Public contracts: University of California: pilot program: best value procedures.
Summary
Existing law, until January 1, 2012, establishes the Best Value Construction Contract Pilot Program, which authorizes a single University of California campus located in the City and County of San Francisco to award construction contracts based on the best value procedures, as specified. Existing law requires the Regents of the University of California to adopt and publish procedures and required criteria, as specified, that ensure that all selections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Existing law also requires, on or before January 1, 2010, the Regents of the University of California to submit a report to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee regarding the pilot program, as specified. Existing law requires bidders to verify specified information under oath. This bill would expand the pilot program described above to apply to all campuses of the University of California, including the medical centers, for projects over $1,000,000. This bill would instead require the Regents of the University of California to adopt and publish procedures and required guidelines for evaluating the qualifications of the bidders to ensure that best value selections by the university are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. This bill would require the Regents of the University of California to submit a report on the pilot program before January 1, 2016. This bill would extend the pilot program until January 1, 2017. This bill would also make conforming changes to related provisions. By extending the requirement that bidders verify specified information under oath, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of an existing crime. 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.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Senate Passage
May 2011
Assembly Passage
Aug 2011
Signed into Law
Oct 2011
Introduced Feb 18, 2011
Signed Oct 8, 2011
Floor votes · Senate May 16, 2011 · Assembly Aug 29, 2011
How they voted
36–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 39
May 16, 2011
D
Democratic24
100% Yea
R
Republican15
80% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
29
Key actions
7
Committee
11
Amendments
1
Oct 8, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 7, 2011
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 23. Noes 12. Page 2334.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 1, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: That the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. (Ayes 6. Noes 3. Page 2261.) (September 1).
upper
Aug 30, 2011
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on ED. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 2123.) Re-referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Aug 30, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Aug 29, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (49-23-7)
assembly
Aug 29, 2011
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Jul 13, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 5.) (July 13).
lower
Jun 28, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 27, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
May 16, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (36-0-3)
senate
May 10, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 930.) (May 9).
upper
Apr 27, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 761.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Mar 10, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 18, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Lois Wolk
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 835
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 835. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline