Comité Rules del Senado, 27 de enero de 2026

Transcripción

250 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:00:00

   I had to get it out my system. I hadn't done it since last night.

2. 0:00:03

   I know. I'm kinda about to do a wellness check on you.

3. 0:00:07

   Air force.

4. 0:00:09

   Glad you're here. And thank you for removing your mask. Um, all right, we've got... We're, we're in standing committee by the way. For those of you new to the committee, Senator Steele, I'm looking at you, uh, we have a standing committee and we have a calendar committee. Calendar sets the calendar for the next legislative day. Standing committee acts just like any other committee.

5. 0:00:41

   We can make amendments, pass things, whatever. So all right, with that, I've got three bills we're gonna try to get out of here today, HB 117, HB 377, and HB 483. I don't see any of my House members here. Um-

6. 0:01:03

   I'll go get them

7. 0:01:03

   ... Senator, uh, Burns is here, and he is carrying HB 483, so why don't we start there?

8. 0:01:14

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice committee.

9. 0:01:16

   Um- Sign

10. 0:01:18

    ... I want to present for you the original version of HB 483. If you recall, at the end of last session there were some, uh, adjustments made that ultimately did not, uh, did not, uh, bear fruit. So what this bill does, what this substitute does is put HB 483 back into its original form. This is from, uh, Chairman B- uh, Mr. Representative Bryan Prince in the House. It basically protects code enforcement officials from assault, simple battery, uh, battery or any aggravated battery.

11. 0:01:53

    So it protects our code enforcement officials just like the protection they would enjoy or that our peace officers enjoy or other local elected, uh, officials enjoy. I ask the committee's favorable consideration.

12. 0:02:10

    Questions from the committee. Our majority whip, Senator Randy Robertson.

13. 0:02:16

    Chairman Burns.

14. 0:02:17

    Sir.

15. 0:02:17

    Good to see you.

16. 0:02:18

    Good to see you, sir.

17. 0:02:19

    You look warm.

18. 0:02:20

    I do. I'm warm.

19. 0:02:21

    Yeah, or as my daughter would say, "Worm."

20. 0:02:22

    Worm.

21. 0:02:24

    Um, so th- th- as, as code enforcement officers, or as, as citizens of Georgia and employees of, of whatever, they already have protections of against these where they would be, if somebody assaulted them, the person could be charged with simple assault, ag assault, simple battery, battery and aggravated battery. What you're, what it seems like you're wanting to do is add the high and aggravated nature onto that because of the type of job and who their employer is. Is that correct?

22. 0:02:49

    That is correct, sir.

23. 0:02:50

    Okay. Thank you.

24. 0:02:55

    All right. And Representative Prince-

25. 0:02:56

    That's-

26. 0:02:56

    ... is here as well. If you, do you want to add anything?

27. 0:02:59

    Listen, I'm sure he, uh... Sorry for do- being late. I thought I was a little later, but, uh, I'm sure Senator Burns has sort of squared you away on that. Basically, just some minor changes and, uh-

28. 0:03:09

    How sure are you?

29. 0:03:11

    I'm pretty sure.

30. 0:03:12

    He's absolutely sure.

31. 0:03:13

    Absolutely.

32. 0:03:14

    Okay.

33. 0:03:15

    Thank you, though, for the opportunity though, Mr. Chairman.

34. 0:03:17

    All right. Does anybody have any questions for the bill author or the Senate sponsor? I assume you're the Senate sponsor, right, Senator Burns?

35. 0:03:25

    Yes.

36. 0:03:25

    Okay. What's the will of the committee?

37. 0:03:28

    So moved.

38. 0:03:29

    I got a motion from my vice chairman. I got a second from Senator Albers. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor say, "I."

39. 0:03:41

    I.

40. 0:03:41

    All opposed say, "Nay." All right, motion carries unanimous.

41. 0:03:46

    Okay, good. There, you got it.

42. 0:03:48

    On the rules. Okay, next up, uh, Representative Petrie. We have-

43. 0:03:57

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman

44. 0:03:58

    ... HB 117.

