Agenda Item 7E
April 14, 2015
Action
MEMORANDUM
April 10,2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
()(J
J}
Josh Hamlin, Legislative
Attome~
Action: Bill 49-14, Contracts and Procurement - Formal Solicitation­
Reciprocal Local Preference
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee recommendation (3-0): enact Bill 49­
14 with amendments.
Bill 49-14, Contracts and Procurement - Formal Solicitation - Reciprocal Local Preference,
sponsored by then Council President Rice and Councilmember EIrich, was introduced on October
21,2014. A public hearing was held on December 2,2014, at which there were no speakers. A
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee worksession was held on March 19.
Bill 49-14 would establish a reciprocal preference for a County-based bidder in certain
contracts awarded by competitive sealed bidding. Specifically, the Bill would require the Director
of the Department of General Services to grant a preference to a responsible and responsive
County-based bidder if the lowest responsible and responsive bidder is from another jurisdiction
that grants a preference to its resident bidders. The reciprocal preference would
be
identical to the
preference granted by the other jurisdiction to its resident bidders.
Background
In 2014, the Council enacted Bill 13-14, which defmed "County-based bidder or offeror,"
and codified a preference for a County-based bidder or offeror in the event of a tie bid or ranking
in a contract awarded by formal solicitation. This Bill addresses the situation where a County­
based bidder is seeking a County contract awarded by competitive sealed bidding, and competing
against bidders from other jurisdictions that offer specific preferences
to
their resident bidders.
The Bill would require that a County-based bidder be given the same preference that such bidders
receive in their home jurisdiction. For example, ifthe low bidder is from a jurisdiction that grants
a 10 percent preference to its own resident bidders, the Director would give a 10 percent preference
to a County-based bidder for the purpose of evaluating the bid against the low bidder.
Reciprocal preferences are relatively common at the state level across the country (© 11­
12). The State of Maryland has a reciprocal preference law for State procurement (©13-15), and
State law authorizes political subdivisions and instrumentalities of the State to provide for a
reciprocal preference (©16-17). The State enabling law provides that if another state gives
preference to firms located in that state, a local government may give an equal preference to firms
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
based in Maryland over finns from those states. The law is silent with respect to reciprocal
preferences for local finns over Maryland finns located in other counties.
Issues/Committee Recommendations
1. Does the
Bill
exceed the grant of authority in the enabling legislation?
As mentioned above, the State enabling law specifically authorizes Maryland local
governments to provide a reciprocal preference for Maryland businesses over those from a state
that gives preference to businesses from that state. Bill 49-14 uses the existing definition of
"County-based bidder or offeror" to make that preference available to County-based bidders (but
not other Maryland-based bidders) over non County-based bidders, which may be other political
subdivisions in Maryland. The enabling law specifically authorizes the preference to be granted
when the lowest bidder is a bidder that has its principal office in a state
other than
Maryland and
that state gives a local preference. The enabling law is silent as to the application ofthe reciprocal
preference over businesses based in Maryland, but not in the County.
While a general local preference law which favors businesses in a local jurisdiction in
Maryland over other Maryland businesses may be frowned upon by Maryland courts, a reciprocal
preference is somewhat different. Any preference given under a reciprocal preference program is
contingent on the existence of a low bidder from a jurisdiction that provides a preference to
businesses based in that jurisdiction.
In
that regard, a Maryland local jurisdiction granting a
general (as opposed to reciprocal) local preference would be a prerequisite to the application of a
reciprocal preference.
It
is unlikely the courts could invalidate a reciprocal preference without
also invalidating the preference that triggered its application.
It is possible that the General Assembly enacted the enabling law as it did to avoid giving
any sort of legislative imprimatur to enactment of other local preferences favoring one Maryland
jurisdiction over another. Pennitting the application of a reciprocal preference over a Maryland
local jurisdiction that gives a general local preference would at least tacitly recognize the authority
oflocaljurisdictions to give general local preferences. Further, the fact that the General Assembly
has
considered, and approved, the intrastate application of reciprocal preferences is evidenced by
the enactment of reciprocal preference laws in other Maryland Counties. Both Frederick Countyl
and Garrett County2 have reciprocal preference laws which are similar to the provisions of Bill 49­
14, and were enacted by the Maryland General Assembly as public local laws in 1995 and 1997,
respectively ©18-19). Also, the General Assembly has at least twice considered, but not enacted,
bills that would prohibit county and municipal governments from giving local preferences
generally, and would expressly repeal the Frederick and Garrett County reciprocal preference
laws.
