduct a quarter horse meeting to include Appaloosa races and Arabian races with the consent of the quarter horse horsemen’s organization or a race between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred horse at a thoroughbred meeting with the consent of the thoroughbred horsemen’s organization, if each contracts with the association with respect to the conduct of the racing meeting.
This bill:
- Provides that the CHRB may authorize a licensed thoroughbred racing association to conduct up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year with the consent of the organization representing thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen.
- Makes it explicit that a nonthoroughbred race shall not be held when a fair in the northern zone is conducting a race meet without that fair’s consent.
- Requires amounts from those wagers to be deducted and distributed as if the wagers were placed on a thoroughbred race.
- Makes minor code maintenance changes, as specified.
- Contains an urgency clause, to take effect immediately.
Background
Purpose of AB 558. Current law provides for many different types of horse racing, including flat racing, jump racing, harness racing, and endurance racing. Each type of racing has different breeds that excel in a specific type of race and generally, entry in such races is restricted to certain breeds.
The author’s office states “that Arabian horses are widely known for being the oldest purebred horse in the world and were originally bred for war. Today the Arabian horse is primarily used in endurance flat racing. On tracks around the world, these swift and magnificent purebred Arabians are capturing the attention and imagination of a large and growing racing public.”
The author’s office also notes that there are over 653,000 purebred Arabian horses in the United States with five states offering limited Arabian horse racing. Specifically, the author’s office references Churchill Downs and Keeneland (both of which are in Kentucky) and Pimlico Racecourse in Maryland which host grade I Arabian events as part of major race programs.
The author’s office points out that racing in California was legalized via a constitutional amendment in 1933 and since that time thoroughbred and quarter horses have been allowed to race in virtually all flat races offered in the state while Arabians have been restricted to race dates at fairs. This bill is intended to permit racing associations that conduct thoroughbred races to organize a limited number of races per year for other breeds, such as Arabian horses. Additionally, the author’s office contends that this bill contains an urgency clause to help facilitate a tentative promotional and marketing agreement that the Los Angeles Turf Club has reached with Arabian horse racing interests to showcase Arabian horses over the Santa Anita Derby weekend (April 9 & 10).
Staff comments. As currently drafted, this bill empowers the CHRB to authorize a racing association that conducts a thoroughbred racing meet to include up to six nonthoroughbred races per calendar year pursuant to specified conditions. A nonthoroughbred could include, Arabian, quarter horse, Appaloosa, harness, etc. If the purpose of this bill is to promote Arabian horses at race meets in California the author may wish to define “nonthoroughbred” to mean Arabian.
Prior/Related Legislation
SB 819 (Committee on Governmental Organization, Chapter 438, Statutes of 2013) among other things, provided that the CHRB may authorize pari-mutuel wagering on Breeders’ Cup races to be run at the host venue and on one nonthoroughbred race, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
SUPPORT:
Los Angeles Turf Club (Source)
California Thoroughbred Breeders Association
Golden Gate Fields
Thoroughbred Owners of California
OPPOSITION:
None received
AB 558
Page 4
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 558
Amended: 3/26/15 in Assembly
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 12-0, 6/29/15
AYES: Hall, Berryhill, Block, Gaines, Glazer, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Lara, McGuire, Runner, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/14/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public contracts: state contracts: information technology goods and services
DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Technology (Caltech) to develop procedures to make large-scale information technology (IT) procurements more efficient by requiring electronic submission of bids and other documents whenever possible.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Authorizes the Department of General Services (DGS) and Caltech to adopt rules and regulations that are necessary to govern the acquisition and disposal of IT goods and services.
Requires contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects to be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solutions to the state’s requirements, as specified, and requires evaluation criteria for the acquisition of IT goods and services, including systems integration, to provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone.
Requires Caltech to invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from their private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, and requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that sealed cost proposals be submitted.
Requires DGS and Caltech to develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all IT requests for proposals.
Requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements governing an IT acquisition, for which DGS or Caltech determines that a request for proposal is appropriate, to be communicated in writing to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and to be posted in a public location.
This bill:
Requires Caltech, in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, to require the acquisition methodology to use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals.
Requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that electronic cost proposals be submitted whenever possible.
Requires that standardized methods currently developed by DGS and Caltech include, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
Requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements to be communicated electronically and to be posted on the Internet Web site of DGS and Caltech.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “in the late 1970s the Legislature passed the most innovative and groundbreaking IT procurement policies in the nation. However, the original statute was not written in a way to accommodate future technological advancements and the capabilities of modern IT systems. For example, state projects like the California Medicaid Management Information System (CA-MMIS), required vendors to submit Bid Proposal Responses containing so much paper it had to be delivered on pallets, which the state then had to store and destroy at a later date. However, had the procurement been structured to allow for the submission of electronic proposals, the state and company would have saved paper, staff time, and money.”
Electronic submissions in California. In 1993, the Legislature authorized state and local agencies to enter into contracts electronically, and in 2002 the Legislature first authorized state and local agencies to accept bids for public works and other projects via the Internet. Around the same time, then-Governor Gray Davis issued Executive Order D-17-00 establishing a Director of E-Government within the Governor’s office responsible for working with the then-Department of Information Technology and state agencies to develop plans to move many state services from paper-based systems to electronic systems using the Internet to transmit documents. Since that time the State of California has encouraged state agencies and departments to use electronic submissions and posting of information whenever possible.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 410 (Obernolte, 2015) requires a state agency to post on its Internet Web site any report it is required by law to submit to a committee of the Legislature. (Pending on the Senate Floor)
AB 1365 (John A. Perez, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2013) required state and local agencies to file mandated reports with the Legislative Counsel electronically instead of as a printed copy.
AB 722 (Matthews, Chapter 266, Statutes of 2003) authorized DGS to use a competitive online-bidding procedure for the acquisition of goods, services and IT.
AB 1585 (Accountability and Administrative Review, Chapter 7, Statutes of 2010), eliminated hundreds of obsolete reports and revised the procedure for mandatory reporting requirements by state agencies with the goal of reducing paperwork and expanding electronic reporting.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
TechAmerica (source)
Natoma Technologies
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/18/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to TechAmerica, “the State of California is in the process of launching the Fi$cal System, one of California’s most significant administrative technology upgrades in decades. The Fi$cal System will implement the State’s first ever electronic procurement system in December 2015, which will automate the current paper-based process currently in use by state agencies and departments.” TechAmerica further argues that without AB 558 the State of California may not be able to fully implement these capabilities in the procurement of IT goods and services
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/14/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O’Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Linder, Medina
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530
8/18/15 12:46:18
**** END ****
AB 558 (Low) Page 4 of 4
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Isadore Hall, III
Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 558 Hearing Date: 6/29/2015
Author: |
Low |
||
Version: |
3/26/2015 Amended |
||
Urgency: |
No |
Fiscal: |
Yes |
Consultant: |
Felipe Lopez |
||
SUBJECT: Public contracts: state contracts: information technology goods and services
DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Technology (Caltech) to develop procedures to make large-scale information technology (IT) procurements more efficient by requiring electronic submission of bids and other documents whenever possible.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Authorizes the Department of General Services (DGS) and Caltech to adopt rules and regulations as are necessary to govern the acquisition and disposal of IT goods and services.
Requires contract awards for all large-scale systems integration projects to be based on the proposal that provides the most value-effective solutions to the state’s requirements, as specified, and requires evaluation criteria for the acquisition of IT goods and services, including systems integration, to provide for the selection of a contractor on an objective basis not limited to cost alone.
Requires Caltech to invite active participation, review, advice, comment, and assistance from their private sector and state agencies in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, and requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that sealed cost proposals be submitted.
Requires DGS and Caltech to develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all IT requests for proposals.
Requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements governing an IT acquisition, for which DGS or Caltech determines that a request for proposal is appropriate, to be communicated in writing to all vendors that have expressed an intent to bid and to be posted in a public location.
This bill:
Requires Caltech, in developing procedures to streamline and make the acquisition process more efficient, to require the acquisition methodology to use electronic means, whenever possible, to reduce paper submissions and allow for electronic submission of bids and proposals.
