Showing posts with label Bid Preferences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bid Preferences. Show all posts

Monday, December 8, 2014

Court Rules Bid Preference Law is Unconstitutional

An Arizona court has ruled that a City of Tucson ordinance granting local businesses a 5% bid preference is unconstitutional. 

Unconstitutional:  In response to a lawsuit filed against the program, on November 25, 2014, Pima County Superior Court Judge Gus Aragon struck down the City's ordinance as a violation of the Arizona Constitution (Gifts clause and the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause) and the United States Constitution (Federal Equal Protection clause and the Privileges and Immunities clause). 

Appeal by City?  At their meeting of December 9, 2014, the Tucson City Council will consider whether to file an appeal to the decision, or to modify the ordinance.

Additional information:  
Popularity of bid preference laws:  Many state and local jurisdictions across the county have adopted local bid preference laws.  The ruling in Arizona points out some of the constitutional problems associated with such programs. Click here to read some of the other blogs I've written about local bid preferences.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog
© 2014 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Are Bid Preference Laws Counter Productive?

Many states and local governments have adopted bid preference laws that give bidders from within the agency's boundaries a competitive price advantage against bidders from outside the boundaries.  

Why do we have bid preference laws?  Bid preference laws are touted by political leaders as a way to keep public dollars local.  While they may accomplish this objective, bid preference laws often end up costing public agencies and the taxpayers more money. 

Reciprocal bid preferences:  In response to bid preference laws, some public agencies have adopted reciprocal bid preference laws, meaning they only apply a bid preference against a firm who bids from a different area that does have a bid preference law. 

When are bid preferences applied?  Some local bid preference laws or reciprocal bid preference laws apply only to the purchase of goods, supplies, materials, and equipment.  Others extend to services or to public construction projects. 

Florida's experiences:  In a March 19, 2014 opinion article published in Miami Today, Michael Lewis has written about how bid preference laws result in loses for both taxpayers and businesses.  He describes current laws and proposed legislation in Florida and Miami.  It's a well written piece that points out some of the problems with bid preference laws.  He cites a 2012 briefing on in-state bid preferences from the National Association of State Procurement Officials:
"The costs of goods or services are increased for all taxpayers when a percentage differential is allowed; meaning that the state will not get the same value for the dollars spent...This practice discourages firms that don't meet the preference from participating in the procurement process...Experience has shown that when restricting a market, or implementing a preference, prices increase."
Washington state's law:  Washington state has adopted a reciprocal bid preference law for public works construction projects, meaning it puts contractors from the four states (Alaska, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada) that have a local bid preference at a competitive disadvantage when bidding on public works projects with any government agency in Washington.  The result is often that projects end up costing more.  Click here to read more from various blog postings I've written about local bid preferences and Washington's reciprocal bid preference requirements.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog
© 2014 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

No Authority for Public Works Resident Preference by Local Agencies in Washington

The following question was recently posed to the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) and their answer follows: 

Question:  May the city require that a certain percentage of employees on a public works contract be local residents? 

MRSC Answer:  No. There used to be a state statute, RCW 39.16.005, that required that contractors on public works projects employ a certain percentage of Washington State residents, but it was held to be unconstitutional in Laborer's Local Union No. 74 v. Felton Construction Co., 98 Wn.2d 121 (1982), and was later repealed. MRSC consistently advises that it is beyond the authority of local governments to include similar requirements in their bid specifications. 

See also AGO 61-62 No. 41, which discusses the lack of authority of local jurisdictions to include any kind of local preference in bidding unless specifically authorized by a specific state statute - which does not exist in this case.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog
© 2014 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, June 3, 2013

Public Contracting News from Around the Nation

Michigan awards contract without competition:  Ravenna Township has awarded a $275,000 library remodel and addition project to a local contractor without competitively bidding the project.  The surprising thing is that under Michigan law, it's perfectly legal to do so according to the  Municipal Townships Association.  They noted that "local [government] units are not required - state and federal may be - to use competitive bidding on any and all projects."  According to the Association, there is a recognition in state law "that it's not always the best use of the public's money to go for the lowest bid."  Click here for an article with more details.

