Comité Government Oversight del Senado, 12 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:14:12

   Sign up on any of the bills. We got a sign-up sheet right here on the table. So, so we'll just give a few more minutes, 'cause I do believe we got a couple more members on the way, and we'll wait to start when they get here. Or we'll start without them.

2. 0:16:05

   Well, we'll go ahead and get this, uh, meeting started. Um,

3. 0:16:10

   let's see here. We talked about the call-in, or the write-in sign-in sheet. We'll get it going here in a minute. Um, at this time, if would, uh, Senator Dickerson, would you lead us in a quick word of prayer, please?

4. 0:16:22

   Okay.

5. 0:16:22

   What's your number?

6. 0:16:23

   11.

7. 0:16:24

   Gotcha.

8. 0:16:25

   Be happy to. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this great and glorious and beautiful day. Thank you for allowing all of us to, to serve you and, and the, and the greater good that you continue to, to press upon our hearts. Lord, I'd ask you just continue to be with us, with us here today. I'd ask you to guide us, nurture us, love us, and protect us. I'd ask you to give us the wisdom to make the very best decisions that we can. Lord, I know that we're not perfect, and I know that none of us are, but I know that we continue to guide and, and walk with, uh, uh, with, with you in mind. And Lord, I'd ask you just continue to, to give us that wisdom today as we continue to work through and do the, do the people's work here at the State Capitol.

9. 0:17:01

   Again, Lord, thank you for this great and glorious and beautiful day. Thank you for your love and your support. Continue to bless every single one of us here, uh, and everybody in the state of Georgia. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

10. 0:17:10

    Amen.

11. 0:17:14

    Thank you, sir. Um, on the agenda today, we only have two bills. We had three, but one was pulled. That was Sen- Bill 117. We're gonna start with, uh, House Bill 485, Representative Yearta. You probably have one of the easiest bills. This bill went through this committee last year. I believe there was one change on this bill. That was on line 334. I believe we at, there was an extra zero added on that. But, um, if you would, you can go ahead and present your bill.

12. 0:17:44

    Sure. Thank- thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to, to come back to you guys this morning. And, uh, we're working off, uh, LC 394922S. And this, this bill, as, as you stated, passed the committee last year. I think it was pretty much unanimous. Uh, this is, uh-

13. 0:18:05

    Yeah

14. 0:18:06

    ... kinda similar to a code revision bill. Uh, 485, uh, serves a similar function, uh, and it cleans up the code in a number of ways. Uh, first, it streamlines and modernizes technology as well as some federal references to Georgia law. For example, references to the No Child Left Behind Act have been updated in law, and now is the Every Student Succeeds Act. Second, the bill re- repeals provisions contingent upon funding that has remained unfunded since 2013, and one of which has been unfunded since 1983.

15. 0:18:44

    Finally, the bill, uh, repeals unconstitutional portions of num- a number of laws with new language, uh, that has been reena- reenacted, uh, constitutional posit- portions of the laws. Some of these provisions were struck down by the courts as far back as 1980s. Uh, any un- constitutional pro- portions of the law that require further debate and policy discussions by the general assembly were not included in this bill. So it's basically a cleanup bill.

16. 0:19:14

    Uh, uh, and, uh, leg council worked hard on this, uh, last year to, to bring this forth, and I just would appreciate your favorable consideration.

17. 0:19:26

    Uh, thank you, sir. Is there any questions on the committee? Seeing one flashing, number 10.

18. 0:19:33

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Uh, Representative Yearta, great to see you as always, my friend.

19. 0:19:37

    Well, thank you.

20. 0:19:38

    Uh, just have one quick question, uh, down on line 307, under Section 34, which is about the traffic violations. And I think we had this conversation last year, but to refresh my memory and maybe some of the committee members, uh, we have some new ones. Uh, for a traffic violation, can you give us a description of what that is? Uh, as an example, you know, there's a super speeder, which is a more criminal violation versus, uh, something that would be more, um, or less, uh, severe-

21. 0:20:10

    Mm-hmm

22. 0:20:10

    ... uh, under a regular violation. Could you just give us a little of your input, please?

23. 0:20:16

    Um, any, uh... This is just look- what it, what this section is dealing with is something that was, uh, unconstitutional, so this actually makes it, uh, this, what you're describing makes it constitutional as far as the Georgia law goes.

24. 0:20:37

    Okay. Thank you.

25. 0:20:38

    Okay.

26. 0:20:42

    He's on 13.

27. 0:20:44

    Yes, sir.

28. 0:20:45

    Yep.

29. 0:20:45

    Uh, thank you so much. I appreciate the-

30. 0:20:47

    Yeah, sure

31. 0:20:47

    ... presentation. Um, just looking through, um, Section 3-5, uh, beginning in verse, or not verse. Excuse me. Been at church recently. Um, lines, uh, 317 and 318.

32. 0:21:02

    Okay.

33. 0:21:02

    Um, can you give me more clarification about this, uh, as far as the purpose of this? Is it making it, uh, s- is this stiffer penalties for folks who are late on their taxes? Is... I just, I wanna make sure I better understand this.

34. 0:21:16

    No. Um, ag- again, this is not changing policy. This is just, uh, following what's in the code and what's constitutional to Georgia law.

35. 0:21:25

    Okay.

36. 0:21:28

    So it's not changing anything, just we're aligning it.

37. 0:21:32

    That's correct.

38. 0:21:32

    Just wanna make sure I can explain this to my constituents and-

39. 0:21:34

    Right. We're just aligning it with what's constitutional in, in, in the, in, uh, you know, the federal Constitution.

