Dear Colleagues and Mr.
Hanrahan:
As the Assembly Author
of AB 654, I would like to point out the common misconception on the Qualified
Bidder Selection bill that you make.
The QBS bill is premised on saving tax dollars by reducing short-term
change orders and fixes and long-term operational costs of a particular bridge,
road building or the like. The bill
only affects contracts that have state money in them and are above
$250,000. Using QBS does not equal
higher costs; it does equal better design and responsibility of crucial
infrastructure in our State by the professionals that we would expect designing
bridges and roads.
QBS is the norm and
Wisconsin is in the minority of states that do not focus resources on the
planning and design of expensive and critical public infrastructure like bridges
that you and your family members travel on daily (54 states have this). QBS focuses decision makers on the
professionalism and qualifications of the bidding party as the number one
concern before they make their final determination based on cost and the
qualifications of the party. The
party requesting the bid does not loose control on signing the contract with a
party of their choice and the ultimate contract cost.
The data shows that
focusing on qualifications first then moving to cost before a final decision
yields better long-term cost and performance returns then simply focusing on who
will cut their cost to the lowest margin when a bid is requested to win the
bid.
Remember, it is the
design that a builder must follow.
If the design is poorly drafted or lacking detail the builder must guess
or incur costly change orders on the unit of government and ultimately the
taxpayer.
I hope to see this bill
on the floor soon to begin saving taxpayers more dollars and to reinforce that
design is the most critical component of our infrastructure in the lifetime
costs of a project.
Rep.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Daniel
Hanrahan [mailto:hanrahan@saylesville.org]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:29
AM
To: Sen.Risser; Sen.Robson;
Sen.Kreitlow; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Plale; Sen.Decker; Sen.Taylor;
Sen.Lassa; Sen.Hansen; Sen.Wirch; Sen.Lehman; Sen.Schultz; Sen.Kedzie;
Rep.Molepske; Rep.Clark; Rep.Townsend; Rep.Gunderson; Rep.OttJ; Rep.Kerkman;
Rep.Honadel; Rep.Zipperer; Rep.Gottlieb; Rep.BernardSchaber; Rep.Fields;
Rep.Hintz; Rep.Barca; Rep.Krusick; Rep.Benedict; Rep.Toles; Rep.Friske; Rep.Van
Roy; Rep.WilliamsM; Rep.Strachota
Cc: Sen.Fitzgerald;
Rep.Fitzgerald
Subject: SB 442
and AB 654
Dear Legislators
-
I am writing this morning in opposition to
SB 442 and AB 654, regarding consulting contracts. While I can understand
the need to have highly qualified consultants, I am appalled that at a time when
we find ourselves in financial crisis our legislators are finding ways to add
additional costs to local governmental bodies. By requiring that
consultant proposals "may not
contain any information on proposed fees, level of efforts or costs" you are
prohibiting local control and decision making.
I am pleased that currently school boards,
unlike other units of government, are currently not required to take the lowest
cost consultants. This enables districts to weigh the reputation and
credentials along with the associated costs to make the best decision possible.
By not allowing local governments, including school districts, to know
what the cost comparison is, you've instantly raised our costs of operation.
The proposed bills enable to us to negotiate with the leading consultant
but without knowing what comparable costs are these costs will sky rocket!
If I have two consultants with nearly the same qualifications but one
costs $50,000 more we may want to choose number two. Without knowing the
cost differences it will be extremely difficult to effectively negotiate a fair
contract and consulting contracts costs will sky
rocket.
With a looming $2.2 Billion shortfall I am
perplexed as to why you would want to continue to find ways to increase costs
for local governments, including school districts. The legislature needs
to stop waisting time on non-essential legislation and turn it's energy to the
largest problem our state is facing - a $2.2 Billion funding cliff! If I
knew my district was going to lose significant revenue next year and instead of
focusing my energy on what we're going to do about it and instead spent my time
deciding what color to paint the swing sets I wouldn't have a job much longer.
Let's get down to business on the real
issues and stop finding ways to increase costs! If I'm missing the boat on
why this is essential legislation I would greatly appreciate a response back to
help me better understand.
Sincerely,
Daniel J.
Hanrahan
Daniel
J. Hanrahan )( District
Administrator
______________________________________
“A child’s life is
like a piece of paper on which every person leaves a
mark.” ~Chinese Proverb
Rubicon
Jt6 School District
N3501 Cty
Hwy P
Rubicon,
WI 53078
Phone:
(262) 673 - 2920
Fax:
(262) 673 - 2975
**This is a
transmission from the office of Daniel J. Hanrahan of the Rubicon Joint No. 6
School District and may contain information which is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
destroy it and notify us immediately at our telephone number
(262)673.2920.**