Nebraska considers bid preference law for disabled veterans:  Nebraska legislators are moving forward with a bill that would give businesses owned by disabled veterans a preference in bidding on state contracts.  The business would need to be owned 51 percent by disabled veterans and apply only to those living in Nebraska.  Contractors have argued that the preference law would increase costs of contracts.  Click here for an article with more details.

Pennsylvania pursues repeal of state prevailing wage law: A coalition is urging the Pennsylvania General Assembly to repeal the state's 50 year old prevailing wage law.  They argue that it increases costs on public construction projects by as much as 30 percent, and burdens public agencies struggling with restricted budgets.  Supporters of the law, primarily labor unions, argue that the law ensures quality construction.  Pennsylvania's prevailing wage law applies to construction projects over $25,000.  Click here for an article with more details.

Louisiana rejects contracting changes:  A charter review committee for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana's most populated county, has rejected recommending reforms that would remove the discretion of the Parish Council to award contracts based on political influence rather than published evaluation criteria.  Jefferson Parish has a long history of corruption in contract awards that is based on improper political influences rather than best practices in procurement.  I spoke in New Orleans last year at a forum designed to gain momentum for reforms recommended by the Bureau of Governmental ResearchClick here for an article with more details.  Click here for my previous blog posting that describes more about the unique contracting practices of Jefferson Parish.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Training Last Week

Last Thursday, I was in Vancouver, Washington where I presented three training workshops at the annual conference of WASBO (Washington Association of School Business Officials).  Here are the three topics I taught on:

What is the Davis-Bacon Act?  Complying with Federal Prevailing Wage Requirements:  Public works construction project with any federal funding require that the contractor and all subcontractors comply with federal prevailing wages, in addition to state prevailing wages and regulations.  Public agencies must monitor and enforce compliance with these requirements.
  • What is the Davis-Bacon Act?
  • Check Your Federal Grant Requirements
  • When Do Federal Prevailing Wages Apply?
  • Federal vs. State Prevailing Wages
  • Effective Date for Prevailing Wages
  • Types of Prevailing Wage Rates
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Apprentices
  • Public Agency Responsibilities
  • Reviewing Payrolls
  • Typical Compliance Problems 
Public Works Contract Close-out: Bonding, Retainage, and Claims:  How should public agencies handle claims filed against the retainage and payment bond, and when should retainage be released to the contractor?
  • Retainage and Payment Bonds
  • Completion Dates
  • Filing, Renewing, and Releasing Claims
  • Pre-Claim Notices
  • Deadlines for Filing and Renewing Claims
  • Foreclosure of Claims and Payment
  • Priority of Claims Against Retainage
  • Release of Retainage
When Bad Things Happen to Bids: Strategies for Ensuring a Successful Public Works Project:  The public works bidding process is fraught with potential for mistakes, protests, and appeals.  What can public agencies do to help prevents such problems?
  • Why Aren't Bidders More Careful?
  • Why do Bidders Make Mistakes?
  • Missing Bid Prices
  • Conflict Between Words and Numbers
  • Bid Calculation Errors
  • Claims of Error
  • Is Your Bidder Playing Games?
  • Bid is Too Low
  • Unbalanced Bids
  • Conditioned or Qualified Bids
  • Will the Real Low Bidder Please Stand Up
  • Additive and Alternate Bids
  • Allowances
  • Tie Bids
  • Responsive Bids
  • Responsible Bidders
  • Local Bid Preferences
  • Bid Protests and Appeals
Contact me if you are interested in discussing bringing training to your agency.  In addition to the training noted above, I can provide training on a wide array of other public procurement and contracting issues.  Please contact me if you would like to discuss training.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Training: "When Bad Things Happen to Bids"

I was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin last Thursday providing public works training at the Spring Conference of the Wisconsin Association for Public Procurement (WAPP), an NIGP chapter.  The conference was held in conjunction with V.A.L.U.E., a cooperative purchasing program in southeastern Wisconsin. 