40. 0:21:42

    All right. Thank you so much.

41. 0:21:44

    Yes, sir.

42. 0:21:48

    Any other questions for the presenter?

43. 0:21:53

    What will be the pleasure of the committee?

44. 0:21:56

    I'll make a motion to be passed, Mr. Chairman.

45. 0:21:58

    We got, we got a motion to be passed. Do we have a second? We got two seconds. That Wicks be the second. Any, any further discuss- discussions on the bill? Hearing none, all those in favor raise your right hand.

46. 0:22:17

    Okay, bill passes unanimously. Uh, Senator Hatchett-

47. 0:22:21

    That's correct.

48. 0:22:21

    Still going, going to handle this?

49. 0:22:22

    Yeah, he agreed to it last year, and I, I think he will do that again. I'll have to read it, Senator.

50. 0:22:29

    Thank you very much.

51. 0:22:29

    Thank you very much for your time.

52. 0:22:38

    Okay, next bill that we got coming up is gonna be House Bill 377. Uh, Senator Setzler, if you want to come on up. This bill's a little bit different. This did not come through this committee. This went actually through banking last year. Um, so we're gonna be working off the Senate substitute to House Bill 377, LC 473975S. I believe this is a-- totally changed the scope from the last bill, because the last bill was in a other language that was passed and signed into law.

53. 0:23:11

    So, um, Senator Setzler, if you will walk us through this, make sure we're all understanding what's going on, on, on this bill.

54. 0:23:19

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm happy to bring before you today HB 377, LC version 473975S. This underlying language passed the Senate last year overwhelmingly. Um, it was, uh, um, eighty-plus percent vote. Um, do we know? Fifty-four to one. Fifty-four to one. Yeah, fifty-four to one vote last year. Thank you. What it does is it, it's, it puts in place the same selection process for architects and engineers in, at the local government level that is federal law and state law.

55. 0:23:56

    Um, under federal law, it is, it is against the law to hire an architect or engineer for a project on a low-fee basis. It's against state law, um, for any state agency, to include the university system, to hire an architect or engineer on a low-fee basis. Um, the reason is, is public safety. And when you think about the way, um, projects are evolved and work, the purpose of hiring architects and engineers is to develop a set of requirements that are very detailed, very rigorous, and have all the technical points established in place so that the government can then go to bid and have construction contractors bid on a low-fee basis.

56. 0:24:36

    That's the purpose of it. Um, and it-- So to generate these, these documents, uh, it's been recognized for, for decades, uh, at the federal level and, uh, almost twenty years at the state level that from a safety perspective, if you low bid the architecture and engineering process, um, because the, the procurement staff really can't define the requirements adequately enough to, to, to, to, to, to lock in the scope for an architect and engineer, um, the-- it, it really endangers the process to put the architect and engineer who's being hired really as the agent and the trusted advisor for the government on a low-fee basis.

57. 0:25:16

    As you get into projects, oftentimes the scope is still evolving. The, the, the, the client knows, "Hey, we want to get a new building here, um, and we'd like to get it done by end of next year." Well, they don't-- Until, till the A&E firm is hired, you don't know if you have wetlands, you don't know if there's going to be underground utilities. You've not done the engineering and due diligence to figure out what's, what the scope of the project even is. So if architects and engineers are hired on a low-fee basis, they come in, they're automatically on the defensive. They're saying, "Well, you, you know, your procurement staff gave us these two paragraphs.

58. 0:25:46

    We're just going to do what's in the two paragraphs. That's all we can do." And what ends up happening is it puts the, the government at odds with their trusted advisor, and it does-- the project doesn't progress in a positive way. That's why for decades, the federal government, it's against the law for federal agencies to pro-procure on a low-fee basis. What happens, though, and the reason the government gets tremendous pricing power in a QBS selection process is if, uh, a, say, say, uh, Senator Parent is the head of a A&E firm, and she's selected as the most qualified firm. Um, if you've got a, if you've got a, a prospect to design a twenty-million-dollar building, um, you've been selected on qualification-based selection.

59. 0:26:25

    Um, there's some scope negotiation. There's fee negotiation. Fee travels with scope. Um, the power the government has now over this firm to say, "We really-- We think your fee needs to be lower. We think your fees are too high." "Yes, okay." You've given us all these scope changes. We've negotiated fifteen or twenty tweaks to the scope, so now our scope's right. We, we, because, you know, we didn't have the ability to create a scope until the experts came on board. We have the experts on board. The scope's now established. Fee should ma- should match scope. The reason the government maintains such powerful pricing power in a QBS environment is, is if Senator Parent decides, "You know what?

60. 0:26:59

    We've established scope. All the uncertainties are gone. Um, my fee needs to be eight hundred thousand dollars." And if the government thinks it needs to be seven hundred thousand, and we're not going to pay any more than that, okay. They simply close out negotiations with Senator Parent's firm, and they move on to the second most qualified firm, Senator Dickerson's firm, and they can, uh, move on and, and get to a fee that they, the government feels comfortable with. So the government has tremendous pricing power over the architect and engineer. But they're in the room with the expert. They're in the room with the most qualified firm to do this back-and-forth negotiation of scope and fees.

61. 0:27:33

    They go together. So you lock something in that's best value for the government. And if, if there's a sense that the, the A&E firm is, is not being reasonable, they simply say, "You know what? We're done." They move on to number two, and they've, they're able to negotiate a fee that's to the benefit of the government. That process Uh, would be akin to how we would hire an attorney, how we would hire a-a-a accountant, and this just clarifies that the state and local... That like state government agencies, like our universities, and like our federal agencies, um, local governments would follow the same process.

