91ÊÓƵ

City officials in Oregon are choosing sides as to whether price should be considered up front when architects are chosen for small public projects.

Senate Bill 644 ignites passions on both sides as it heads toward a vote of the House Consumer Protection and Government Efficiency Committee.

The bill would blind city officials to cost when hiring architects and designers on some public projects worth less than $100,000.

Albany Public Works Director Mark Shepard said officials in his community believe the bill “will lead to higher costs and needlessly drawn-out project schedules for local governments, and will hurt small business.”

Eugene Public Works Director Kurt Corey said such concerns are unfounded.

“QBS results in a less constrained and more creative design process and, as a relatively small part of overall project costs, is the most effective means for assuring both the optimal life-cycle project cost while minimizing disputes and litigation,” he said.

Committee action is scheduled sometime this week, but a work session scheduled for May 28 was postponed. Given opposition to the bill, a work session scheduled for May 30 could also be postponed.

The bill first ignited debate when it came before the Senate Business and Transportation Committee on March 21. Nonetheless, it passed on the Senate floor on April 10 without a single vote in opposition.

At issue for members of the construction industry is the hiring of architects and designers based on a qualifications-based selection process.

Under the current QBS system, if a project is worth more than $250,000, public officials can ask for the qualifications of any number of possible contractors. However, they must be evaluated based strictly on their qualifications. Price cannot enter into the initial decision.

For projects between $100,000 and $250,000, public officials can narrow their search to a handful of possible contractors. What Senate Bill 644 seeks to do is have direct appointment kick in at projects less than $100,000.

At that level, public officials would ask for the qualifications of only one potential contractor. Then price negotiations could begin. If officials were not satisfied, they could go to someone else – and continue down the line.

“QBS results in a less constrained and more creative design process and, as a relatively small part of overall project costs, is the most effective means for assuring both the optimal life-cycle project cost while minimizing disputes and litigation,” Corey said. “All of us in local government are keenly aware of our fiduciary responsibilities in managing public resources. Cost is always a factor and, to that end, it seems only prudent that we would wish to negotiate professional services agreements with the most qualified firms.”

Shepard has the polar opposite view of the bill and QBS.

“Senate Bill 644 will cost local agencies money and decrease efficiencies,” he warned lawmakers. “It is therefore not the best use of public money. Unlike the selection process for other types of public procurement, QBS does not allow an agency to consider cost of level of effort … (This) will eliminate a significant tool that agencies use in selection of the appropriate professional service provider.”

While Beaverton city officials frequently use a QBS system, Mayor Bill Knapp said he still vehemently opposes the bill.

“It takes a common QBS restriction imposed on the consideration of pricing during the initial phase of the QBS process and applies that restriction instead to the entire process in situations involving the direct appointment of a QBS consultant,” he said.

Also on Thursday’s agenda is Senate Bill 254, which amends the public contracting system. The bill took the scenic route through the Senate Business and Transportation Committee, facing delay after delay while amendments were hashed. It was eventually approved on the Senate floor on April 24 with no opposition.

A less controversial bill on the agenda is Senate Bill 617. It requires the Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board to meet to determine the validity of complaints against real estate appraisers. It was passed on the Senate floor on April 29.