Mike Purdy and Jesse Jackson
at Chicago's O'Hare Airport
Surprise in Chicago:  On a layover at Chicago's O'Hare Airport on Wednesday on my way to Milwaukee, I ran into Jesse Jackson who was there catching a flight also.  He very graciously agreed to pause for a picture with me.  It was an amazing experience - something totally unexpected!

Developing Public Works Bid Documents:  In Milwaukee, I did an hour long training session on "Best Practices in Developing Public Works Bid Documents."  Here's a high level outline of my presentation:
  • Principals of Preparation
  • Formats and Structures
  • Components of Bid Documents
  • Review of Individual Projects
  • Document Control
  • Long Term Review
  • Training
When Bad Things Happen to Bids:  In the afternoon, I provided 3.5 hours of training on "When Bad Things Happen to Bids: Strategies for Ensuring a Successful Public Works Project."  Here's an outline of the interactive presentation:
  • Why Aren't Bidders More Careful?
  • Why do Bidders Make Mistakes?
  • Missing Bid Prices
  • Conflict Between Numbers and Words
  • Bid Calculation Errors
  • Claims of Error
  • Is Your Bidder Playing Games?
  • Bid is Too Low
  • Unbalanced Bids
  • Conditioned or Qualified Bids
  • Will the Real Low Bidder Please Stand Up?
  • Additive and Alternate Bids
  • Tie Bids
  • Responsive Bids
  • Responsible Bidders
  • Local Bid Preferences
  • Bid Protests and Appeals
  • What Can You Do to Manage Bidding?
  • What Should be on the Bid Form?
  • On What Days Should You Not Receive Bids?
  • When is a Bid Late?
  • When Should You Take a Bid Guaranty? 
Interested in this training?  If you are interested in me providing this training for your agency, NIGP chapter, or other professional association, please contact me.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Webinar: Local Preference - Pros and Cons

What are local preferences?  In recent years, many public agencies have adopted local bid preferences, providing a financial advantage to local businesses, and a disadvantage to businesses from outside the local area.  Defining the nature of the advantage and what businesses are considered local are among the challenges in implementing local bid preference laws. While these laws help the local economy from one perspective, they often end up resulting in higher prices for government agencies as they award projects to other than the low bidder.

Research local preferences:  Click here to read various blogs I've written on the subject of local preferences. 

Webinar:  Local Preference - Pros and Cons

When:  Thursday, March 14, 2013 (2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time)

Where:  Your office and computer

Sponsored by:  NIGP (National Institute of Governmental Purchasing)

Instructor:  Gregory K. Spearman, CPPO, FCCM

Cost:
  • $59 - NIGP members
  • $180 - Non NIGP members 
Information and registration:  Click here.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Public Works Training in Wisconsin

l'll be traveling to Milwaukee, Wisconsin in mid-March to provide public works training at the Spring Conference of the Wisconsin Association for Public Procurement (WAPP), an NIGP chapter.  The conference is being held in conjunction with V.A.L.U.E., a cooperative purchasing program in southeastern Wisconsin.