3
While acknowledging the divergence from the express provisions of the enabling law, for
the reasons discussed above, Staff does not believe that Bill 49-14 is likely to be invalidated if
subject to a legal challenge.
County Code,
§
2-2-4. Reciprocal local preference.
2
Garrett County Code,
§
30.22. Local Preference Program.
3
HBl178 (2007): htt;p:i/mgaleg.marvland.goviwebrngaffi'rnMain.aspx?tab=subject3&ys=2007rslbillfilelhb
I I
78.htm
HB319 (2008): h.ttp:!Imga
I~g,marvl and.gQyjw~bm.&a/frm~J!
in.a'§Qxl.tab=subiect3&ys=2008rs/bill
fil~mQ.9]J..2
.htm
1
Frederick
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2. Could the Bill have a punitive impact on bidders from jurisdictions that do not give
local preferences?
The Bill is drafted to generally mirror the State law authorizing a reciprocal preference.
As drafted, the application ofthe reciprocal preference could result in an award to a County-based
bidder when a non County-based bidder from a jurisdiction that does not give a preference to its
residents submits a lower (but not the lowest) bid.
An
example of this situation is as follows:
Bidder #1, based in a jurisdiction which gives a 10% local preference, is the lowest bidder
with a bid of $100,000.
Bidder #2, based in a jurisdiction which does not give any local preference, is the next
lowest bidder with a bid of $100,500.
Bidder #3 is a County-based bidder with the third lowest bid of $100,750.
In the above scenario, if bidder #3 receives the benefit of a 10% preference, triggered by the local
preference received by bidder # 1 in its home jurisdiction, bidder #3 would get the award. This
would be the case even though bidder #3's bid is higher than bidder #2, from a jurisdiction with
no local preference.
In
effect, bidder #2 would be punished due to the local preference bidder #1
receives in its home jurisdiction. Because the intent of the Bill is to offer a
reciprocal
preference,
staff recommended amending the Bill to avoid this possibility.
Committee Recommendation (3-0):
Add a new paragraph (3) after line 33, as follows:
ill
A preference must not be given under this subsection if it would result in an
award to
a
County-based bidder when:
L6J
a non County-based bidder
has
submitted a lower responsible and
responsive bid than anv County-based bidder before the application of
any reciprocal preference: and
!Ill
the non-County-based bidder
has
its principal place of business in a
state or political subdivision that does not give a preference to
its
residents.
3. What is the IlScal impact ofthe Bill?
The Fiscal Impact Statement submitted by OMB estimates that the Bill would result in the
need for 1.0 FTE for a Program Manager I in the Office of Business Relations and Compliance, at
an annual cost of$88,360 (personnel costs and operating expenses). This estimate is based on an
estimate of investigation time and the number of bids that would need to be investigated. To the
extent that the estimated investigation time is for the purpose of researching price preference
programs in non County-based bidders home jurisdictions, costs should decrease over time as the
County compiles information about various jurisdictions.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The fiscal impact statement also indicates that the implementation of Bill 49-14 would
"significantly delay contract award time for invitations for bids," and could invite bid protests and
legal challenges.
4.
Effective
Date.
At the Committee worksession, the administration requested that the Bill's effective date
be delayed so that research into local preferences of other jurisdictions could be done, and this
information compiled, before implementation. Allowing this research to be done in advance could
reduce delays in awards once the Bill takes effect. January 1,2016 was agreed upon as an effective
date that would permit sufficient time to do the advance research.
Committee Recommendation
(3-0): Add a new Section 2 after line 42, as follows:
Sec. 2. Effective
Date.
This Act takes effect on January
1,
2016.
This packet contains:
Bill 49-14
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements
State-by-State preference data, Oregon DAS
MD State Finance and Procurement Code § 14-401
MD Local Government Code
§
1-402
Frederick and Garrett County Reciprocal Preference laws
F:\LAW\BILLS\1449 Contracts And Procurement Reciprocal Preference\Action Memo,Docx
Circle
#
1
4
5
11
13
16
18
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
49-14
Concerning: Contracts and Procurement
- Formal Solicitation - Reciprocal
Local Preference
Revised: October 13,2014
Draft No.
~
Introduced:
October 21, 2014
Expires:
April 21 ,2016
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective:
January 1, 2016
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _• Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President Rice
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
establish a reciprocal preference for a County-based bidder in certain contracts
awarded by competitive sealed bidding;
define preference; and
generally amend the law governing the award ofcontracts by formal solicitation.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 11 B, Contracts and Procurement
Sections 11 B-1 and 11B-9
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double undedining
[[Double boldface bracketsD
* *
*
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unqffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 49-14
1
Sec.
I.
Sections
IIB-I
and
IIB-9
are amended as follows:
2
3
4
lIB-I.
Definitions.
Unless the context indicates othelWise, the following tenns have the following
meanmgs:
County-based bidder or offeror
means a person that has its principal place of
5
6
7
8
9
business in Montgomery County, as further defined by Executive regulation
adopted under Section IlB-8
*
ill
ill
ill
*
*
Preterence
means
g
policy that favors one bidder over another and includes:
g
percentage preference;
10
11
12
13
an employee residency requirement; or
any other law, policy, or practice that favors
g
resident over
g
nonresident.
14
15
16
17
*
(a)
*
*
IIB-9.
Formal solicitation - competitive sealed bidding.
Conditions for use.
Contracts must be awarded by competitive sealed
bidding except as othelWise authorized in this Chapter or regUlations.
Competitive sealed bidding is initiated by issuing an invitation for bids.
18
19
*
ill
*
*
20
21
Reciprocal preterencefor County-based bidder.
ill
In making an award under this Section, the Director must give
g
preference to
g
responsible and responsive County-based bidder
if:
(A) g non County-based bidder is the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder;
22
23
24
25
@:\IaW\biflS\1449 contracts and procurement reciprocal preference\bill 2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
49-14
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.aD
the non County-based bidder has its principal place of
business in
~
state or political subdivision that gives
~
preference to its residents; and
©
~
preference does not conflict with
~
federal law or
~
grnill
affecting the purchase or contract.
ill
A preference given under this subsection must be identical to the
preference that the other state or political subdivision gives to its
residents.
m
A preference must not be given under this subsection
if
it would
result in an award to a Countv-basedbidder when:
CA)
a non County-based bidder
has
submitte4 a lower
responsible and responsive bid than any County-based
bidder before the application of any reciprocal preference:
and
!lU
the non-County-based bidder has its principal place of
business in a state or political subdivision that does not
give a prefereIl,ce to its resident
Sec.
2.
Approved:
Effective Date.
This Act takes effect on January 1.2016.
George Leventhal, President, County Council
46
Approved:
Date
47
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
@f:\laW\billS\1449 contracts and procurement reciprocal preference\bill 2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 49-14
Contracts and Procurement
-
Formal Solicitation
-
Reciprocal Local Preference
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 49-14 would defme "preference" and would require that Director
give a preference to a responsible and responsive County-based
bidder if the lowest responsible and responsive bidder is from another
jurisdiction that grants a preference to its resident bidders. The
preference would be identical to the preference granted by the other
jurisdiction to its resident bidders.
The County wishes to support County-based businesses that are
seeking to do business with the County.
To establish a reciprocal preference for a County-based bidder in the
event that the lowest responsible and responsive bidder is from a
jurisdiction that grants a preference to
its
resident bidders.
Office of Procurement
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Josh Hamlin, 240-777-7892
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALSAND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITIDN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not applicable.
F:\LAW\BILLS\I449 Contracts And Procurcment Reciprocal Preference\LRR.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVUJ.E, MARYlAND
MEMORANDUM
December 1, 2014
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Craig Rice, President, County Council
Jennifer
A.IW:-
,
Director,
0
"Ice
0
es
Joseph
F.