62. 0:28:08

    Um, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to talk too long about this and confuse people, but I will share a couple examples, um, 'cause this, this will be new to this committee perhaps. When you think about the overall construction process, if you think about a construction project, take a $10 million project. When you see bids come in, bids can range six, eight, 10, 12, 15% in price. The fees for A&E firms for the same scope might range, in terms of total construction, um, it's just a very small, ve-very small portion of that.

63. 0:28:42

    Um, if A&E fees are six, eight percent of, to 10% of construction, any ve... You know, a 5% deviation in, in the A&E fee is a fraction of a percentage point in the overall project cost. But the, the, the advantage of having the most qualified A&E firm on the team is, with the proper scope, is the, the level of effort and the details that are involved to lock down all the requirements, um, really give the g- put the government in the best position to save money on the back end, which is during construction.

64. 0:29:14

    You think about... I'll, I'll share an example. Um, you know, to, to get a permitted project, um, you can submit a s- set of drawings that are pretty straightforward. They meet, they meet code requirements. Um, but to really lock something down and lock down the contractor to meet quality standards, um, instead of just putting out a sheet of drawings that might meet minimum requirements, putting in detailed requirements for the, the, the quality of the concrete, what the concrete testing's gonna look like, what the aggregate mix is gonna be, all these things that really lock down the construction documents like they need to be to provide best value, um, to make sure the government's gonna get what it pays for, and to provide safety to the public, it takes that extra level of effort that the experts, um, who have the adequate budget to deliver the project can deliver.

65. 0:30:04

    If there's, if there's a price, um, competition, then the only thing A&E firms are left to do is to win on fee, which means, "You know what? We c- we'll deliver, we'll deliver you a set of documents that will meet code, but I won't have the 1,200-page spec book to make sure your concrete's right, to make sure your waterproofing's right, to make sure your silicone seal standards are right, to make sure your window, um, windows have the proper shading and things." All those things that are required to lock down the project and make it right won't happen in a low-fee environment, because the A&E firms simply can't afford to do it, because they're put in a perverse position to try to make decisions around pricing.

66. 0:30:42

    So that's why the federal government for decades has not allowed low f- low bid, um, work and awards on actual construction, uh, documents, the, the, the design documents. Um, the state, nearly 20 years ago, put that same standard in place, and that also applies to our university system. All this bill does is applies that same standard to, to the state, uh, to, to local cities and counties for projects over a million dollars. So, um, Mr. Chairman, glad to share some examples, but that's just kind of an opening presentation.

67. 0:31:13

    Glad to take questions.

68. 0:31:15

    And you do have a few questions. Uh, who's on number five?

69. 0:31:19

    That's me.

70. 0:31:19

    Is that you? All right. You're on.

71. 0:31:21

    Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairman Bearden. S- Hey, hi, state senators. So I have a couple of questions, as there are some concerns about how this will affect our smaller local government.

72. 0:31:30

    Bet.

73. 0:31:30

    No, not everybody is Gwinnett or Fulton.

74. 0:31:32

    Sure.

75. 0:31:32

    So will, um, local governments with, like, small p-procurement, uh, departments struggle with, like, meeting the demands of every project, um, or the service comprehensively? Will, will they have struggles there, those smaller...?

76. 0:31:45

    Yeah. W- this is really designed so that small governments that don't have a, a engineering staff with expertise on hand can be successful. 'Cause if you think about it, um, discerning who the expert is to get the expert in the room is something that small local governments can figure out. They can look at a qualification package from six or eight firms, 10 firms, and think, "You know what? We think these, these three firm- these three or four firms are probably the most qualified. This is probably the best. Let's get them in the room. Let's talk about our scope. Let's get... Let scope and fee work together," and they can land on something that makes sense.

77. 0:32:19

    To go low bid, the local government has to have, small government has to have the expertise to write a detailed scope that anticipates every single element of scope. Um, and you almost have to have, have, have the expertise of the engineer themselves to write a scope to tie the engineer down to the details to hold them accountable to it. Um, an example, you know, you think about, uh, what, what happens when, when you don't have that kind of sophistication. Um, I'll share a personal example. Uh, I was working with a, uh, um, I'll share one in which we were on the losing end and one, one in which we were on the, the, the winning end.

78. 0:32:52

    I'm, I'm an architect. Um, for clients that don't use a quali- qualification-based selection process, um, we had a client that, that, uh, had a very undefined scope. They didn't have the ability to really write one, 'cause they didn't have expertise in-house. It was a, it was out of state. It was actually a, a, a government data center that w- wanted to be retrofitted and upfitted with backup power and, and, and safe- and, and, you know, some safety things with their, with their electrical panels, up-upgrading their panels. They didn't know what they needed. They just wanted to have the right consultant on the ta- on the, in the h- in the room.

79. 0:33:23

    So we, we had a very strong quals package. We won on quals, but unfortunately, they asked us to also put in fee. Um, w-well, I looked at that and I thought, "This is, this is gonna be a, this is gonna be a lot of work." But their scope was one paragraph. They didn't have the ability to write more than that. So I came in and I put a fee of $32,000 on the table. I said, "That's low, but I can always say, 'All you asked me to do is this. We-we'll, we'll, we'll give you this scope for $32,000.'" So I put that in They hired us, uh, got in and, and met with us and said, "We love you guys, love your team, um, but if we- you know, what's, what's the scope here?" And we went through this and said, "Guys, I'm gonna give you this little study for $32,000.