45. 0:04:00

    HB 117, which was, uh, made it through this body last year.

46. 0:04:06

    Okay, me too.

47. 0:04:08

    And we're starting back up again. Mr. Chairman-

48. 0:04:11

    Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

49. 0:04:15

    Well, there's, there was a substitute on that. Nobody made it.

50. 0:04:21

    Oh.

51. 0:04:24

    All right. There you go.

52. 0:04:26

    I've got this. Carry on.

53. 0:04:28

    I, Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna ask y'all to spread something around here.

54. 0:04:33

    Can you pass these around?

55. 0:04:35

    I'm gonna keep that.

56. 0:04:36

    Almost as good as extra grills.

57. 0:04:39

    That's the best kind. All right, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'm gonna do a little backstory on this, 'cause it's, um, we've had a year to forget about it. I'm passing around some more recent data for all of you, I think I've g- giving you the right one, that explains we've had about five occasions just since we left here last session, y'all may have read in the news, where we have discovered radioactive shrimp. Have y'all, did y'all see those stories?

58. 0:05:11

    So if you'll recall, um, last year we talked a lot about antibiotics and other chemicals in imported shrimp. We've had five occasions of radioactive shrimp discovered just since we left here, and I would remind everybody the FDA tests 0.7% of foreign shrimp. A whole lot of radioactive shrimp was consumed by American consumers, okay? If we caught that little of it. So I'm gonna give you a brief, uh, reminder of what this bill's all about.

59. 0:05:43

    House Bill 117, 94% of the shrimp consumed in the United States is imported. That is primarily from India, China, Ecuador, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, overwhelmingly China and India. Um, they do not in those countries adhere to the same health standards, and the FDA does very limited, 0.7%, of inspecting on foreign shrimp. They are not inspected the way we do domestic shrimp. Um, they have famously been contaminated with antibiotics.

60. 0:06:16

    That is because we, these shrimp never see an ocean. They're farm-raised in man-dug pits. They're fed antibiotics because they swim in their own feces, and you have to keep them alive, so you feed them antibiotics. Antibiotics, uh, wind up in the product, and that's what g- by and large Americans are eating when you go to a restaurant, uh, today. And I'll mention restaurants because this bill is about food services. And so very simply, that's the issue. Now, people can choose to eat, uh, whatever they want, um, but I will give you a fact here.

61. 0:06:50

    The FDA itself states that it achieves less than 5% of congressionally mandated inspections on foreign seafood facilities. China does not allow America to inspect its facilities. We are not allowed in those facilities, and yet we import billions of tons from them. So, um, that's kind of the backdrop. Last year, I told you that in 2024, we had refused 84 shipments of shrimp due to antibiotics alone. And so what this, having said all of that, this bill's pretty simple.

62. 0:07:23

    All it does is, is tell consumers, if you're in a food service establishment in Georgia, and you're serving imported shrimp, you must put on that menu or display prominently on a placard that says that those shrimp are imported. There's a lot of, uh... I will add one thing to this. I'm a com- I'm a coastal boy for my family since the Revolution, so obviously I love our shrimping fleet. It's been decimated. We've got about 10% of what we had historically, but here's what we do.

63. 0:07:56

    A lot of places that sell shrimp pretend they're selling local shrimp, and we know concretely they are not, okay? The consumers should know what they're eating, and that's what this bill is all about, is, uh, consumer transparency. Um, we have excluded, you'll notice on line 12, uh, food service establishments operated by a state agency. We have done that at the, at the request of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, which of course is, uh, uh, obviously wanted to be excluded from that.

64. 0:08:31

    They aren't really providing menus to those that are living in state hospitals. If there's any questions, I'm glad to answer them, Mr., Mr. Chairman. I know that was quick, but...

65. 0:08:43

    Any questions about radioactive shrimp?

66. 0:08:48

    Oh. Oh, we're getting, I'm getting lit up over here. Let's get the dean of the Senate.

67. 0:08:53

    Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, uh, under the recall and comment source on your handout-

68. 0:08:59

    Yes, sir

69. 0:08:59

    ... if China does not allow the inspection, so where do we catch it? The FDA catches it where? Once it's in country or in port or-

70. 0:09:08

    Yeah, coming in-

71. 0:09:09

    Wh- where does that occur?