B~~:nDirector,
Dep.lifftflr'Flf.iru
FEIS
for
Bm 49-14,
Contracts an
Reciprocal
Local Preference
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statements for the ahove­
referenced legislation.
JAH:fz
cc;
Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nunni, Special Assistant
to
the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield." Director, Public
Infoffilation
Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Michael Coveyou, Department ofFinance
David Platt. Department of Finance
Robert Hagedoom, Department ofFinance
David Disc, Director, Department of General Services
Brika Lopez-Finn, Office of Management and Budget
Alex Espinosa.
Ofrlce
of
Management
and
Budget
Naeem
Mia.
Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council
Bill 49-14. Contracts Procurement­
Formal Solicitation
Reciprocal
Local
Preference
1. Legislative Summary.
The proposed legislation establishes a reciprocal preference for a County-based bidder in
certain contracts avvarded by competitive sealed bidding. A reciprocal preference in this
case must be identical to the preference that the other
state
or political subdivision gives
to its residents.
l
On competitive sealed biddings. the Director must give a preference to a
County-based bidder if:
(l)
a non-County-based bidder is the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder; (2) the non-County-based bidder has its principal place of business in
a jurisdiction where a preference is given
to
local residents; and (3) the preference does
not conflict with federal law or a grant affecting the purchase of the contract.
2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the
revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. Includes
source of information. assumptions, and methodologies used.
The proposed legislation does not impact County revenues.
The proposed bill may consistently impact expenditures when the County gives
preference to a County-based bidder and docs not make an award to the lowest bidder.
The price percentage increase can
vary
and depends on the price of the lowest bids. See
response for items 3 and 7.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
The proposed bill does not impact County revenues.
County expenditures may increase on bid awards.
However~
the exact amount is difficult
to estimate; it is possible the amount on any given award could be
1%,5%, 10%,
or
higher than the lowest bidder. A key factor in expenditure increases is how the preference
programs are established for the non County-based vendors
in
their home jurisdiction as
calculations these preference programs use will serve as the same calculations
Montgomery County's OBRC would apply to bids it receives.
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would affect
retiree pension or group insurance costs.
The proposed legislation does not affect any retiree pension or group insurance costs.
1
An in-state (local) preference is an advantage given to County-resident bidders/proposers in response to
It
solicitation for
products or services which may
be
granted
based
on pre-established
criteria.
For the
proposed
legislation, the reciprocal
preference.
(if
any) would apply 1he local preference of
the
non-Coun'ly bidder's. home jurisdicti{ln on
thilt
bidder's
proposal.
For
example.
if
Connty X applied a 10% price increase
to
bidder's from Montgomery C.ounty, Montgomery County would apply a
10% marli: up on hids from County X.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5.
An estimate ofexpenditures related to County's infonnation teclmol0.bry
(IT)
systems,
including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Not applicable.
6, Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if
the
bill authorizes future
spending.
I11e proposed legislation does not authorize future spending.
7.
An
estimate ofthe
staff
time needed to implement the bill.
DOS estimates that 1.0 FTE for a Program Manager I (Grade 23) for the Office of
Business Relations and Compliance (OBRC) to implement work: associated with the
proposed legislation. DOS estimates personnel costs at$ 85,626 and associated operating
expenses at $2,734 (desktop, phone, and fumiture).
For the proposed legislation, significant staff
time
will be spent on researching price
preference programs in the non County-based bidders' home jurisdictions, applying the
calculations to the C,ounty-based bidder, adding
the
associated procurement procedures,
and recalculating possible award detenninations. DGS receives bids nationally and some
bidders' home
ciry,
county, or state may have layers ofpreference programs which DGS
would need to investigate. DGS estimates 8.5 to 10 hours of investigation per bid and
estimates 164 bids per year (based on the number of bids
in
FY14), which yields 1.394 to
1,640 staff hours or 1.0 FTE.
8. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
Many jurisdictions, such as City of Chicago, City of Los Angeles, City ofPortland, and
Prince Gorge's County have their own preference programs \\-;th unique applications and
implementation frameworks.