80. 0:34:02

    What you really need is all of this." They said, "Well, yeah, this, this is great." We ended up negotiating a $130,000 contract, 'cause they had no idea what their scope was.

81. 0:34:11

    Mm-hmm.

82. 0:34:12

    I was put in a position to say, "You know what? I looked at this and I thought the last one we, we did like this was about 130 or $140,000. But the scope they wrote was so unclear and so uncertain, and I know they don't know what they need. I have no choice. I have to put a $32,000 fee in, because otherwise I'll- someone else can snatch it from me and, and they're more qualified than they were." I was put in a position to have to, to lowball the project to win it. We got in the room. They realized, "You know what? The scope's changed. There's all these other things we need to do," and they, they got us under contract to do this. It's not fair to the taxpayer to risk somebody coming in to, to put a, put a low fee in, where the scope's dramatically different than what the government needs, to put them in the position to do that.

83. 0:34:52

    I, I didn't want to be in that position, but we, we were put there. The inverse of that is we, we did a... I'll, I'll share this. We had another, um... The FAA is the only federal agency that gets away from, gets around qualification-based selection. Uh, my firm has done a decent amount of work with, with the FAA doing air traffic control towers. Uh, we did a study, um, a, a, a renovation study for the air traffic control tower at MIA Airport in Miami. Um, we had... They paid us about $12,000 to go in and do an engineering study about all the requirements.

84. 0:35:22

    Um, so we, we, we put this, put for the study. FAA took the study and said, "Okay, this is a very detailed scope." They, they actually took, took the effort to put the scope in, um, advertised it, put it out. Um, we knew what the requirements were. Our, our, our s- our fee for the project was $180,000. We knew it was gonna be nothing less. That was a tight fee for us. You know what they awarded it at? They awarded it to somebody for $51,000.

85. 0:35:44

    Mm.

86. 0:35:45

    Now, they're gonna come in and say, "Well, we didn't know this. We didn't know that." There, there is no doubt they ended up spending over $200,000 for that scope, 'cause those folks didn't know what we knew going in. Um, but when you put pos- people in the position to low-bid things, you have the firm who knows, has intimate knowledge of the requirements, putting in a req- putting in a fee of 180, and some guy came in and low-balled it at 51 and won the work. The g- the public is not well-served by that, because they're gonna get the, th- it- it's, that, they're not, you can't get the service.

87. 0:36:18

    Right.

88. 0:36:19

    Our fee structure's the same as the, the other firms. You're not gonna get the service for $50,000 you can get for 180, and we knew it took nothing less than 180 to do it.

89. 0:36:26

    And that, and I just had a follow-up question with that. So with that, sometimes the low bidder is chosen, and how often, or do you know how often when there is, like, a low bidder and then there's some issues with, like, quality and cost overrun?

90. 0:36:39

    Every time that you take a fully qualified firm who understands the scope that's gonna bid $180,000 on a, on a contract, and someone else comes in at 50, 100% of the time there will be problems. There's no way to do the work. And the reason we do this is for small s- governments who don't have the sophistication, the thing they can figure out is, "Who's the expert? Let me get them in the room. We'll talk about the scope. We don't have the ability to really understand it. And once we figure out scope, scope and fee can travel together.

91. 0:37:09

    And if we don't like the fee when it's all said and done, we think they're playing a game with us, we can move on to number two and have the same conversation with them." But we, the small government, have the pow- have the power at the end of the day. If we think we're not, we're not getting a good fee, we can walk.

92. 0:37:22

    Mm-hmm.

93. 0:37:23

    And with the power we have over the consultant is they know they've got the work-

94. 0:37:27

    Mm-hmm

95. 0:37:27

    ... as long as they're, they're willing to be reasonable on their fee.

96. 0:37:29

    Okay. And you got questions lining up. Um-

97. 0:37:32

    Great. Love it.

98. 0:37:32

    You good?

99. 0:37:33

    I started.

100. 0:37:33

     Th- this, this is an education process, Mr. Chairman. It really is.

101. 0:37:37

     Okay. Uh, Senator Kirkpatrick.

102. 0:37:38

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thanks to my senator from Cobb County, my fellow senator. And, uh, you know so much more about this than I do, but I just had a very simple question. Isn't it true that this applies to roads and bridges as well as buildings?

103. 0:37:54

     It does. Very importantly so.

104. 0:37:56

     Thank you.

105. 0:37:57

     Yeah.

106. 0:37:59

     Now we're cooking. Uh, Senator Wicks, believe you're, what, is that 13 or 12? Okay.

107. 0:38:05

     And, and, and Mr. Chairman, to, to Senator Kirkpatrick's point, just very, very briefly, you think about, um, when- when- whenever I drive over Spaghetti Junction going from 285, kind of around to 85, I think about, you know, the, the, when they poured the concrete, the structural concrete on those columns, I want to make sure that the specification for that concrete is a 4,500 PSI concrete with the right mix. They've got the right testing standard, and the, um, to, to test the concrete as it's being poured to make sure the concrete's done properly.

108. 0:38:35

     If it's, if it's improper, it's gonna be destroyed and replaced. That doesn't get done without going to all these nitty-gritty details.

109. 0:38:43

     Okay.

110. 0:38:44

     Um, the software to do those specs costs $5,500 a year just for a subscription to make sure that you can lock those details in, and you don't get that if you, if you're low bidding your work.

111. 0:38:53

     Okay. Senator Wicks.

112. 0:38:54

     Good morning. I just have a question. How can, uh, local governments gauge the market price if they don't even have a, um, a price estimate?

