Bill Summary for Bill Number SB06-234

Date: 05/02/2006

Final
BILL SUMMARY for SB06-234

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Moved prepared amendment L.003 (Attachment A). Th Moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment C). Th Moved prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment B). Th Moved to refer Senate Bill 06-234, as amended, to	Pass Without Objection PASS PASS PASS

01:38 PM

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present.

01:38 PM -- Senate Bill 06-234

Representative Garcia, prime sponsor, presented an overview of Senate Bill 06-234, concerning best value construction contracting for public projects procured by the state. Representative Garcia explained the concept of best value construction contracting and instances where using this type of contracting is beneficial. Representative Garcia responded to questions regarding costs associated with best value contracting.

01:45 PM

The following people testified regarding Senate Bill 06-234:

01:45 PM -- Mr. Aaron Nelson, representing the Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado, testified in favor of Senate Bill 06-234. Mr. Nelson explained that, since the state has shown a commitment to building in an environmentally conscious manner, using best value contracting makes sense.

01:47 PM -- Mr. Mark Latimer, representing the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Association of Builders and Contractors, testified in opposition to the bill, claiming that the legislation is unnecessary because the current method of contracting results in quality and cost efficient construction projects. Mr. Latimer explained that Senate Bill 06-234 would drive up costs for contracts and allow for contract manipulation, and provided examples of these phenomena. Mr. Latimer responded to a question about the state-of-the-art nature of best value contracting.

01:52 PM -- Mr. Tom Keating, representing the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Association, testified in favor of Senate Bill 06-234, citing statistics suggesting that best value contracting drives down construction costs and referencing other states that use this form of contracting.

01:55 PM -- Mr. Randy Sewald, representing Rocky Mountain Independent Electrical Contractors, testified in opposition to to the bill. Mr. Sewald stated that there is no evidence that the state is harmed under current contracting practices and that there are many mechanisms in place that the state can use to protect itself in the contracting process. Mr. Sewald also pointed out that costs savings for construction projects are realized through the use of advanced technology, as opposed to labor cost reductions. Mr. Sewald responded to questions regarding the role of the marketplace in contracting.

01:59 PM -- Mr. Ralph Lufen, representing the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the National Electrical Contracting Association, testified in support of Senate Bill 06-234, explaining that best value contracting offers an alternative to lowest bid considerations, which may lead compromises in construction quality. He further explained that best value contracting results in less litigation, a reduction in claims against contractors, a reduction in costly changes, and better overall product. Mr. Lufen clarified that the contractors he represents are union contractors.

02:01 PM -- Mr. Dennis Jakubowsky, representing the Association of General Contractors of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Jakubowsky explained that Colorado is already in the process of contracting on the basis of experience, past performance, and cost, making the bill an unnecessary burden on the contracting process. Mr. Jakubowski responded to questions regarding construction failures under the current system of construction contracting and what type of construction contracting is used for certain large projects now being constructed in Colorado.

02:06 PM -- Mr. Chuck Madison, representing himself, testified in favor of Senate Bill 06-234. Mr. Madison explained that the bill maintains apprenticeship programs for construction workers, thus nurturing the economic health of the state. Mr. Madison responded to questions regarding the use of illegal aliens in construction contracting.

02:09 PM -- Mr. Tony Milo, representing the Colorado Contractors Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Milo stated that contracting with the Department of Transportation for construction projects is subject to prequalification, and the current system of low bidding is designed to prevent corruption. Mr. Milo responded to questions regarding construction project failures under the current system of contracting, the current bonding requirements for contractors, and the contracting system in Michigan.

02:13 PM

Representative Coleman moved prepared amendment L.003 (Attachment A). Representative Garcia explained the amendment and responded to questions regarding situations where federal highway grants would be exempted from best value construction contracting.


BILL:	SB06-234
TIME:	02:13:37 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.003 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Carroll T.
		VOTE
	Cadman
	Carroll T.
	Coleman
	Crane	Absent
	Gallegos
	Liston
	Lundberg
	Schultheis
	Todd
	Ragsdale
	Weissmann
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 1 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

Representative Garcia explained the effect of prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment B). Discussion ensued regarding certain qualitative terms used in the amendment. Ms. Shane Madsen, representing the American Plastics Council and the American Forestry and Paper Association, clarified the language in the amendment and the reason for incorporating the language.


BILL:	SB06-234
TIME:	02:15:50 PM
MOVED:	Carroll T.
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment B). The motion passed on a 7-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Coleman
		VOTE
	Cadman	No
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Crane	Excused
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	No
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	No
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Not Final YES: 7 NO: 3 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

Representative Schultheis moved and explained prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment C). Discussion ensued regarding the effect of the amendment and its relationship to a bill sponsored by Representative Crane that was then pending before the legislature. The chair ruled that the amendment fit under the title of the bill.


BILL:	SB06-234
TIME:	02:22:25 PM
MOVED:	Schultheis
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment C). The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Lundberg
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	No
	Coleman	No
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	No
	Liston	Yes
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	Yes
	Todd	No
	Ragsdale	No
	Weissmann	Yes
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

The committee took a brief recess.

02:29 PM

Representative Garcia provided closing comments in favor of Senate Bill 06-234.


BILL:	SB06-234
TIME:	02:30:20 PM
MOVED:	Ragsdale
MOTION:	Moved to refer Senate Bill 06-234, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a 7-4 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Todd
		VOTE
	Cadman	No
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	No
	Lundberg	No
	Schultheis	No
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS