Relates to participation by state agencies in a system used by the comptroller to compile vendor responsibility information

Section 2 of this proposal amends Subdivisions 7 and 10 of Section 160 of the State Finance Law in relation to defining information technology for procurement purposes.

Section 3 of this proposal make conforming changes to Paragraphs g and i of Subdivision 2 of Section 161 of the State Finance Law with respect to the definition of information technology.

Section 4 of this proposal make conforming changes to Paragraph k of Subdivision 1 and subdivisions 6 and 7 of Section 163 of the State Finance Law with respect to the definition of information technology and to make certain provisions relating to methods of procurement permanent.

Section 5 of this proposal amends Subdivision 9 of Section 163 of the State Finance Law by adding a new Paragraph c-1 relating to best and final offer.

Section 6 of this proposal amends Paragraph e of Subdivision 10 of Section 163 of the State Finance Law clarifying the use of a contract let by another governmental entity.

Section 7 of this proposal amends Subdivision 3 of Section 112 of the State Finance Law provides that for contracts where consideration cannot be determined in terms of monetary value, it shall be valued in terms of intrinsic value.

Section 8 provides for an immediate effective date and also provides that section one of the bill shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after it shall have become a law, that the provisions of sections four, five and six of this act shall apply to any procurement initiated on or after such sections shall have become a law; provided, further, however, that the amendments to section 163 of the state finance law made by sections four, five, and six of this act shall not affect the repeal of such section as provided in subdivision 5 of section 362 of chapter 83 of the laws of 1995, as amended, and shall be deemed repealed therewith.

Legislative history

New Bill

Justification

Vendor Responsibility: To fully standardize the vendor responsibility review and streamline the contract process and enable a 24-7, online access for vendors to update information easily as information changes. Pursuant to the State Comptroller's responsibility under Section 112 of the State Finance Law to review and approve State contracts, which may include a vendor responsibility review performed by the state agency and the State Comptroller, the State Comptroller finds that mandatory use of the on-line system for filing necessary vendor responsibility information will facilitate an efficient review of a vendor's responsibility thereby streamlining the procurement process for vendors and contracting agencies.

Agencies not on the system require vendors to update in paper with every procurement.

59 agencies use the system now, with more than 11,600 vendors already in the system.

Change references to "technology" in article 11 to "information technology": To clarify the definition of technology, to ensure the definition meets current practice, and ensure future developments in information technology are anticipated. This amendment would also clarify that incidental technology content is not intended to drive a major procurement that is not directly information technology related. Finally, this amendment eliminates stale dates in the law thereby making certain provisions relating to methods of procurement permanent.

Competitive Negotiation with Best and Final Offer: This amendment expands available procurement options to include competitive negotiation with multiple vendors to obtain the best result for taxpayers. The State Comptroller anticipates this change would be useful in highly complex procurements where approaches to meeting the requirements are not pre-defined, to encourage innovative solutions amidst changing industry capabilities, or where there may be opportunities for the state to mitigate risk or expense through non-material tradeoffs.

Where the basis of award is best value and after completing an initial evaluation and scoring, a state agency may choose to make an award at that time based on best value. Or, if the agency believes a better price or outcome can be achieved, competitive negotiations can be conducted with vendors that fall in a competitive range and could potentially be selected based on the final outcome.

Clarifying use of Best and Final Offer: There is a lack of clarity among agencies as to when Best and Final Offers can be utilized to achieve best value for the state; this is intended to help clarify the requirements for use of best and final offers.

Clarifying Use of "Piggyback" Contracts: This amendment is intended to ensure that agencies using the contracts of other entities (local, state, or federal) comply with the intent of the original contract as well as the mechanism for vendor selection in the case of contracts with multiple award options.

Clarify Valuation of Non-Cash Contracts: This amendment clarifies that for contracts with little or no cash actual cash consideration, the intrinsic value of the contract will be used to determine the threshold.

The State Comptroller urges the passage of this proposed legislation. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

None. However, these proposals will help streamline procurements resulting in more effective and efficient procurements at reduced costs.

Effective date

Provides for an immediate effective date, provides that certain provisions take effect on the 180th day and states that certain provisions shall only apply to any procurement initiated on or after such date; and further provides that the amendments to Section 163 of the state finance law shall not affect the repeal of such Section and shall be deemed repealed therewith.