Relates to providing an exemption for school districts from requirements for separate specifications for public works

Section 2 amends Section 101 of the general municipal law by adding a new subdivision 5 allowing school districts to hire a single contractor for work on school district facilities. School districts electing a single contractor may require the apparent low bidder and second low bidder to submit the names of the bidder's proposed subcontractors which may be rejected by a school district on the Same basis a single contractor's bid may be refused. Proposed and approved subcontractors may not be changed without written approval of the school district. Payment of subcontractors shall be in accordance with Section 106-b of the General Municipal Law (prompt payment). The bidder shall specify the value to be paid to each subcontractor. A school district may reject any bid if the business organization, resources, financial standing, or experience of the bidder justifies such rejection.

Section 3 sets the effective date and the length of the terms of this provision to be five years.

Justification

Currently, the Wicks statute requires school districts to award separate bids for general contracting, electrical, plumbing and heating/venting/air conditioning on all projects exceeding $50,000. New York State is the only state to impose these requirements on public projects. Abolishing the Wicks law has been a priority issue for school officials for the last few decades, as well as many concerned real property tax payers.

School officials claim that without a single contractor in charge, coordination of the project presents difficulties for a district. In addition, delays often occur resulting in a costlier project and more disruptions for the students and school personnel while construction is ongoing.

While most public works projects are required to award separate bids, exceptions have been granted over the years to allow for the election of single bid contracts. Exceptions include the New York City Construction Authority (Chapter 738,L.1988) which has had an exemption from Wicks since 1988 and was again recently renewed in 2004 for another five year period. In addition, individual exemptions have been made for specific school projects for the Ithaca City School District (Chapter 500,L.1997), Niagara Falls School District (Chapter 562,L.1996), and the Buffalo School District (Chapter 605, L.2000). The State University Construction Fund (SUCF) is also free from the Wicks mandate. SUCF has built over $2 billion worth of SUNY campuses and has demonstrated that "bid shopping" has not been a problem on single award contracts. In 1999, a Wicks analysis on public construction in New York City provided by Pricewaterhouse Coopers concluded that projects built under the Wicks law cost significantly more and took longer to build than similar projects not subject to the Wicks requirements. Other studies and reports (NYS School Boards Association, 1991; NYS Division of Budget, 1987; Niagara Falls School District, 1996) had similar findings indicating a 10% to 30% savings on projects completed without Wicks. School districts faced with fiscal constraints need the flexibility offered in this bill and taxpayers need the relief currently afforded to the New York City School Construction Authority. The fact that the State has continuously renewed the Wicks exemption for New York City schools since 1988 indicates that a cost savings has been achieved by eliminating the multiple award requirement. School districts outside of the city of New York should be afforded the same opportunity to award a single contractor instead of the presently required multiple contractors. Nothing in this bill precludes a school board, in its discretion, from entering into a Project Labor Agreement.

Legislative history

2007-2008: S.2986-A - Advanced to third reading 2005-2006: S.4759-A - Advanced to third reading

Fiscal implications

Cost savings to the state is anticipated as the state provides school districts with a percentage of their building costs through building aid.

Local fiscal implications

Significant cost savings to the local school districts is anticipated.

Effective date

Effective September 1 next succeeding date and expires five years thereafter.