113. 0:39:04

     Well, what typically happens is, in, in fact, you'll see this on the federal level, um, with the... O- once they've negotiated scope and gotten the scope right with their, with their selected consultant, they have the, the consultant put out a, a, a matrix of all their hours.

114. 0:39:19

     Mm-hmm.

115. 0:39:20

     Um, you know, hourly rates are oftentimes established up front. They're, it's very easy to find standard hourly rates for professional engineer, staff engineer. That's, tho- those are, those are pretty, pretty easily obtained in the marketplace and pretty standard. Um, and they, they lay the hours out by activity. Um, and if there's, if it's a big project that they have any questions about, they can have a third party look at and, and esta- help them establish reasonableness, uh, if they need to. Um, but it's, when you're in the room with one consultant, you can make them go all cards up and show you all their hours, all their overheads, all their travel expenses.

116. 0:39:56

     It's not just a, it's not just a fee, kind of a darked out fee that you can't understand. You can make them show every single hour for every staff member so you can understand w- really where their dollars are.

117. 0:40:11

     Senator Robertson.

118. 0:40:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

119. 0:40:21

     Come on.

120. 0:40:21

     Senator, what is your occupation?

121. 0:40:24

     I'm an architect.

122. 0:40:25

     Architect. Have you ever done any work for any counties in Georgia?

123. 0:40:32

     I've done work for some cities.

124. 0:40:36

     Okay. Um, have you ever looked at the ACCG handbook, uh, for Georgia County Commissioners, uh, chapter 12, Public Works and Public Utilities?

125. 0:40:47

     I believe their best practices are that the qualification-based selection be used.

126. 0:40:50

     So that would be a yes. Would you be surprised if it said in there, "Selecting a consulting engineer should be done carefully. With larger public work projects, a request for qualifications occurs prior to submitting cost proposals. Generally speaking, selecting engineer- engineering consultants based on their technical merit and expertise, followed by separate negotiations for cost based on the highest ranked technical firm is the preferred approach for procuring engineering services.

127. 0:41:22

     This is known as qualifications-based selections." So would you be surprised to know that that is the recommendation already in the ACCG handbook, and all this legislation does is just codify that and say that is the best way to do it?

128. 0:41:37

     This codifies best practices that-

129. 0:41:39

     Thank you. I appreciate that.

130. 0:41:44

     Okay. We got one more question, then we do got people, a couple of people signed up to speak on the bill. Senator Howard, is that you on thirteen?

131. 0:41:53

     Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much again for your, your presentation.

132. 0:42:03

     I've noticed that there's a lot of, um, of the little guys and gals who are, um, realize they, they, they can't break through those government contracts. They just can't get in. There's people who've been working with municipalities and states 'cause they, they understand the game, and they've been in it sometimes for decades. And then you have this whole generation of folks who are trying to get off the ground.

133. 0:42:35

     This bill, I really love the intent of the bill 'cause it's really talking about safety, and I think you make some excellent points. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around interior designers who know that they can get the job done at a lower cost than a well-established firm that has a much higher overhead. They have a beautiful building overlooking, um, overlooking the river. But this other firm's coming in and saying, "I can do this for much lower, and I'll eat the cost because I just wanna get in." And there's a local, uh, municipality that says, "You know what?

134. 0:43:12

     I've seen them do some work on some, on a smaller scale. Let's, let's get them in the door."

135. 0:43:19

     Is my concern valid based on how I'm presenting it, or do you think that this bill actually helps these people break through, specifically, for example, the interior designer who wants to break through?

136. 0:43:37

     I love the senator's question, and I wanna direct you to line eighty-seven through eighty-nine. Um, I left a large firm in two thousand twenty-three and, and started my own firm. I, I-- By the way, I do, most of my work I do for the federal government. One of the reasons I, I try to-- I don't do state agency work. I feel like as a state senator, it'd be a little bit weird for me to do that. So I work for mostly federal agencies. I do work for some local governments. Um, I, on line eighty-seven, this is an important part of the bill for me.

137. 0:44:07

     Um, now there's a, there's an established process that the Board of Regents uses, and it's also used by, uh, the State of Georgia GSFIC for, for bonded projects and also state agencies that's, that's pretty well established. What we added in this bill, um, the qualifications may be considered by a local government in the evaluation of proposals for professional services. And again, this, this is the emphasis I would offer to the senator that matters a lot to me. Shall be determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the local government based on the s- specific project for which professional services are required and shall be set forth in the public advertised request for proposals.

138. 0:44:45

     We give local governments the absolute power to set whatever criteria they want to for these projects. I would not support this bill if it mandated the Board of Regents process and the University System of Georgia process be used by local governments. It's a very good process. Their, the Board of Regents process is a good one, but the criticism has been that those who've done projects with the regents again and again and again, that the, the re-- they tend to be awarded another and another and another. Um, that, that criticism's been leveled for, for our large cap projects.

139. 0:45:16

     Things we vote on in state budget, um, y- there is sort of a tier to kind of break into at the state level for those kinds of projects because they're big bonded projects. There's a reason for that. This piece in this bill is essential to me. Local governments can set whatever criteria they want to. So if their criteria is, "You know what? If, you know, we're down in Tift County, we wanna have a hundred-mile radius around our s- our county. So you gotta be within a hundred miles of us to do the work 'cause we don't want a firm that's four hours away and can't make site visits." This s- this, this sentence on eighty-seven and eighty-nine's essential to your point.