Requires solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to provide that electronic cost proposals be submitted whenever possible.
Requires that standardized methods currently developed by DGS and Caltech include, whenever possible, electronic formats for electronic bid solicitation and electronic receipt of bid proposals.
Requires all rules and requirements and any changes to the rules and requirements to be communicated electronically and to be posted on the Internet Web site of DGS and Caltech.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “in the late 1970s the Legislature passed the most innovative and groundbreaking IT procurement policies in the nation. However, the original statute was not written in a way to accommodate future technological advancements and the capabilities of modern IT systems. For example, state projects like the California Medicaid Management Information System (CA-MMIS), required vendors to submit Bid Proposal Responses containing so much paper it had to be delivered on pallets, which the state then had to store and destroy at a later date. However, had the procurement been structured to allow for the submission of electronic proposals, the state and company would have saved paper, staff time, and money.”
The author further argues that this bill updates current law to allow state departments to use electronic means whenever possible for the posting of documents and allows for electronic bid submission for IT procurement projects.
Electronic Submissions in California. In 1993, the Legislature authorized state and local agencies to enter into contracts electronically, and in 2002 the Legislature first authorized state and local agencies to accept bids for public works and other projects via the Internet. Around the same time, then-Governor Gray Davis issued Executive Order D-17-00 establishing a Director of E-Government within the Governor's office responsible for working with the then-Department of Information Technology (DOIT) and state agencies to develop plans to move many state services from paper-based systems to electronic systems using the Internet to transmit documents. Since that time the State of California has encouraged state agencies and departments to use electronic submissions and posting of information whenever possible.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 410 (Obernolte, 2015) requires a state agency to post on its Internet Web site any report it is required by law to submit to a committee of the Legislature. (Pending in Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
AB 1365 (John A. Perez, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2013) required state and local agencies to file mandated reports with the Legislative Counsel electronically instead of as a printed copy.
AB 722 (Matthews, Chapter 266, Statutes of 2003) authorized DGS to use a competitive online-bidding procedure for the acquisition of goods, services and IT.
AB 1585 (Accountability and Administrative Review, Chapter 7, Statutes of 2010), eliminated hundreds of obsolete reports and revised the procedure for mandatory reporting requirements by state agencies with the goal of reducing paperwork and expanding electronic reporting.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT:
TechAmerica (Source)
Natoma Technologies
OPPOSITION:
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to TechAmerica, the State of California is in the process of launching the Fi$cal System, one of California’s most significant administrative technology upgrades in decades. The Fi$cal System will implement the State’s first ever electronic procurement system in December 2015, which will automate the current paper-based process currently in use by state agencies and departments. TechAmerica further argues that without AB 558 the State of California may not be able to fully implement these capabilities in the procurement of IT goods and services
AB 558
Page 2
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB 558
(Low) – As Amended March 26, 2015
Policy Committee: |
Accountability and Administrative Review |
Vote: |
9 - 0 |
|
Privacy and Consumer Protection |
|
11 - 0 |
|
|
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill
Requires, for information technology (IT) procurements, the use of electronic means, whenever possible, for (a) the transmission of rules and requirements to vendors for a given procurement and (b) the submission of bids and requests for proposals (RFPs) by vendors.
Requires any rules and requirements for an RFP for IT procurements, and changes to such rules, to be posted, whenever possible, on the websites of the Department of General Services (DGS) and the Department of Information Technology (CalTech).
FISCAL EFFECT:
Any costs to DGS and CalTech should be minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. According to the author, “The current laws governing IT procurement are outdated, as there are several statutory requirements for the processing of paper documents and the posting of notices in public places. These burdensome practices require procurement professionals to process and post paper documents outside of any automated systems and require extensive physical storage for all paper documents.”
For the last 15 years, the Legislature changed state laws to permit the electronic submission of documents to state agencies, including business filings, income tax returns, professional license renewals, driver or vehicle license renewals, campaign finance reports, voter registration applications and more. For complex IT projects, however, bidders are still required to submit documents on paper to state agencies.
This bill intends to streamline state IT procurement by allowing state agencies to use electronic means whenever possible for the submission and receipt of bids and cost proposals and requires DGS and CalTech to post certain project documents on the Internet, whenever possible. AB 558 is sponsored by TechAmerica.
Comments. The term "whenever possible" does not relate to any standard, such as cost, time, or technological capability. A better term would be "whenever feasible." In addition, it is unclear why changes to the terms of an RFP would need to be posted on the departments' websites, as the state eProcurement system is intend to be the state's official web portal for this information. The departments note that, later this year, the state FI$Cal system will become the state's eProcurement system.
Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 558
Page 4
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 558
(Low) – As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Public contracts: state contracts: information technology goods and services
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Technology (CalTech) to develop procedures to make large-scale information technology (IT) procurements more efficient by requiring electronic submission of bids and other documents whenever possible. Specifically, this bill:
Requires CalTech, in developing procedures to make large-scale IT acquisition more efficient, to require the use of electronic means for the submission of bids and proposals, whenever possible.
Requires sealed cost proposals, which are submitted for certain IT acquisitions, to be submitted as electronic cost proposals, whenever possible.
Requires cost proposals that are submitted electronically to be sufficiently secured electronically.
Requires the Department of General Services (DGS) and CalTech to include in the standard methods for submitting and receiving requests for proposals (RFPs) for IT procurement the use of electronic formats for submission and receipt of bid proposals, whenever possible.
Requires the rules and requirements governing a given IT procurement to be communicated electronically, whenever possible, to all vendors who have expressed an intent to bid on a project and requires those rules and requirements to be posted on the DGS and CalTech website, whenever possible.
EXISTING LAW:
Authorizes state and local agencies to enter into contracts by way of electronic transmission, including the issuance of solicitation documents and the receipt of responses thereto. (Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 1600)
Allows state and local agencies to accept bids on public works or other contracts over the Internet (PCC Section 1601)
Allows DGS to use a competitive online-bidding procedure known as "reverse auctioning" for the acquisition of goods, services and IT. (PCC 10290)
Requires CalTech to work with the private sector and state agencies to develop procedures that streamline the IT procurement process for large-scale systems integration projects (PCC 12102.2)
Requires cost proposals for solicitations for acquisitions based on evaluation criteria other than cost alone to be submitted as sealed cost proposals, which are held under “lock and key” until the time the cost proposals are opened. (PCC 12102.2)
Requires the State Contracting Manual to set forth procedures and methods to be used by the state when seeking bids for the acquisition of IT and requires the DGS and CalTech to develop, implement, and maintain standardized methods for the development of all IT RFPs (PCC 12104)
Requires DGS or CalTech to communicate in writing the rules and requirements governing IT procurement to all vendors who have expressed intent to bid on a project and, in addition, requires those rules and requirements to be posted in a public location. (PCC 12104.5)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Purpose of this bill. This bill intends to streamline state IT procurement by allowing state agencies to use electronic means whenever possible for the submission and receipt of bids and cost proposals and requires DGS and CalTech to post certain project documents on the Internet, whenever possible. AB 558 is sponsored by TechAmerica.
Author’s statement. According to the author, “In the late 1970s, the Legislature passed the most innovative and groundbreaking IT procurement policies in the nation. However, the original statute was not written in a way to accommodate future technological advancements and the capabilities of modern IT systems. These policies are critical to the state’s IT procurements and require frequent amendments to allow the state to have the ability to efficiently acquire IT good and services."
“Currently, the State is in the process of launching the FI$Cal
System, one of the most significant administrative technology
upgrades in decades. The FI$Cal System will be implementing the
State’s first ever electronic procurement system in December 2015
which will automate the current paper based process currently in use
by State Departments.
“The current laws governing IT
procurement are outdated, as there are several statutory requirements
for the processing of paper documents and the posting of notices in
public places. These burdensome practices require procurement
professionals to process and post paper documents outside of any
automated systems and require extensive physical storage for all
paper documents.”