72. 0:09:10

    Uh, coming in a port of entry, yes, sir. And they're doing very random and very, uh, a very small number of, uh... It, it's interesting to your question. So 0.7% of seafood in the aggregate that is coming from overseas is inspected, but it has an exponentially higher rate of failure than domestic inspections.

73. 0:09:32

    Mm-hmm.

74. 0:09:32

    So, um, it's pretty, pretty dismal, uh, figure.

75. 0:09:37

    And so when it fails, what happens? When it fails, we-

76. 0:09:40

    When it fails, it's returned.

77. 0:09:42

    Okay.

78. 0:09:42

    Yes, sir.

79. 0:09:42

    All right.

80. 0:09:42

    If it fails, it is, as I mentioned, I think we had 81 whole shipments. Yeah, 81 failed in 2024, and they are literally returned. Now, here's what we, here's what we know. Uh, here's what's not official, but here's what we know what happens. A lot of those shipments that are returned are simply sent back on another ship. Because when you're inspecting something 0.7% of the time, you can roll the dice and more than likely, uh, you know, you're not gonna get in s- be inspected, correct?

81. 0:10:14

    Yes, sir.

82. 0:10:15

    So, uh, listen, it, it, it's real simple. Uh, these shrimp are not, uh, the same quality of domestic shrimp. I'd like our domestic fishermen to understand they're important. They're selling a more quality product, safer for Americans, and let consumers make that decision.

83. 0:10:30

    And, and one follow-up question, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

84. 0:10:33

    Yes, sir.

85. 0:10:33

    Uh, so how do y- how do we determine once they're in port? We have Geiger counters or something to detect that they're radioactive, or we get a tip or something, or-

86. 0:10:42

    Yes, sir

87. 0:10:42

    ... how does that work?

88. 0:10:42

    I can't speak to the details of that, but yes, they have a way to... They, actually, they test DNA. So we recently in Savannah and on the Golden Isles, uh, you have a company that was paid for by the shrimping industry nationally that's done this all over the country. They ha- they can do a simple test and tell you whether or not a shrimp is imported or if it's domestic. They're literally different species. And so they can tell you whether it's a domestic shrimp and whether a, a restaurant is pretending they're serving domestic shrimp or not. And so the way a lot of folks do this, uh, and this is, this relates to the fair, uh, uh, trade provisions, but if you have...

89. 0:11:18

    So let's say you've got a restaurant, and you've got shrimp boats on the wall, okay? You're decorating with things that suggest you're serving local shrimp, and then you aren't. Well, that's a, that is, uh, misleading to consumers, right? So a lot of that's going on, and sadly, a lot of that's going on in my hometown where we have a lot of tourism, and a lot of tourists think they're eating domestic shrimp, and, uh, very few are.

90. 0:11:43

    Thank you, sir.

91. 0:11:43

    Sadly.

92. 0:11:44

    Thank you, sir.

93. 0:11:44

    Yes, sir.

94. 0:11:48

    All right, and just to clarify for the committee, e- every bill we're doing today is, we're actually doing substitutes. So on this one, 117, we're working off of LC44303.

95. 0:12:00

    It's actually the other one.

96. 0:12:01

    It's not?

97. 0:12:03

    Well, mm-hmm.

98. 0:12:05

    Um-

99. 0:12:05

    Yes.

100. 0:12:06

     L-

101. 0:12:08

     I think it's this one.

102. 0:12:09

     Oh, I'm sorry. We're working off of LC600252S. Is that-

103. 0:12:14

     Yes, sir. That's correct, Mr. Chairman

104. 0:12:15

     ... is that, got the language you want?

105. 0:12:16

     Yes, sir. That is the-

106. 0:12:16

     Okay

107. 0:12:17

     ... that is the-

108. 0:12:17

     All right

109. 0:12:18

     ... new Senate sub. Yes, sir.