When:  March 14, 2013

Morning Session:  From 11:00 a.m. to noon, I'll be speaking on "Best Practices in Developing Public Works Bid Documents."  Here's a high level outline of my presentation:
  • Principals of Preparation
  • Formats and Structures
  • Components of Bid Documents
  • Review of Individual Projects
  • Document Control
  • Long Term Review
  • Training
Afternoon Session:  From 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., I'll be speaking on "When Bad Things Happen to Bids: Strategies for Ensuring a Successful Public Works Project."  Here's an outline of the presentation that encourages participation by attendees:
  • Why Aren't Bidders More Careful?
  • Why do Bidders Make Mistakes?
  • Missing Bid Prices
  • Conflict Between Numbers and Words
  • Bid Calculation Errors
  • Claims of Error
  • Is Your Bidder Playing Games?
  • Bid is Too Low
  • Unbalanced Bids
  • Conditioned or Qualified Bids
  • Will the Real Low Bidder Please Stand Up?
  • Additive and Alternate Bids
  • Tie Bids
  • Responsive Bids
  • Responsible Bidders
  • Local Bid Preferences
  • Bid Protests and Appeals
  • What Can You Do to Manage Bidding?
  • What Should be on the Bid Form?
  • On What Days Should You Not Receive Bids?
  • When is a Bid Late?
  • When Should You Take a Bid Guaranty? 
The Weather?  I've been looking at weather reports for Milwaukee every day and there have been many days when it's been very cold with snow.  We'll see what it's like when I am actually there in mid-March!
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, January 14, 2013

When Bad Things Happen to Bids

Training:  When Bad Things Happen to Bids: Strategies for Ensuring a Successful Public Works Project

When:  This training will be offered in four locations, each from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Mike Purdy
  • February 7, 2013 (Renton, WA)
  • February 12, 2013 (Yakima, WA)
  • February 21, 2013 (Camas, WA)
  • February 28, 2013 (Everett, WA)
Instructor:  Mike Purdy

Outline of Training:  
  • Why Aren't Bidders More Careful?
  • Why do Bidders Make Mistakes?
  • Missing Bid Prices
  • Conflict Between Numbers and Words
  • Bid Calculation Errors
  • Claims of Error
  • Is Your Bidder Playing Games?
  • Bid is Too Low
  • Unbalanced Bids
  • Conditioned or Qualified Bids
  • Will the Real Low Bidder Please Stand Up?
  • Additive and Alternate Bids
  • Tie Bids
  • Responsive Bids
  • Responsible Bidders
  • Local Bid Preferences
  • Bid Protests and Appeals
  • What Can You Do to Manage Bidding?
  • What Should be on the Bid Form?
  • On What Days Should You Not Receive Bids?
  • When is a Bid Late?
  • When Should You Take a Bid Guaranty?
Information and Registration:  Click here for more information and to sign up for this free training.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, October 22, 2012

Creating Bid Preferences That Don't Cost Agencies More Money

One of the criticisms of local bid preference laws is that a local firm may be awarded a project at a higher price than the out of area firm because their bid price was within the bid preference percentage.  At a time when government agencies are struggling financially, paying more for projects, even if it promotes use of local businesses doesn't seem like sound public policy.

Match the low bid:  Some public agencies have addressed the concern about increased costs associated with preference programs by offering a bid percentage preference to local bidders who must then match the low bid from an out of area bidder in order to be awarded the project.  This results in the agency paying no more than the low bid.

South Carolina:  Rock Hill, South Carolina has established a bid preference program for local bidders who receive a 5% preference, capped at $25,000.  But in order to be awarded the project, the local bidder must match the low bid of a non-local bidder in order to be awarded the project.  For more information, click here.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

When Bad Things Happen to Bids

I spoke at a workshop last week (August 21, 2012) in Seattle at the Annual Forum of NIGP (National Institute of Governmental Purchasing).

My topic was "When Bad Things Happen to Bids: Strategies for Ensuring a Successful Public Works Project."

Here's an outline of what I spoke on:

Why Aren't Bidders More Careful?
  • Why do Bidders Make Mistakes?
  • Missing Bid Prices
  • Conflict Between Numbers and Words
  • Bid Calculation Errors
  • Claims of Error
Is Your Bidder Playing Games?
  • Bid is Too Low
  • Unbalanced Bids
  • Conditioned or Qualified Bids 
Will the Real Low Bidder Please Stand Up?
  • Additive and Alternate Bids
  • Tie Bids
  • Responsive Bids
  • Responsible Bidders
  • Local Bid Preferences
  • Bid Protests and Appeals 
What Can You Do to Manage Bidding?
  • What Should be on the Bid Form?
  • When is a Bid Late?
  • When Should You Take a Bid Guaranty? 
Questions:  If you have questions about any of the issues in the presentation, or if you'd like to discuss having me provide the training for your agency, please contact me.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Dallas Implements a Local Bid Preference Option

At the end of June, the Dallas City Council approved a local bid preference measure that allows them to favor local businesses for certain projects.

