CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES; CONTRACTORS; CONTRACTS; EXECUTIVE AGENCIES; GOVERNMENT PURCHASING; LEGISLATION;

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING;

You asked if state agencies can give a preference to Connecticut residents when awarding state construction and purchasing contracts. You also wanted a history of legislative proposals to create or expand in-state preference.

SUMMARY

Preferential laws in Connecticut do not absolutely prohibit state agencies from purchasing goods from vendors or awarding construction-related contracts to residents of other states. To the contrary, the law requires state agencies to award purchasing and construction contracts to the lowest responsible qualified bidder. However, the law requires the Department of Administration Services (DAS), when purchasing goods and all factors are equal, to give a preference to supplies, materials, and equipment produced, assembled, or manufactured in the state and services originating and provided in the state. This "Buy Connecticut" law was enacted 15 years ago.

Once a state agency awards a public works project to a contractor, the law requires him to give a preference to state residents who are U. S. citizens when hiring mechanics, laborers, and workmen to work on it. State public works contracts must include the requirement. The in-state preference does not abrogate or supercede any provision regarding residence requirements contained in a collective bargaining agreement to which the contractor is a party.

Nine preference bills have been introduced during the past 10 years. One bill, a proposal, did not specify how the preference was to be given. Another bill allowed municipalities to give their own residents a preference when awarding municipal contracts or purchasing property. The remaining seven bills required state authorities to give a bid preference to in-state contractors. Specifically they required the authorities to (1) allow the lowest qualified in-state bidder to match the lowest bid, if an out-of-state company entered that bid, and (2) award the contract to the in-state bidder. The in-state bidder’s initial bid must have been within a specified percentage of the out-of-state bid.

We have attached OLR report 93-R-0876 which discusses, among other things, the constitutionality of preference laws.

PREFERENTIAL PURCHASING

Connecticut does not have residence vendor preference. But like many other states, Connecticut has long had a policy of awarding contracts to residents in case of a tie. This policy became law in 1988. All other factors being equal, it requires DAS to give preference to supplies, materials, and equipment produced, assembled, or manufactured in the state and services originating and provided in the state (CGS § 4a-59(c)). But it is almost inconceivable that all factors would be equal, so the practical effect of the law is minimal. The legislation was the outcome of a “Buy Connecticut” lobbying effort on the part of Saab-Scania, which wanted the Department of Transportation to redesign bus specifications to accommodate its product. The Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee raised the bill after conducting an interim study of preferential purchasing.

PREFERENCE IN CONSTRUCTION

The law requires the state or its agents or people contracting with it to give a preference to state residents who are U. S. citizens when employing mechanics, laborers, and workmen on any public works project. If there are an insufficient number of state residents skilled in these jobs, preference must be given to U. S. citizens. The preference must be specifically stated in public works contracts.

Before hiring a nonresident, the construction supervisor or inspector assigned to the project must verify that the contractor made reasonable efforts to hire Connecticut residents. Alleged violations are promptly investigated. If evidence is found, violators are given one week to take remedial actions or provide satisfactory evidence that no violation occurred. If neither action is taken, the violator is sued for liquidated damages and notice to bring appropriate criminal charges is sent to the state’s attorney in the judicial district where the work was to be performed. Contractors who knowingly or willfully violate the law are subject to a fine of $ 200 for each week or fraction of a week the violation continues.

The law does not abrogate or supercede any provision regarding residence requirements contained in a collective bargaining agreement to which the contractor is a party. It also does not apply if to do so would result in a loss of federal funds (CGS §§ 31-52 to –52b).

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PREFERENCE PROPOSALS

Table 1 shows the nine bills introduced during the past 10 years to require or allow awarding authorities to give a preference to in-state contractors bidding on state or municipal projects, the year they were introduced, and the legislative action. Five of the bills died as proposals, with a public hearing or committee action. The remaining four died after a public hearing.

TABLE 1: BILLS INTRODUCED BETWEEN 1993 AND 2003 TO GIVE A PREFERENCE TO IN-STATE CONTRACTORS

-Continued-

SNE: ts