110. 0:12:20

     And I'm sure that new language actually probably clarifies some questions, but, uh-

111. 0:12:24

     Yes, sir

112. 0:12:25

     ... Senator Hostetler still has one.

113. 0:12:26

     Yeah.

114. 0:12:27

     Actually maybe three questions if that's okay. But-

115. 0:12:30

     I don't know

116. 0:12:30

     ... the first one would be-

117. 0:12:32

     Depending

118. 0:12:32

     ... if you, why are we, why are you looking just at shrimp? I know, um, about maybe 1% of all seafood imported is tested. I know catfish is a big problem, swai, the substitute for that kind of stuff. Why are we just singling out shrimp of all the seafood imported?

119. 0:12:51

     Great question, sir. Um, it, this bill began, uh, I introduced it as, uh, as a bill that would relate to all seafood products, and this was a compromise to get it passed. Um, because the restaurant industry saw it as very cumbersome if they had to change menus constantly because it was a multitude of products-

120. 0:13:13

     Mm-hmm

121. 0:13:14

     ... that come from a multitude of, uh, of countries. It also was a country of origin bill at first, where it literally wasn't just explained if it was... It wasn't just made prominent that it was imported, but that where it was from. So that is one of the, uh, changes that was made through the process in the House. Very good question, sir.

122. 0:13:31

     And, and another question if I could follow up is, um, do you see any in- any inflationary impact on prices from this?

123. 0:13:40

     Uh, no sir. I think, I think what'll happen is, um, American fishermen cannot, uh, provide all of the shrimp demand in America. That's not gonna change. But I think that consumers will know whether they're eating imported shrimp or, or domestic. Um, you will, they will pay more for domestic shrimp, but a restaurant can choose whether or not they're gonna serve that. Some will, some won't.

124. 0:14:04

     And then last question if I can follow up, what's the remedy if a restaurant doesn't have a sign up and they're selling foreign shrimp?

125. 0:14:11

     Well, what would happen is if, if this bill passes, rules and regs will be drafted by the Department, uh, of Environmental Health, which does, uh, surveys of food service establishments. So it would be part of their inspections in a food service. So if they go in, they're inspecting a food service or restaurant, they're gonna expect that the menu is gonna match what the labeling is on the product in the freezer.

126. 0:14:35

     So.

127. 0:14:36

     Thank you.

128. 0:14:37

     Thank you.

129. 0:14:37

     I've, I've got a question. Do you, do you happen to know, 'cause you had stated that foreign shrimp are cheaper typically.

130. 0:14:44

     Oh yeah, very much so.

131. 0:14:46

     Um-

132. 0:14:46

     Yeah, they're being dumped here intentionally. It's, uh, so they use unfair trade practices, and the industry's trying to get those addressed. And some of that well may be addressed, but-

133. 0:14:57

     Are there no tariffs on the, on the shrimp?

134. 0:15:00

     On some of these countries, no tariffs at all.

135. 0:15:02

     Any at all.

136. 0:15:02

     On some there are. Um-

137. 0:15:04

     Okay

138. 0:15:04

     ... but what happens is, so Ecuador for example, and by the way, um, US aid that we recently did some cutting on, uh, uh, literally was paying Ecuador. We were giving money to Ecuador to create farm-raised shrimp to sell to Americans and compete with American fishermen. That's the craziness of, of this situation. But I digress a little bit. So, um, they, they're dumping those products here in such large volumes that you, yeah, the American fishermen can't compete.

139. 0:15:40

     You can't compete.

140. 0:15:42

     I've got another question from Senator Robertson.

141. 0:15:46

     Representative, do, do you know if our, if the har- shrimp harvests in Georgia over the past few years have gone up or down as far as the, uh, amount of shrimp we've harvested off our coast?

142. 0:15:56

     I, I can't tell you precisely. I can tell you it's almost certainly gone down. Last year we didn't hardly have a boat in the water. I mean, there was no demand for... So Ecuador has been dumping huge volumes of shrimp. And so, um, it depresses the price of shrimp to such a degree that American fishermen just didn't get out in the water much-

143. 0:16:12

     So it was economic impact-

144. 0:16:13

     ... unless they sell locally

145. 0:16:14

     ... it was economic impact that, that lowered our harvest as opposed to uh-

146. 0:16:18

     Absolutely

147. 0:16:19

     ... not having enough shrimp in the water?