Recent changes to state law:  The ordinance takes advantage of recent changes to Texas state law that expands the circumstances where municipal governments are allowed to use local preference.  Last year, the Texas legislature removed population caps restricting the size of cities and counties allowed to implement certain local preferences and raised the maximum amount for purchases using local preference from $100,000 to $500,000.

Different preferences for different contracts:  The new city law gives the city council discretion to award certain contracts to local bidders whose bid is not the lowest, but is within a certain percentage of the low bid. To use local preference on a given project, the city council must make a written determination that it will give the city the best combined benefit considering both project price and economic impact from using a local company. The law allows providing the following percentage advantages to local bidders for contracts of the given types and amounts:



Goods General Services Construction Services
$50,000 - $100,000 5% 5% 5%
$100,000 - $500,000 5% 5% none
above $500,000 3% none none


Additional resources: 
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

New York City Enacts Living Wage Bill Over Mayor's Veto

The New York City Council recently overrode Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto of the city's controversial "living wage bill." 

The fight may be just beginning, however, as the mayor has vowed to sue to prevent the law from taking effect and the bill's chief proponent, council Speaker Christine Quinn, has pledged to defend it.

3 types of wages:  In general there are three types of laws that specify the minimum amount that employers must pay: 
  • Minimum wages: These wages apply to all workers within in a given governmental jurisdiction.

  • Prevailing wages:  These wages apply to workers performing certain jobs (classifications) on public works construction/improvement projects.
  • Living wages:  Living wages generally apply to all workers on all or some public projects, although the details of these laws varies since they are often adopted by individual cities or counties.
Workers covered by Living Wages:  While the type of workers that living wages applies to varies widely, living wages generally cover the following types of workers:

  • All workers on public contracts:  Living wage requirements often apply to a company's employees working on a public contract. In some cases, the wages apply to all public projects or they may apply to just to some contracts.  Many living laws cover only service contracts or contracts for certain kinds of work.  For example, a 2002 New York City measure specifically applies living wages to in-home healthcare, janitorial & cleaning, security, daycare, temporary clerical, and food service contracts, among others.

  • Workers for companies receiving public assistance:  Living wages sometimes apply to employees who work for companies benefiting from public assistance, such as tax breaks/incentives.  The recent New York City law takes this approach (although with many exceptions and restrictions).
  • Other workers:  In some cases, the living wage movement has expanded coverage to include workers and employers regardless of whether there is any relationship to the government or public projects. While many agencies no longer use the “living wage” label, a similar impetus often drives cities and counties to establish a base wage for the following:  
·         1) Everyone:  Essentially a local (city/county) minimum wage (enacted by cities including San Francisco, CA; Washington, DC; and Albuquerque, NM).

·         2) Specific Companies:  There have been some attempts to target living wage laws towards specific types of businesses regardless of their connection (or lack of connection) to the government. For example, in 2006 the mayor of Chicago vetoed a bill setting a minimum pay rate for retailers over 90,000 square feet, and in 2007 a similar citizen initiative in Spokane, Washington failed to make the ballot.

Characteristics of Living Wages:  Although terminology varies (and the different concepts sometimes overlap), the process of establishing a living wage typically differs in a couple of ways from that of minimum and prevailing wages:
 
  • Basis of calculation:  Living wage amounts are calculated on how much income is needed to support a household. Prevailing wages, on the other hand, are calculated from surveys of how much workers are usually paid for various types of work. Minimum wages are usually set by legislative action or sometimes are tied to the Consumer Price Index.
 