140. 0:45:50

     This gives small guys the chance to break in. If locals say, "Hey, listen, we want a small firm. We're gonna set a size cap at a fifteen million dollar or less firm. We wanna have, uh, an opportunity for people who are, you know, uh, again, ge- geofence it, maybe have an office in the county." Sole and absolute discretion of the local government based on the project requirements. That gives the small guy a chance to break in. Otherwise, I wouldn't support the bill.

141. 0:46:13

     If I may, Mr. Chair, one quick follow-up. I know we're trying to-

142. 0:46:16

     Yeah, go ahead.

143. 0:46:17

     One quick follow-up.

144. 0:46:18

     Then based on that, why, why do we have ACCG opposing this mandate, um, with the argument of creating more flexibility for local municipalities? Because I hear you say that it's empowering them, but then you have ACCG saying it's taking discretion away, and it's a little confusing for me. Um-

145. 0:46:37

     Yeah.

146. 0:46:37

     I know a little. You know, I don't-- Obviously you, you've been doing this a long time, but I just wanna make sure I can better explain this, uh, when folks, uh, in my district have questions.

147. 0:46:46

     Well, they're certainly gonna come here soon and explain themselves. I will tell you, I think, I think the, the fair-minded representation of the position is some county governments still like to award on low fee. Um, it's, it's their practice. I don't, I don't think they-- I don't wanna cast shadows. I think there may be a lack of awareness of some of the exposure that, uh, that they're opening the public up to. I think there's a lack of awareness to, again, I could submit sixty drawing sheets and, and permit something and meet code, but the right answer is one hundred and ten drawing sheets with a twelve hundred page spec book to really lock it down.

148. 0:47:26

     I don't think procurement folks really appreciate the differences there and the differences in quality that you're getting and, and what you're exposing yourself to. Um, and again, this is for projects a million dollars and over, which is, you know, it's-- A million dollars ain't-- doesn't buy what it used to buy. But I, I do think there's a couple counties that it's, it's just been their process, and they wanna have-- want the flexibility to maintain their process. I believe the best practices, though, it's time for best practices, I think, w- as, as we're powering things down to counties. We're having TSPLOSTs. We're having more, more money for transportation and bridges.

149. 0:47:57

     Um, I think it's time for best practices, and that's why we added this clause, so we give them the flexibility they need to get the people they want-

150. 0:48:04

     Mm-hmm

151. 0:48:05

     ... uh, and that will serve them well, but still make sure it's not gonna be a race to the bottom on fee.

152. 0:48:12

     Uh, thank you, Senator Setzler. Uh, stick around close. But, uh, we got-- I think we got a tag team effort on this first one. Uh, Kalyn Day from ACCG and Ted Burgess from Fayette County. If y'all wanna come up. You both are opposing, and you both signed on the same line.

153. 0:48:27

     If we go ahead and introduce yourself to the committee, please.

154. 0:48:30

     Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. Again, my name's Kalyn Day with ACCG. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on our position. I'm joined by, uh, Mr. Ted Burgess, who is the procurement director in Fayette County. Um, we've been working this bill for almost now two years, so thank you. It's a pleasure to speak with you today. Um, I just have a few points I'd like to address before I allow, uh, Ted takes the rest of my time. And I'd just like to start by saying we, as you've heard from Senator Robertson, we don't take issue with QBS as a tool in the toolbox of procurement.

155. 0:49:04

     It is a great tool to use if you are the county that has the resources and the, and the s- um, the manpower to take it on. That is just simply not the case for all one hundred and fifty-nine counties. Um, it-- And again, it may be wonderful. It works well. They use it when they have federal projects. But when you get federal money, that is, that is quite a chunk of change that is not just coming from your property taxes, from your community, and you feel a little bit better about being able to spend a little bit more.

156. 0:49:38

     Um, we have found that this method is, is again most used by our larger counties who, with the dedicated staff and resources, as opposed to our smaller counties who might be relying on their county clerk to do this process. Um, many of them are currently using the traditional RFP process, which just to be clear, you see the price and you see all these qualifications. That way you can garner what the, the market price is, what generally, you know, are you grossly overspending on a project.

157. 0:50:08

     I, I think that's something counties deser- not only need to know, they deserve to know. Because at the end of the day, they turn around to their constituents and say, "Hey, we really wanted to give you this new facility, and we didn't grossly overpay to do it. We didn't have a large firm come out of nowhere when we coulda had someone, um, closer to the community do it for us." We just want-- We-- While I completely respect the points brought up by Senator Setzler, he is incredibly knowledgeable on this issue, and we've, we've talked at length about this bill and, and, and looked for compromise.

158. 0:50:41

     But respectfully, I've taken this to my policy council of county commissioners multiple times, and they do not feel comfortable with this bill. And I'll turn it over to Ted. Thank you.

159. 0:50:53

     Thank you, Kalyn.

160. 0:50:54

     Mm-hmm.

161. 0:50:55

     Good, good morning, s- senators, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. My name is Ted Burgess. I am the chief procurement officer for Fayette County. In respec- in respect for your busy schedules, I'll keep my, my comments real brief this morning. But first, uh, uh, it's, it's been said that this is a issue of choosing a qualified professional versus the lowest bidder. Uh, last winter, we asked Georgia counties what method they primarily use to select architects and engineers.

162. 0:51:25

     Ninety-two percent of the responders said that they don't use the low bid as their primary method, uh, to select personal services firms. The most used, used method was the traditional RFP. And with the RFP, we consider the same qualifications, as Kalyn said, as under the QBS method, uh, but it also gives us information to make a good financial decision. Second is the concept of negotiating a fair and reasonable price. It's not defined in the bill. The concept does occur in various places in public sector procurement requirements.