For example, Prince George's County has a pricing preference for County
ba.~d
vendors
at 5%, 10010, 15% increments depending on the vendors' certifications. l11e City of
Chicago has a credit system where the vendor gets a
$1
dollar credit for every $3 dollars
they spend with minority or local vendors. Because ofthese variations, the calculation
would be different for each bidder, and the final result on who is the actual low bidder
'Will
depend on different calculations based on the applicants' home jurisdictions.
The staff would have to study each of
the
low bidder's home jurisdil.-'tion p.reference
programs and how to best apply that reciprocal calculation in OBRC and Procurement.
This
will
K"quire
significant staff time for each bid to identify, research, contact and
discuss """1th the home jurisdiction's compliance officer.
'I11is will significantly deJay contract award time for invitations for bids (IFBs), and the
proposed legislation would create opportunities for the apparent low bidders
to
challenge
the results, protest bid awards, and potentially bring legal
ac~ons
against the County.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9.
An
estimate of costs when
an
additional appropriation
is
needed.
DOS estimates personnel costs for the
1.0
Grade
23
Program Manager
I FfE
at
$85,626
and associated operating expenses at
$2,734.
The increase in bid costs is more difficult to estimate. Assuming
DGS
receives ten
bids
and the County-based
finn
is the highest bidder,
DGS
would need
to
investigate all nine
other bidders' home jurisdiction prefere.nce programs. Using
FY14
as a proxy where
DGS
received
164
bids, DOS estimates
1,394
to
1,640
staffhours forOBRC to identify,
research, investigate, c.orrespond
...villi
other jurisdictions. Procurement would need to
calculate; re-detennine; develop wnttenjustification for changes to awards, coordination.
consultations; and provide technical assistance provided to the using departments.
10.
A
description ofany variable
that
could aflect revenue and cost estimates.
See item #9.
11. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project
See item #2.
12.
If a bill is likely
to
have no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
None
14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Grace Denno, Department of General Services
Angela Dizelos, Department of ('Jeneral Services
Beryl L. Feinberg, Department of General Services
Pam Jones, Department of General Services
Erika Lopez-Finn, Office of Management and Budget
aennife
JIughes. Direc
Office of Management and Budget
~.L-=-+-{4-
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 49-14, Contracts and Procurement - Formal Solicitatron - Reciprocal
Local
Preference
Background:
This legislation would establish a reciprocal preference for a County-based bidder in certain
contracts awarded by competitive sealed bidding. The Director ofthe Department of Genera1
SCr\ices (DGS) would grant a preference to
a
responsible and responsive County-based bidder if
the lowest responsible and responsive bidder is from another jurisdiction
that
grants a preference
to its resident bidders. The amount of thc reciprocation would be identical to the preference
amount allowed by the other jurisdiction.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Department of General Services
is
the source of information. The economic impact
statement is based on the procurement operations ofDGS and the number ofbids received
for review by
DGS.
For
each
bid from a non-County bidder, DGS would determine the
pricing preference of those bids in order
to
derive the pricing preference for the COUI1ty­
bidder.
This
procedure
is
specific for each bid. Thereforc, the determination ofthe pricing
preference
is
based on the number of bids from each non-County bidder and their local
preference. According to DGS,
Bill 49-l4
could affect the competition pool such that non­
County vendors may submit bids.
2. A description of any variable tbat could affect the economic impact estimates.
The variables that could affect the economic impact estimates
are
based on the number of
bids for
a
particular project from non-County bidders and the jurisdiction for non-County
bidder. Because of
the
uncertainty of the number of non-County bidders and their
jurisdictions
for
each bid,
it
is
uncertain, \\-1thout specificity of
data,
to determine the
economic impact ofBm
49-14.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect, if any on employment, spending, saling,
investment, incomes, and property values in tbe County.
As stated in paragraph
#2,
without specificity ofthe number of bids from non-County
establishments,
the
specific local preference given to
these
bidders, and the determination of
the award of a
local
preference~
it
is difficult to derive the economic impact on employment,
spending, saving, invcstment, incomes, and property value \\:ith any certainty for each bid.