  • Established by local governments:  Living wages are usually enacted by cities or counties, although the movement has sparked related campaigns at several universities, and in 2007 Maryland passed the first state-wide living wage law. Both minimum and prevailing wages are traditionally set by state or federal law (although they have occasionally been implemented by cities or counties). 

Selection preference for Living Wages:  Sometimes, contractors that pay all their workers the living wage are given preference in the selection process (attempts to make this mandatory haven’t gained much traction, at least in larger cities and counties). For example, the recent controversial New York City law requires economic development projects to “encourage” living wages, and suggests the implementation of a selection preference as one way to do this. As recently as 2010, President Obama was reported to be considering a so-called "high road" contracting policy to establish a similar preference at the federal level.

Expansion of Living Wage requirements:  The living wage movement has seen support and opposition similar to other worker pay legislation, and often from the same sources. In fact, several states have specifically barred local governments from enacting living wages.  For example, a few months after Atlanta established a living wage bid preference in 2005, the state of Georgia responded by preempting it with a ban on any local attempts to "control or affect" wages of companies with public contracts.  The living wages movement has undeniably made inroads in the past two decades, however, with many estimating that 120 or more laws have been passed across the country, including some of the nation’s largest cities.

Additional resources:
 



Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Reciprocal Bid Preference Law and GC/CM

Does Washington State's new reciprocal bid preference law (RCW 39.04.380) apply to GC/CM projects?

GC/CM Subcontract Bidding:  The Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has stated that RCW 39.04.380 does not apply when the GC/CM conducts public bidding for selection of subcontractors on GC/CM projects.  I agree with that interpretation.

GC/CM Selection:  DES is reviewing their position on whether RCW 39.04.380 applies in the selection of a GC/CM by public agencies.  From my review, it doesn't appear that the bid preference law applies to the selection of a GC/CM for the following reasons:
  • GC/CM Addressed in RCW 39.10:  RCW 39.04 addresses Design-Bid-Build projects and thus RCW 39.04.380 is applicable only to Design-Bid-Build projects.  On the other hand, RCW 39.10 addresses Alternative Public Works, including GC/CM, and lays out all of the requirements governing Alternative Public Works.  The requirements for selection of a GC/CM are outlined in considerable detail and specificity in RCW 39.10.360.  Because RCW 39.04.380 does not either directly or indirectly address its applicability to GC/CM projects, there is no basis to assume that the reciprocal bid preference requirements would apply to the selection of a GC/CM.  If the Legislature had intended that the reciprocal bid preference requirements should apply to GC/CM selection, they would have been explicit in requiring it, since it would represent a modification to the process outlined in RCW 39.10.360.
  • Reciprocal Bid Preference is in Conflict with GC/CM Selection Process:  RCW 39.10.360 (4) requires that the GC/CM be selected based on what contractor receives the highest number of points from the qualifications and pricing portion of the selection process.  Thus, in many instances, the firm submitting the lowest price for the Percent Fee and Specified General Conditions costs is not the firm with the highest number of points, and they are not awarded the project.  There is no reference in RCW 39.04.380 that the reciprocal bid preference applies to, or modifies, the clearly defined GC/CM selection process in RCW 39.10.360.  Without any explicit reference in either RCW 39.04.380 or elsewhere in RCW 39.10 that the reciprocal bid preference applies to GC/CM selection, application of reciprocal bid preferences to GC/CM selection would be in violation of the requirements of RCW 39.10.360.
  • GC/CM Selection is Not a "Bidding Process":  RCW 39.04.380 (3) indicates that the reciprocal bid preference is applicable to "any bidding process for public works."  As noted above, the selection process for a GC/CM is not a bidding process, but is based on a Request for Proposals in which the contractor is selected based on qualifications and very limited pricing (less than 10% of the construction contract amount).  In public procurement, there are really two basic models of how selection occurs.  First, strict bidding in which price is the only determining factor in selection, used for Design-Bid-Build public works projects, purchase of goods/supplies/materials/equipment, and purchase of some non-consultant services.  The second model is one in which selection is based on qualifications only or a combination of qualifications and price through either a Request for Qualifications or a Request for Proposals (RFP).  This model is used for selecting architects and engineers, consultant services, and GC/CM contractors.  An RFP process is not a "bidding process" as used in RCW 39.04.380, and thus it is not appropriate or correct to apply the reciprocal bid preference requirements to an RFP process, when the law clearly indicates it is to be used only for "bidding processes for public works."
  • Legislative Intent:  In reading the legislative background on RCW 39.04.380, including the summary of committee meetings prepared by committee staff, there is no indication that RCW 39.04.380 was intended to apply to the GC/CM selection process.  The Legislature, in adopting Alternative Public Works contracting procedures in RCW 39.10, established an entirely separate framework for the implementation of these alternative methods, including GC/CM. 
More Information:  It will be interesting to see what DES' position is on whether the reciprocal bid preference law applies to the selection of a GC/CM.  Click here for more blog entries about bid preferences.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Colorado Kills Bid Preference Bill