148. 0:16:21

     Oh, there's plenty. The, the fishery is being unfished.

149. 0:16:23

     Okay.

150. 0:16:24

     Yeah, there, I mean, we had, uh, minimally 10 times the fleet previously. Yes.

151. 0:16:28

     Thank you.

152. 0:16:28

     It's been decimated.

153. 0:16:31

     Any other further questions? All right, what's the will of the committee?

154. 0:16:37

     I'd like to make a motion, uh, for due pass on-

155. 0:16:40

     For the shrimp

156. 0:16:40

     ... for the substitute House Bill 117.

157. 0:16:43

     Second.

158. 0:16:44

     I'd like to second that, Mr. Chairman.

159. 0:16:46

     All right, I have a motion due pass of LC 600252S by substitute by my vice chairman, Senator Ben Watson, from the first Senate district.

160. 0:17:03

     Home of the cows.

161. 0:17:03

     Home of the shrimp.

162. 0:17:04

     From the first city in Georgia.

163. 0:17:07

     That's right.

164. 0:17:07

     On the coast of Georgia in the United States- ... of America. And I got a second- ... from the president pro tem, Larry Walker III. He lives slap dab in the middle of the state. Not near the coast, but closer than me. But I have shrimp coming down the Chattahoochee. Okay. Uh, I got a motion and a second.

165. 0:17:38

     Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

166. 0:17:42

     Aye.

167. 0:17:43

     All opposed say nope. Motion carries unanimous. On the rolls you go.

168. 0:17:50

     Thank you, Chairman.

169. 0:17:51

     Congratulations.

170. 0:17:52

     Thank you, sir.

171. 0:17:53

     All right. In point of clarification, as I stated a minute ago, uh, all these bills we're doing, we're passing hopefully by s- if they pass, by substitute, uh, 'cause they went back to their original form. And so there's some, a few changes that are being made. So HB 117 was passed by substitute, and that was LC 600, wait, is that right? No, I'm sorry, 483. 483 was passed by substitute.

172. 0:18:26

     That's enough. All right, next up. What's my last bill?

173. 0:18:32

     377.

174. 0:18:36

     Representative Levert. Here. He's my Senate sponsor.

175. 0:18:48

     Do you want to present it, or do we want to punt?

176. 0:18:53

     Just right now, the, uh, it's the same bill that we passed last year. It's on qualifications-based selection. We passed it 50-

177. 0:18:59

     Speak in that mic.

178. 0:19:00

     We passed it 54-1. The, uh, you know, House messes up some different things, so they... But we're back to where we are, same bill that we passed 54-1 last year. The, uh, Ed's gonna present it on the floor, so. The, uh, not a whole lot.

179. 0:19:21

     Be glad to get Sully or, or Kristi to come up and talk about it if you wanna hear-

180. 0:19:25

     Okay

181. 0:19:25

     ... hear more details. With ACEC. The, the, uh, no, this is on qualification-based selection-

182. 0:19:30

     Are they here?

183. 0:19:30

     ... for local government.

184. 0:19:34

     Sully, you about here? Kristi? One of y'all want to come give us a little more information than the great senator from the 47th had for us? Read your text message.

185. 0:19:46

     Yes. Um-

186. 0:19:47

     It's time to get up I'm working. I can't answer texts right now.

187. 0:19:50

     My name is Kristi Turalow. I'm, I'm the Director of Government Affairs for ACC Georgia. This is just SB 51. Um, passed SLOGO last year, uh, unanimously. Passed the Senate floor 54-1. Um, it's in the House hanging out there. Um, you guys, uh, put the substitute on 377 last year. Um, and the only change from SB 51 and this is the effective date. It's pushing it out to 2027.

188. 0:20:20

     But this deals with qualifications-based selection for architects and engineers for local government projects. Uh, right now that is the, um, state law for all state agencies, and this just requires us on the local government level.