However,
Bill
49-14
could have an impact on employment and business income but such
an
impact would depend on each award ofthe contract
that
is determined by the amount of the
local preference given to the County bidder and the cost of the contract.
4.
If
a BiD is
likely
to bave no economic impact, why is tbat the case?
Bill
49-14
could have an economic impact but without specific data,
it
is uncertain of the
effect on employment, spending, saving, investment, incomes! and property values
in
the
County.
Page
1
of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 49-14, Contracts and Procurement - Formal Solicitation - Reciprocal L1)cal Preference
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis: David Platt and Rob
Hagedoorn,. Finance.
Department of Finance
~lr~
Date
Page 20f2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Procurement Services and Policy State by State Preference Data (as submitted by each sta... Page 1 of2
TEXT SIZE: A+ A- A • TEXT ONLY
TRANSLATE.
Procurement Services and Policy
DAS Divisions
Contact Us
state by State Preference Data (as submitted by each state)
About Us
Preference:
Reciprocal Preference
Enterprise
Goods and
Services Home
Procurement Services
and
Policy Home
~
is any advantage given to offerors in a competition for contract award which may be granted based on pre­
established criteria. These criteria are established by Law.
I.illY.
is mandatory; Is def.ned by Statute, Rule, Statewide Policy, Executive Order; and is what gives you Preference
AuthOrity. Use of the preference may be identified as either Mandatory or Discretionary.
Reciprocal Preference:
An advantage a state applies in order to match a preference given
by
another state.
For Example: A preference based on reSidency.
State
Preference
Law/Statute
Tie-Bid
Preference
Reciprocal
Preference
Preference Conditions
Including law Citation
Date of Verification
htto:llwww.oregon.govIDASIEGS/ps/Pages/detail a mam page.aspx
3/17/2015
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Procurement Services and Policy State by State Preference Data (as submitted by each sta... Page 2 of 2
o
S,;,ck
to the
lOp
OREGON.GOV
Stale Directories
Agencies A to
Z
Oregon Administrative Rules
Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon an Equal Opportunity
Employer
About Oregon,gov
WEB SITE UNKS
Text Only Site
Accessibility
Oregon,gov
File Formats
Privacy Policy
Site Map
Web
S~e
Feedback
PDF FILE ACCESSIBILITY
Adobe Reader, or equivalent. Is required
to
view PDF flies. Click
the
"Get
Adobe
Reader"
Image to
get
a
free
download
of
the
reader from
Adobe.
@
http://www.oregon.gov/DASIEGS/pslPages/detail_a_main--'page.aspx
3117/2015
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Westlaw.
MD Code, State Finance and Procurement,
§ 14-401
Page
1
c
Effective:
April 13,
2010
West's Annotated Code of Maryland Currentness
State Finance and Procurement
Division II. General Procurement Law [Titles II-End] (Refs
&
Annos)
"Iil
Title 14. Preferences (Refs
&
Annos)
"Iil
Subtitle 4. Miscellaneous Purchasing Preferences (Refs
&
Annos)
...... §
14-401. Preferences for resident bidders or offerors
Deflnitions
(a)(I) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) "Preference" includes:
(i)
a percentage preference;
(ii)
an employee residency requirement; or
(iii)
any other provision that favors a resident over a nonresident.
(3) "Resident bidder" means a bidder whose principal office is located in the State.
(4) "Resident offeror" means an offeror whose principal office is located in the State.
(5) "Services" means services, architectural services, construction related services, engineering services, or energy
performance contract services, all as defmed in
§
1
J
101 ofthis article.
Conditions for preference
(b)
When a unit uses competitive sealed bidding to award a procurement contract, the unit may give a preference to the
resident bidder who submits the lowest responsive bid from a resident bidder if:
© 2015
Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
@)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MD Code, State Finance and Procurement,
§
14-401
Page 2
(1) the resident bidder is a responsible bidder;
(2) a responsible bidder whose principal office or operation is in another state submits the lowest responsive bid;
(3) the state in which the nonresident bidder's principal office is located or the state in which the nonresident bidder
has its principal operation through which it would provide supplies or services gives a preference to its residents;
and
(4) a preference does not conflict with a federal law or grant affecting the procurement contract.