The Colorado Legislature voted down a bid preference bill for public works construction contracts on April 25, 2012. 

Details of the bid preference:  The bill would have provided a 3% bid preference on service and construction contracts over $1 million for companies proving that at least 90% of the workers were Colorado residents.  An additional bid preference of 1% would be added if the company provided health and retirement benefits to their workers, and another 1% bid preference would be applied for firms providing apprenticeship training.

States with bid preference percentages:  If the bill had passed, Colorado would have joined Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, and New Mexico as the only states offering a bid preference on public works construction projects.  The State of Washington adopted a reciprocal bid preference law (RCW 39.04.380) that went into effect on March 30, 2012. Click here for blog postings about Washington's new reciprocal bid preference law.

Washington State Resident Hiring Law Unconstitutional: Had Colorado's bill been approved, there would have been discussion as to whether it was constitutional. For many years, the State of Washington had a public works law requiring 95% or more Washington State residents where more than 40 workers were used, and 90% or more Washington residents where less than 40 workers were used. In 1982, the Washington State Supreme Court declared that chapter 39.16 RCW was unconstitutional and violated the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2.

More Information:
  • 1982 Washington State Supreme Court decision, Laborers Local Union No. 374, et al, Appellants, v. Felton Construction Company, et al, Respondents, click here.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, April 23, 2012

Speech on Washington State Legislative Updates - PowerPoint

On April 19, 2012, I spoke at the Pacific Northwest Chapter meeting of CMAA (Construction Management Association of America) on the following Washington State legislation affecting public works contracting:
  • 2011:  Update on Reciprocal Bid Preference law (RCW 39.04.380) - approved in 2011
  • 2012:  Bills that passed and didn't pass the 2012 legislative session
  • 2013:  Potential legislation to be considered in 2013
Presentation Available Online:  Click here to view my PowerPoint presentation.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, March 19, 2012

Follow-up on Washington's New Public Works Bid Preference Law

As a follow-up to my blog posting of March 11, 2012 about the State of Washington's new public works bid preference law, there are three additional things to keep mind.
  • Federally Funded Projects:  If federal funding agencies prohibit the application of the bid preferences, then the provisions of the new law, RCW 39.04.380, do not apply.  I have been informed by WSDOT that projects funded by FHWA prohibit the use of bid preferences.
  • Optional or Mandatory?  Short of federal prohibitions on the application of the bid preference, the bid preference is mandatory on competitively public works projects, except projects awarded through the Small Works Roster. "In any bidding process for public works in which a bid is received from a nonresident contractor from a state that provides a percentage bidding preference, a comparable percentage disadvantage must be applied to the bid of that nonresident contractor." (RCW 39.04.380 (3))
  • Addition of More States with Bid Preference Laws:  The Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (formerly General Administration) is charged with updating the list of states with a public work bid preference law "periodically as needed."  Currently, only Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, and New Mexico have public works bid preference laws - each at 5%.
Implementation Issues:  If you have questions or comments about the implementation of this new bid preference law, please contact me.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Reciprocal Bid Preference for Public Works Starts March 30, 2012

Washington state's new reciprocal bid preference law for public works projects will go into effect on March 30, 2012, according to information published by the Department of Enterprise Services (DES).

