LRB-3558/1
CMH:med:ph
2011 - 2012 LEGISLATURE
March 15, 2012 - Introduced by Senators Lassa and
Vinehout, cosponsored by
Representatives Jorgensen, Roys, Turner and
Ringhand. Referred to
Committee on Senate Organization.
SB569,1,4
1An Act to renumber and amend 16.705 (2);
to amend 16.705 (8) (a); and
to
2create 16.705 (2) (a) 3. of the statutes;
relating to: audits on cost-benefit
3analyses and continued appropriateness reviews when state agencies contract
4for services and granting rule-making authority.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, the Department of Administration (DOA) or any state
agency to which DOA delegates purchasing authority may contract for services if the
services can be performed more efficiently or economically by contract than by state
employees. If a state agency enters into or renews a contract for services that
involves an estimated expenditure of more than $25,000, the agency must conduct
either a uniform cost-benefit analysis, for a new contract, or a continued
appropriateness review, for a contract renewal. Under this bill, each contracting
agency must perform periodic audits on its cost-benefit analyses and continued
appropriateness reviews and on its subsequent contracts.
For further information see the state fiscal estimate, which will be printed as
an appendix to this bill.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
SB569, s. 1
1Section
1. 16.705 (2) of the statutes is renumbered 16.705 (2) (a) (intro.) and
2amended to read:
SB569,2,53
16.705
(2) (a) (intro.) The department shall promulgate rules for the
4procurement of contractual services by the department and its designated agents,
5including but not limited to
rules the following:
SB569,2,7
61. Rules prescribing approval and monitoring processes for contractual service
7contracts
, a.
SB569,2,13
82. A requirement for agencies to conduct a uniform cost-benefit analysis of each
9proposed contractual service procurement involving an estimated expenditure of
10more than $25,000 in accordance with standards prescribed in the rules, and a
11requirement for agencies to review periodically, and before any renewal, the
12continued appropriateness of contracting under each contractual services
13agreement involving an estimated expenditure of more than $25,000.
SB569,2,22
14(b) Each officer requesting approval to engage any person to perform
15contractual services shall submit to the department written justification for such
16contracting which shall include a description of the contractual services to be
17procured, justification of need, justification for not contracting with other agencies,
18a specific description of the scope of contractual services to be performed, and
19justification for the procurement process if a process other than competitive bidding
20is to be used. The department may not approve any contract for contractual services
21unless it is satisfied that the justification for contracting conforms to the
22requirements of this section and ss. 16.71 to 16.77.
SB569, s. 2
23Section
2. 16.705 (2) (a) 3. of the statutes is created to read:
SB569,3,224
16.705
(2) (a) 3. A requirement that each agency that contracts for services
25under this section perform periodic audits on cost-benefit analyses and continued
1appropriateness reviews and on contracts that required a cost-benefit analysis or
2continued appropriateness review.
SB569, s. 3
3Section
3. 16.705 (8) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:
SB569,3,54
16.705
(8) (a) A summary of the cost-benefit analyses completed by agencies
5in compliance with rules promulgated by the department under sub. (2)
(a).
