THE QUESTION Should the California Constitution be amended to allow state, regional and local governments to contract with private entities for engineering and architectural services? PROVISIONS This measure would amend the California Constitution to:
This measure would also:
BACKGROUND Before the 1970s, any private firm could submit bids for state-funded construction projects. Firms would be chosen on the basis of competitive cost bids. Design and engineering qualifications were secondary. The Brooks Act became federal law in the early 1970s. This act established a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) process. This process provides for advertising for services needed and selecting the firm deemed best qualified to provide those services. The California Legislature adopted the federal government's QBS system in 1990. Under existing law, state agency and state-funded projects usually must be provided by civil service employees. Exceptions may be made when services are (1) of a temporary nature, (2) not available within the civil service, or (3) of a highly specialized or technical nature. Local governments, however, can usually contract with private firms.
According to the Legislative Analyst, "State and local governments frequently contract with private firms for architectural, engineering and environmental impact studies." However, the bidding process is not used. Two California governors have made "contracting out" a high priority, states an article in the July 21, 2000 issue of the Sacramento Bee. However, a lawsuit brought by Professional Engineers in California Government (PEGG) v. Caltrans resulted in a Supreme Court decision saying that civil service engineers have priority. This decision has triggered lawsuits against local governments. According to Taxpayers for Fair Competition, which bills itself as a coalition of taxpayers, engineers, seniors, schools, local government, business, labor, highway safety experts and frustrated commuters, these lawsuit have already caused the termination of 24 existing earthquake contracts with private firms. In addition, they say, "at least three private sector contracts have been cancelled by East Bay Municipal Utility District due to the threat of a public employee lawsuit." On the other hand, "No on Prop. 35" states that passage of the proposition would replace current methods of awarding contracts on the basis of cost, qualification and experience. Instead, they say, awards would be affected by political influence, and present methods would be replaced by an undefined process. FISCAL EFFECT According to the Legislative Analyst, contracting out to private firms for architectural and engineering services would be easier if restrictions were eliminated. Because of this, the state would probably "contract out more of these services." Costs of salaries and benefits for state employees compared to these costs in contracts with private firms would vary from project to project. In some cases costs might by higher to contract out; there may be other considerations. For example, a sudden increase in construction activity might necessitate the hiring and training of new state employees. In such cases, contracting out might be faster and prevent the build-up of staff that can be difficult to reduce when that staff is no longer needed. "The ability to contract for architectural and engineering services could also result in construction projects being completed earlier," adds the Legislative Analyst. Earlier completion could result in lower construction-related expenses. Because of these considerations, the fiscal impact on state costs is unknown. Since local governments generally can now contract for these services, there should be little of no impact on their costs. IMPACT OF YES OR NO VOTE A YES vote means that the state could contract with private individuals or firms for architectural and engineering services in all situations rather than only under certain conditions. A NO vote means that the state could contract with private individuals or firms for architectural and engineering services only under certain conditions. SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION The official ballot arguments in support are signed by Larry McCarthy, president, California Taxpayer's Association; Loring A. Wyllie, Jr., past president, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; Todd Nicholson, president, Californians for Better Transportation. Other supporters include California Taxpayer Protection Committee, Coalition for Adequate School Housing, California Minority and Women's Business Coalition, California Chamber of Commerce, California Society of Professional Engineers, National Federation of Independent Business, and J.E. Smith, Former Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. Also, a large number of school districts, cities, counties, water districts, transportation agencies and earthquake engineers are listed as supporters of Prop. 35. The official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Jeff Sedivec, president, California State Firefighters' Association; Lois Wellington, president, Congress of California Seniors; Marlayne Morgan, Engineers and Scientists of California. Others in opposition include Lenny Goldberg, executive director, California Tax Reform Association; Mary Bergan, president, California Federation of Teachers; Howard Owens, president, Consumer Federation of California, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. In addition, the Coalition Opposed to Proposition 35 includes a large number of state legislators, local officials, school districts, labor representatives and law enforcement public staff. For more information:
Supporters: Taxpayers for Fair Competition, 310-996-2671; email: Info@YesProp35.com; website www.YesProp35.com Opponents: Steve Hopcraft, No on Prop 35; 916-446-0512; email noonprop35@cwo.com; website: www.noonprop35.org
|
|||||||||||