163. 0:52:00

     Although, to be clear now, it doesn't include the, uh, architectural or, or engineering services because, as we said, th-those are carved out by the b-- Federal Brooks Act. Uh, the, the U.S. Defense Acquisition University describes it as the price that a prudent businessperson would pay for an item or service under competitive market conditions given a reasonable knowledge of the marketplace It, it lists, it lists techniques for making a fair and reasonable determination with the first two being com- uh, A, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, and B, comparison of previously proposed prices and previously contracted prices with, with the current pr- uh, proposed prices for like items.

164. 0:52:47

     Again, while this does not include the QBS-related services, it does help us to understand the concept of a fair and reasonable price. The proposed legislation does prohibit the use of, of either of these two powerful methods for determining price that I just listed. Next, I agree that QBS is a good proven method for selecting professional services firms under the right conditions. State law provides for state agencies to use the QBS method, as, as has been discussed this morning.

165. 0:53:18

     However, there are significant differences between state-level projects and local projects. There's differences in complexity, quantity, cost, and everything. Uh, for example, uh, in fiscal year 2024, GDOT issued 1,342 engineering and design contracts just for road construction projects, worth a total of $747 million. Their Office of Procurement has 13 positions dedicated to the engineering and design contracts for the, for the road projects.

166. 0:53:50

     This enables them to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to properly negotiate a complex QBS agreement with th- that's gonna have a substantial price tag. But many local governments don't have the same opportunity to develop the specialized knowledge to negotiate professional services contracts on a level playing field. And last, local governments have several methods available for selecting a professional services firm. Using QBS as the only tool for the job may not always produce the best results.

167. 0:54:22

     Uh, for example, QBS legislation has been passed in a good many states, but a number of these states that, uh, changes have been proposed to s- to scale back the QBS requirements. Uh, uh, these include, like, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Uh, you know, so, so it looks like it is, it's kind of a, a, a living document there. But, uh, that concludes my, uh, uh, my comments and I, and I thank you for the opportunity.

168. 0:54:49

     You had a couple questions. Senator Albers.

169. 0:54:51

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for being, uh, here from Fayette and ACCG. We always appreciate your testimony. I, I guess where my question, and I struggle a little bit, is I... Seems like that this bill still allows you to do everything you were doing before, um, only put some, some parameters around that. So I guess I'm, I'm not understanding why you all would be opposed to something that seems to give you the best of both worlds.

170. 0:55:15

     Uh, yes, sir. Okay. Well, uh, uh, it do- it does do some restricting. For example, uh, with our traditional RFP process, which is, which is what, uh, most of us primarily use, okay, you, you ask, you ask for th- the, the firms to, okay, tell us your understanding of this project and tell us h- how you, how you would address it, the, what you would do, and give us a price. QBS does not allow us to, to ask for a price until we've actually selected the-

171. 0:55:44

     Mm-hmm

172. 0:55:44

     ... the chosen firm, and then, and, and only then can we ask them to send in a price.

173. 0:55:49

     And if I can add to that, Ted, and respectfully, Chairman.

174. 0:55:52

     Yeah.

175. 0:55:52

     If the county is only able, when they get into contracts, and they're getting into contracts with these, let's just say, Cadillac level, level firms, it's more likely that after so many times getting into a contract and that failing out, they're just not gonna pursue that project any longer 'cause they think they can't afford it. And I, I, I really respect and understand the impetus of the bill, but ultimately, yes, they have this as a tool in their toolbox to use now when they have the discretion or when they have the comfortability, the discretionary in their funds to do it.

176. 0:56:27

     But mandating this is, is, is not at, we feel, in the best interest.

177. 0:56:31

     So you have follow-up, Senator Albers.

178. 0:56:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and I appreciate that response. I, I guess I'm, I'm not reading it that way. And, and having been a person who's contracted with thousands of, of people over 30 years-

179. 0:56:43

     Mm-hmm

180. 0:56:43

     ... I have found that when you go into with a, a low bid price like that and you don't have all the, the items together, you end up costing, with change orders and other stuff, sometimes, you know, a multiple of what that is. Because even in a less complex world, and this is probably one of the most complex, in the least complex, without having the knowledge, then we're really not being good fiduciaries of building that price to begin with. Uh, you know, it's almost a moving target. Um, so I guess I'm struggling with, you know, this sounds like good, sound policy and fiscal responsibility-

181. 0:57:13

     Mm-hmm

182. 0:57:13

     ... versus not. And again, I appreciate certainly the role you play, Sarah, and, and ACG's, ACCG's, you know, looking at 159 counties, but it, it's hard for me to justify this not being a no-brainer.

183. 0:57:25

     Mm-hmm.

184. 0:57:27

     Senator Howard.

185. 0:57:35

     Something-

186. 0:57:35

     Uh, there you go.

187. 0:57:35

     Okay, thanks.

188. 0:57:35

     I'm sorry. That was, that was on me.

189. 0:57:37

     No, that was my fault. Uh, thank you again. Uh, thank you for the presentation. Um, just hearing both presentations, it sounds like, um, if we maybe hold on this to kind of discuss it more with our local municipalities, um, in the meantime, we're, we're giving our local folks more local control, more flexibility, and more freedom. 'Cause I'm, I'm hearing that you have tools in your toolbox. I'm hearing the RFP process is the most commonly used.

