You asked (1) whether the “fast-track” provisions of CGS § 4b-91 apply to correctional facilities, (2) how the process for awarding fast-track projects differs from the regular process, and (3) whether fast-track projects are exempt from environmental laws. You also requested the legislative history of fast-track correctional facilities, including why the legislation was enacted.

SUMMARY

CGS § 4b-91 exempts five enumerated projects, including correctional facility projects, from the requirement that state construction projects be awarded, on a competitive basis, to the lowest responsible and qualified bidder. It does not exempt these projects from environmental laws. However, other state statutes exempt several large projects, including the Connecticut Juvenile Training School, UConn 2000, and Adriaen's Landing (Front Street) projects, from various environmental laws, such as those requiring the preparation of environmental impact statements and subjecting development plans to review and comment by the Council on Environmental Quality.

With respect to the fast-track projects under CGS § 4b-91, the law allows the public works (DPW) commissioner to enter into a “fair and reasonable” contract with any contractor approved by the construction services awards panel.

CGS § 4b-91 has been amended several times. In several cases, the exemptions have been repealed by subsequent legislation.

FAST-TRACK PROJECTS

There are five fast-track projects under CGS § 4b-91: a community court project, downtown Hartford higher education center project, correctional facility project, juvenile detention center project, and Connecticut State University system student dormitories.

PROCESS FOR AWARDING FAST-TRACK PROJECTS

The commissioner submits three or more qualified contractors who are prequalified to a construction services award panel. One six-member award panel screens the contractors and another panel interviews them and submits the most qualified contractors, ranked by preference, to the commissioner. The commissioner may enter into a “fair and reasonable” contract with any one of the contractors on the list (CGS § 4b-100a).

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF FAST-TRACK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY PROJECT

Prior to 1989, DPW and other contract awarding authorities had to award all public building contracts worth more than $ 250,000 to the lowest responsible and qualified general contractor on the basis of competitive bids (PA 99-26 raised the threshold to $ 500,000). A series of public acts exempted certain projects from competitive bidding requirements, although in some cases the exemptions were repealed by subsequent legislation.

PA 89-353 allowed the expedited construction or alteration of certain correctional facilities costing no more than $ 12 million, begun by

June 30, 1990, and certified to be emergency projects. It allowed the DPW commissioner to bypass advertising for general contractors, and negotiate with one of them a contract for an emergency correctional facility. The contract had to be fair and reasonable to the state. The act also exempted emergency correctional facilities from the bid listing law, which is designed to protect subcontractors by requiring the general contractor to list by name and price the subcontractors he will use on the project.

In the House debate, Representative Kiner stated:

With the prison overcrowding situation as bad as it is

and, of course, we debated that issue ad infinitum last

Saturday, what this bill would do is allow the

Commissioner of Public Works, if an overcrowding

emergency exists to select design professionals and

general contractors by negotiation rather than by formal

bids. The limited or the projects are limited in amounts

not to exceed $ 12 million.

PA 99-75 repealed the emergency correctional facility exemption, but PA 00-192 exempted correctional facility and juvenile detention projects and permitted negotiations with the selected general contractor. That act defines a “correctional facility project” as one which is part of a state program to repair, renovate, enlarge, or build Department of Correction (DOC) facilities needed immediately due to prison and jail overcrowding (CGS § 4b-55 (m)). A “juvenile detention center project” is defined the same way for facilities operated by the Judicial Department (CGS § 4b-55 (n)).

The House and Senate debate on PA 00-192, a budget implementer, did not include a discussion of the correctional facility fast-track. However, in 2000 the Department of Correction addressed a prison overcrowding problem by contracting with the State of Virginia to house Connecticut prisoners. Additionally, then-DOC Commissioner John Armstrong testified before the Public Safety Committee about a Prison and Jail Overcrowding Commission report that suggested “the Department of Corrections seek expansion of secure capacity with the existing facilities in order to accommodate the future trends of the offender population. ”

SN-E: ts