Every day, hundreds of state workers working for dozens of departments, agencies or commissions conduct open bidding before awarding six- or seven-figure state contracts.
Apparently, the California Legislature itself is not required to award any of its millions of dollars in contracts following competitive bidding.
Now, at least one of its members hopes that soon changes.
State workers should closely watch how the Legislature handles AB 641, a bill introduced Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R- Chino Hills.
Hagman thinks that requiring open bidding on all legislative contracts will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in how the state's legislators award contracts, stamping out secrecy while ensuring openness and accountability.
The bill is backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Associated Builders and Contractors of California. Not surprisingly, it has already received a frosty reception from the Assembly business and professions committee.
The committee's analysis of the bill?
A: Low bids are not always a great idea for Capitol or legislative construction projects.
B: An open bidding requirement, overseen by the Department of General Services as Hagman proposes, would subvert the independence of the Legislature, etc..
And that was before the bill even went to a hearing Tuesday morning. . .
Apparently, the California Legislature itself is not required to award any of its millions of dollars in contracts following competitive bidding.
Now, at least one of its members hopes that soon changes.
State workers should closely watch how the Legislature handles AB 641, a bill introduced Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R- Chino Hills.
Hagman thinks that requiring open bidding on all legislative contracts will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in how the state's legislators award contracts, stamping out secrecy while ensuring openness and accountability.
The bill is backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Associated Builders and Contractors of California. Not surprisingly, it has already received a frosty reception from the Assembly business and professions committee.
The committee's analysis of the bill?
A: Low bids are not always a great idea for Capitol or legislative construction projects.
B: An open bidding requirement, overseen by the Department of General Services as Hagman proposes, would subvert the independence of the Legislature, etc..
And that was before the bill even went to a hearing Tuesday morning. . .
The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.