190. 0:58:08

     You, there's a place, uh, for different strategies. I'm hearing a lot about low bid, but I don't think low bid is the most commonly used. It's, again, a tool. Um, it's a simple tool. Um, and, uh, I'm sure there are some specific situations. Uh, we're talking about, uh, I'm look- looking here, architects Um, interior designers, uh, landscape architects, so land surveyors. I mean, this is a wide range of what this bill would, um, would be, uh, attached to.

191. 0:58:39

     I, I just, it seems like holding on this really helps to make sure that we are promoting local control, not having a very heavy-handed top-down approach, and it seems like it gives more room for the little guy. Um, if we, if we hold on this, it... I would love to talk more because it, it doesn't seem like this cry out is coming from the cities and the counties. It seems like it's coming from somewhere else, and I'm just... I know I'm, I'm coming late to the party, but I, I, I really think this is interesting and important work.

192. 0:59:11

     So I'd hate to, for the state government to kind of come heavy-handed when maybe there's room for more compromise. So I just wanted to share that. I, I think I'm reading the room properly, so I think there's room for us to work together here.

193. 0:59:25

     Thank you, Senator.

194. 0:59:27

     Uh, Senator Kemp.

195. 0:59:28

     Um, uh, thank y'all so much for the presentation. Um, you mentioned that 92% use what, uh, process for the-

196. 0:59:38

     Request for proposals.

197. 0:59:39

     Okay.

198. 0:59:39

     So that allows them to ask for qualified... Uh, the same things that would be in qualified-based selection, so all the, uh, qualifiers of that firm, but also ask them, what is the price you would likely do this for?

199. 0:59:51

     And, and so is there any data that shows the percentage of this is how much it was proposed to be? Because a lot of times we see costs, you, you know-

200. 1:00:01

     Change, yeah

201. 1:00:02

     ... a project is say, "Oh, it's going to cost this much," and then it balloons to a whole lot more-

202. 1:00:06

     Mm-hmm

203. 1:00:07

     ... from what was originally told. So is there any data that shows, like, how mu- how, how much it stays within that range of what was proposed when it was first bid?

204. 1:00:19

     I'm, I'm not aware of any, of, of any data showing that. We d- we didn't ask that question on the survey.

205. 1:00:25

     But Ted, could you maybe speak to your personal experience in Fayette County, how often maybe that happens?

206. 1:00:31

     Ok- okay, yes. Uh, yes, as far as, as far as, uh, change orders and all, uh, w- you know, we, we watch it, we watch it pretty carefully. And, and when our, when we, uh, uh, execute the contract, it, it st- it states in there the specific things that, that the, that the company is going to do. And when they ask for a change order, we look at it and say, "All right, why, why is, why is the change order being asked for?" And if it's, you know, if, if it's something that's outside the scope of the contract, okay, and, and w- or it's something we, we've, we need, we've asked for, uh, certainly, you know, we'd, uh, you know, we would, we would say, "Yes, that, that change order is needed," and go with it.

207. 1:01:11

     But if it's, if it's, if it's something that, that was, that was included in the, in the contract that the contractor is supposed to be doing, then, uh, you know, we s- we say, "Well, no, y- you're, you're already contracted to do that, uh, with a not to exceed price."

208. 1:01:26

     And, and if I may, just one more question. When you all are looking at the cost and the qualifications, how often is the cost the determining factor over the qualifications?

209. 1:01:40

     Okay, the, uh, the way w- the way we do it, we have it, we have it structured so that it's kind of a level, level playing field fair. Uh, in, in most cases, we, uh, we, we give, we give scores. 70% of the, of the score, evaluation score is, is based on what we call technical merit, everything but price. And then 30% is price. And, and, uh, and u- you know, using, using those, it has, you know, it, it has served us well.

210. 1:02:10

     Okay, no further questions. Thank you.

211. 1:02:15

     Thank you. Senator Kirkpatrick.

212. 1:02:17

     Yes, Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion do pass.

213. 1:02:21

     Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. The motion definitely takes precedent, so, um, any questions? We got a motion and a second.

214. 1:02:32

     Second.

215. 1:02:33

     Oh.

216. 1:02:33

     Who seconded?

217. 1:02:34

     Uh, who seconded that? There's about three, but who wants to take credit? Uh, Senator Albers.

218. 1:02:41

     Okay, no questions on that. All those in favor, raise your right hand.

219. 1:02:52

     All those opposed, right hand. One, two. Okay, it carries. Uh-

220. 1:02:58

     Thank you, Committee

221. 1:02:59

     ... you other speakers don't have to speak. Before we wrap this up, we do have a couple housekeeping things I want to bring up to your attention. There's gonna be a report from the Depa- Department of Audits that's gonna be delivered to all of your, uh, offices. Um, it'll probably be on your, in your office no later than Tuesday. So when we get back, it will definitely be there. It may be there today. This pertains to the State Victims' Services Commission. Look at that audit. There's gonna be a one-pager with it. I'll put a cover sheet on that as well.

222. 1:03:29

     We'll probably be having that hearing within the next two weeks. So, uh, this is the oversight committee. There's something we believe that needs to be looked at, so we're gonna take a look at it. Um, second part, mark your calendars for March 10th. I hope you may have got an email by now. That's a committee day, but the next day is a... I'm sorry, that's a regular legislative day. The next day is a committee work day. So March 10th, we're gonna do a little committee dinner. We're gonna have some, relax, have a good time with that, and, uh, get ready to finish out the session.

223. 1:04:00

     So with that, motion to adjourn. I'll make it. Uh I'll second. We'll second it. Second. Uh, I appreciate everyone being here today, and, uh, meeting is adjourned.