189. 0:20:39

     Any questions? All right. Senator Cowsert.

190. 0:20:43

     Our summary from Senate research, it says this would apply to any contracts for 75,000 or more to treat them like state, and that just want to make sure that this doesn't capture that range of 20,000 to 250 that wouldn't have to have a second bid.

191. 0:21:01

     Um, the bill does change that slightly. Um, the 20,000 to $200,000, um, uh, component provision for local governments, um, would prohibit qualifications-based selection, um, for like road projects for arcs, for, um, roads and bridges for cities and counties. Um, so this just clarifies that you would be able to do that.

192. 0:21:26

     So you can do basically a no-bid contract up to-

193. 0:21:29

     In-

194. 0:21:29

     ... 250 or, or only if it's over, or you have to get a second bid if it's over 75?

195. 0:21:34

     So, um, you would have to utilize qualifications-based selection for any professional services that are, um, estimated to be $75,000 or, or above.

196. 0:21:45

     Okay.

197. 0:21:45

     Um, this would not require bids at first. You would just analyze their qualifications, um, and then you would rank the respondents one to five or how many ever many you want, um, and then you would ask for the price.

198. 0:22:01

     Okay.

199. 0:22:05

     Senator Dolezal. Thank you. Thank you for walking us through that. Um, that, in that sequence when you said, uh, rank them one through whatever, then ask for the price, then what? What, what comes after that?

200. 0:22:18

     Uh, you would start formal negotiations. So if you can't agree on the price, uh, with the highest ranked firm, um, and the local governments, to be clear, they get to decide what qualifications they consider, um, and they get to rank it. That is, um, that preserves local control there. If they couldn't come up with some kind of price negotiation, um, that they agree on, they would just move to number two and then so on and so forth.

201. 0:22:44

     Do the same thing, I assume. And I didn't catch what you said as it relates to, to roads. Are you saying it's just roads don't come into play in terms of actual road construction here?

202. 0:22:52

     Um, so-

203. 0:22:53

     That's, roads in a low bid posture?

204. 0:22:55

     And, um, there's a provision in state law between, that says, like, between 20,000 and $200,000 for state, um, cities and counties, they have to have two bids, and that would prohibit qualifications-based selection from being utilized, um, in those instances. So, um, this just clarifies that you would be able to utilize qualifications-based selection for roads and bridges.

205. 0:23:22

     And w- and if this law does not pass, what's the current procurement process? Is it, is it a low bid procurement process for these types of services?

206. 0:23:29

     Um, it would just require two bids at least. Um, but the problem with some of the smaller local governments is that they're not even getting two respondents, so they can't even be, um, they can't follow the law because they're not getting two respondents. So this would allow them to, um, utilize qualifications-based selection. There's also a provision that says if you only get one respondent, you can continue with the, the procurement.

207. 0:23:56

     So currently, with, with the, the, in the current state of the law, you're not allowed to consider qualifications. Is that correct?

208. 0:24:05

     Um, just in that weird instance between, like, 20 and $200,000, um, you would have to require two bids for roads and bridges for cities and counties. So I believe section one and section two of the bill deal with that.

209. 0:24:21

     I'm really confused. Yeah. Just start at the beginning. Would it be okay if I ask a couple more clarifying questions? I'm not trying to be difficult. Yes, Chair. Can I ask a few more? I just, I really don't, I don't understand what the bill's doing. Can you just tell us what, what-

210. 0:24:38

     Yeah. Okay

211. 0:24:38

     ... what this does?

212. 0:24:39

     Um, so this just would require that, uh, local governments follow qualifications-based selection for the procurement of, um, architectural engineering services, um, also interior, uh, designers because they do load-bearing walls, uh, land surveyors and landscape architects. Um, if the project is deemed to be $75,000 or above for professional services, those services that I just listed, um, they would have to use qualifications-based selection. Um, if the project is projected to be a million or above for the total construction cost, they would have to use qualifications-based selection.

213. 0:25:17

     That is state law on the state agency level right now. This would just require that the locals also follow that procurement.