The benefits of going digital. In 1993, the Legislature authorized state and local agencies to enter into contracts electronically, and in 2002 the Legislature first authorized state and local agencies to accept bids for public works and other projects via the Internet. Around the same time, then-Governor Gray Davis issued Executive Order D-17-00 establishing a Director of E-Government within the Governor's office responsible for working with the then-Department of Information Technology (DOIT) and state agencies to develop plans to move many state services from paper-based systems to electronic systems using the Internet to transmit documents.
An E-Government Business Advisory Council composed of representatives from the state's IT firms advised the state on e-government architecture and policy during the state’s transition from paper-based services to electronic and Internet-based services. During the 15 years that followed, the Legislature changed state laws to permit the electronic submission of documents to state agencies, including business filings, income tax returns, professional license renewals, driver or vehicle license renewals, campaign finance reports, voter registration applications and more.
However for complex IT projects, bidders are still be required to
submit documents on paper to state agencies. For example, according
to the bill’s sponsor TechAmerica, for state projects such as the
California Medicaid Management Information System (CA-MMIS), vendors
were required to submit Bid Proposal Responses containing so much
paper it had to be delivered on pallets, which the state then had to
store and destroy at a later date. If the IT procurement had been
structured to allow for the submission of electronic proposals, then
the state and the prospective vendors would have saved paper, staff
time, and money.
This bill requires CalTech and DGS to
streamline the state’s large IT procurement projects by
establishing procedures that permit the electronic submission and
receipt of key documents, such as RFPs and cost proposals.
Public college systems and some agencies exempted. The University of California, California State University, and the California Community College systems, would not be subject to this bill’s requirements, because IT procurement at the public college systems is governed by policies and procedures developed by those systems individually.
Arguments in support. TechAmerica, the bill’s sponsor, states in support of AB 558, “Procurement is a critical element of IT Project Lifecycle and updating our State’s Public Contract Codes to embrace future technology capabilities will not only bring value to the State of California but will help ensure more competitive procurements.”
Natoma Technologies states, “There are still several statutory requirements for submitting paper documents and posting notices in public places. This bill would allow for electronic bid submissions for IT procurements by cleaning up statutory requirements that currently require paper public documents, and will allow using electronic means whenever possible.”
Prior Legislation. AB 565 (Polanco), Chapter 1175, Statutes of 1993, authorized cities, counties and state agencies to enter into, and may payment on, contracts by way of electronic submission.
SB 1687 (Margett), Chapter 398, Statutes of 2002, authorized public
entities to adopt methods and procedures to receive bids on public
works or other contracts over the Internet.
AB 722 (Matthews), Chapter 266, Statutes of
2003, authorized DGS to use a competitive online-bidding
procedure known as "reverse auctioning" for the acquisition
of goods, services and IT.
Double-referral. This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee, where it was heard on April 15, 2015, and passed out on a 9-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
TechAmerica (sponsor)
Natoma Technologies
Opposition
None received.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200
AB 558
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Rudy Salas, Chair
AB 558
(Low) – As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Public contracts: state contracts: information technology goods and services
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Technology (CalTech) and Department of General Services (DGS) to use electronic means whenever possible to post documents and receive bids when conducting information technology (IT) procurements.
EXISTING LAW authorizes CalTech and DGS to adopt rules and regulations necessary to govern the acquisition of IT goods and services.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill would require CalTech and DGS to use electronic means during IT procurements, whenever possible, to post documents and receive bids. Additionally, whenever possible, this bill would require electronic communications and postings of information about rules and requirements governing IT acquisitions on both the websites of CalTech and DGS.
According to the author, this bill would reduce paper and streamline the IT procurement process by reducing the need for paper postings and bid documents. Currently, bidders are generally required to submit paper bid packets. Depending on the bid, these documents can be several hundred pages long or longer.
The author states that this bill is in line with the state's implementation of the Financial Information System for California (FI$Cal), which will include electronic bidding.
This bill likely allows CalTech and DGS flexibility to use paper documents when needed and could potentially reduce the amount of paper used during IT procurements.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Natoma Technologies
Tech America
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Scott Herbstman / A. & A.R. / (916) 319-3600
Discussed in Hearing
1MIN
Assembly Floor
2MIN
Senate Floor
8MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization
Bill Author