What public agencies are affected?   RCW 39.04.380 afffects all state and local agencies in Washington with the authority to procure public works.

What is a Reciprocal Bid Preference?  The following is an excerpt from the state's recent announcement:
Beginning March 30, contractors from states that have an in-state bidder preference competing on public works projects in Washington will have a reciprocal amount added to their bid proposals.  The reciprocal amount will be added to bring them in line with the disadvantages contractors based on Washington face when bidding on projects in Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming."
How is the bid preference calculated?  Public agencies in Washington state should add a reciprocal disadvantage to all public works bids submitted by contractors from states with an in-state bidding preference (Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming).  The disadvantage amount will be equal to the advantage given by the state with the bidding preference.

Example of Calculation:
 
Alaska contractor bid amount
$100,000
Multiplied by Alaska bidding preference
x    0.05
Total
$5,000


Alaska contractor bid amount
$100,000
Amount added to Alaska contractor bid
$5,000
Final bid total for award evaluation
$105,000
If the Alaska contractor's final bid total is lower than the bid amounts submitted by all other contractors, including those from Washington, then the Alaska contractor is the successful bidder, and will be awarded a contract for the bid amount of $100,000.
What percentage preferences apply?  The four states with an in-state bidding preference for public works projects (Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming) all have a 5% bid preference for in-state bidders. 
 
What state is a contractor from?  The state of residence for a nonresident contractor is the state in which the contractor was incorporated or, if not a corporation, the state where the contractor's business entity was formed.  Public agencies will need to collect information indicating the state of residence of the bidders.  This may be accomplished either on the bid form or after bid opening. 
 
What is a nonresident contractor?  Nonresident Washington state contractors, at the time of bidding a public works project, are "from a state that provides a percentage bid preference to its resident contractors bidding on public works contracts" and do not have a physical office located in Washington.  Washington state resident contractors, on the other hand, have a physical office located in Washington.

What is the effective date of the new law?  The state has indicated the new requirement will be effective as of March 30, 2012, but does not specify whether that is based on bidding or award date.  In order to apply the new law, bidders will need to understand the reciprocal bid preference, and thus it seems to me, that the March 30 date would be for any project with a bid submittal deadline of March 30 or later.  Bidding documents should address the reciprocal bid preference, by addendum if necessary.

Language for Bidding Documents:  The Department of Enterprise Services has amended its Instructions to Bidders to include language addressing the implementation of the reciprocal bid preference.  Public agencies should review this language in sections 0.01 A and 0.12 E and include appropriate language in their bidding documents regarding the reciprocal bid preference requirements.  Click here to review the state's Instructions to Bidders.

Non-Applicability:  The reciprocal bid preference requirements do not apply to:
  • Small Works Roster or Limited Public Works projects (RCW 39.04.155)
  • "Any other procurement exempt from competitive bidding."  Although not explicitly stated, this may include public works procurements that are not based strictly on competitive bids such as alternative public works contracts (RCW 39.10) and procurements covered in RCW 39.04.270 (electronic data processing and telecommunications).
Additional Resources: The following links from DES provide additional information:
Questions and Comments: 
  • Roland Orr, DES contracts manager, may be contacted for more information: (360) 407-9361 or roland.orr@des.wa.gov.
  • I'm interested in hearing from you about any specific questions you may have about interpreting or implementing this new provision.  Please contact me with your thoughts
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com