214. 0:25:25

     So what, what... How would you describe the process of what they're doing, the selection process right now without the passage?

215. 0:25:33

     So a lot of them are us- utilizing qualifications-based selection. Um, some people or some, uh, local governments are utilizing just low bid, um, which is one of the worst, uh, procurement practices, um, for architects and engineers, um, primarily because when you're asking for design services, you don't know exactly what you're trying to get. So creating a bid based on, um, something that hasn't been designed is, uh, a little more difficult, um, than like say, on the construction side.

216. 0:26:05

     Um, or they utilize best value, where price is just a component. Um, but studies have shown that once price is, um, part of the procurement practice, um, or part of the procurement process, that kind of chokes out everything else. So this would just say that qualifications, um, are what you should consider first, and then you rank those firms, um, highest to whatever, um, they might all be qualified, and then you enter formal price negotiations.

217. 0:26:44

     In, in the areas, in the areas that are more populated-

218. 0:26:48

     Mm-hmm

219. 0:26:48

     ... they're not gonna have this, this single issue-

220. 0:26:51

     Mm

221. 0:26:51

     ... uh, this, the not be able to get bids. Are there elements of this bill that pr- that prevent essentially bid steering, um, that, uh, that allow the creation of qualifications that essentially create a sole source contract? Because this will allow the awarding of a contract if, if only one bid is submitted. Is that correct?

222. 0:27:11

     Well, that's only if, like, you get one response. Um, when you have some of these larger populations, you're not just gonna get one response.

223. 0:27:20

     You would if it was so strict that only one firm met, met the criteria. That's, that's kind of what I'm getting to. Like, is, is there, are there elements of this bill that prevent, uh, strategic steering of contracts via the stated qualifications? Are there best practices around the qualifications that would be listed?

224. 0:27:37

     Um, there are recommendations for the types of qualifications that local governments can, um, uh, consider in their, um, uh, during their procurement practice. But the goal of the bill is to allow more competitiveness. Um, ACC Georgia represents about 280 firms, and 60% of our firms are 60 individuals or fewer. So, um, this is seen as a s- pro small business, um, policy.

225. 0:28:11

     This is something that we have been working on for over a decade and far precedes my time with the organization.

226. 0:28:20

     All right. I got another question from Chairman Cowsert.

227. 0:28:23

     Just sort of going back on the legislative history of this bill.

228. 0:28:26

     Mm-hmm.

229. 0:28:27

     The original House bill dealt with mobile homes.

230. 0:28:31

     Mm-hmm.

231. 0:28:32

     Had nothing to do with procurement process. Did you have a similar bill to this one that was ever introduced in the House or the Senate that dealt with bids and qualified-

232. 0:28:42

     Yes

233. 0:28:43

     ... vendors? What was that bill number, and what committee was it assigned to?

234. 0:28:46

     HB 152-

235. 0:28:50

     Did it pass the House?

236. 0:28:50

     ... I believe. It did not pass the House.

237. 0:28:53

     Okay.

238. 0:28:53

     Um, SB 51 did pass House Government Affairs. And this, this bill is SB 51-

239. 0:29:01

     Okay

240. 0:29:01

     ... the substitute.

241. 0:29:02

     So it h- it passed House Government Affairs but never came to the floor of the House-

242. 0:29:06

     Mm-hmm

243. 0:29:06

     ... last year?

244. 0:29:07

     Mm-hmm.

245. 0:29:08

     That's identical to this one?

246. 0:29:10

     Yes. The only change is the effective date because when we were talking with the local governments, we said that we would give them, um, like, a year and a half. Um, so SB 51 says an effective date of July of 2026. Um, this says July 2027.

247. 0:29:29

     Any other questions? All right. Look, I'm gonna, um, I'm gonna hold the vote on this until the House sponsor is able to make it and maybe clarify some of our questions for us and, um, maybe give him a little more time to educate the committee. Um, and so with that, um-

248. 0:29:50

     Meeting adjourned

249. 0:29:51

     ... meeting is adjourned. Thank you, Vice Chairman.

250. 0:30:15

     Meeting is adjourned.