Form of preference
(c) When a unit uses competitive sealed proposals to award a procurement contract, the unit may give a preference to
resident offerors if:
(1) a responsible offeror whose principal office or operation is in another state submits a proposal;
(2) the state in which the nonresident offeror's principal office is located or the state in which the nonresident offeror
has its principal operation through which it would provide the subject of the contract gives a preference
to
its res­
idents; and
(3) the preference does not conflict with a federal law or grant affecting the procurement contract.
Treatment of nonresident bidders, offerors
(d)(l) At the request of the unit, a nonresident bidder or nonresident offeror submitting a proposal for a State project
shall provide a copy of the current statute, resolution, policy, procedure, or executive order that pertains to the
treatment of nonresident bidders or nonresident offerors by:
(i)
the state in which the nonresident bidder's or nonresident offeror's principal office is located; and
(il)
the state in which the nonresident bidder or nonresident offeror has its principal operation through which it
would provide supplies or services.
(2) A unit may give a preference under this section that is identical to any of the following preferences, or any
combination of them:
(i)
the preference that the state in which the nonresident bidder's or nonresident offeror's principal office is located
gives to its residents; or
©
2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to
Oligo
US Gov. Works.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MD Code, State Finance and Procurement,
§
14-401
Page 3
(ii)
the preference that the state in which the nonresident bidder or nonresident offeror has its principal operation
through which it would provide supplies or services gives to its residents.
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 1988, c. 48,
§
2, eff. Oct. 1, 1988. Amended by Acts 1992, c. 99,
§
1,
eff. OcL I, 1992; Acts 1999, c.
501,§ l,eff.July I, J999;Acts2004.c. J97,§ l,eff.OcL1.2004;Acts2010,c. 72, § 1, eff. April 13,2010.
Current through the 2014 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
(C)
2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
©
2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Westlaw,
MD Code, Local Government,
§
1-402
Formerly cited as MD CODE,
Art.
24,
§
8-102
Page 1
Effective: October 1, 2013
West's Annotated Code of Maryland
Currentness
Local Government
(Refs
&
Annos)
Division
I.
Definitions; General Provisions [Titles 1-3]
(Refs
&
Annos)
"[iI
Title I.
Defmitions; General Provisions
(Refs
&
Annos)
"[iI
Subtitle
4. Purchasing and Sales
(Refs
&
Annos)
......
§ 1-402. Reciprocal preference for resident bidders
Definitions
(a)(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) "Nonresident bidder" means a bidder whose principal office is outside the State.
(3) "Preference" includes:
(i)
a percentage preference;
(ii) an employee residency requirement; or
(iii) any other provision that favors a resident over a nonresident.
(4) "Resident bidder" means a bidder whose principal office is in the State.
Conditions for preference
(b)
When a political subdivision or an instrumentality of government in the State uses competitive bidding to award a
procurement contract, the political subdivision or instrumentality may give a preference to the resident bidder who
submits the lowest responsive bid of any resident bidder if:
(1)
the resident bidder is a responsible bidder;
(2) a responsible nonresident bidder submits the lowest responsive bid of all bidders; and
~
2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MD Code, Local Government,
§
1-402
Fonnerly cited as MD CODE, Art. 24,
§
8-102
Page 2
(3) the state in which the nonresident bidder's principal office is located gives a preference to its residents.
Fonn of preference
(c) A preference under this section shall be identical to the preference that the state in which the nonresident bidder's
principal office is located gives to its residents.
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 2013, c. 119,
§
2, eff. Oct. 1,2013.
Current through the 2014 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
(C) 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
§
2-2-4. Reciprocal local preference.
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) FREDERICK COUNTY FIRM
means a business entity that has its principal office in
Frederick County.
(3)
NONRESIDENT FIRM
means a business entity that has its principal office out of
Frederick County.
(b)
(1) When awarding a contract by competitive bidding, if the state or political subdivision
in which a nonresident firm is located gives an advantage to its resident businesses, the board of
county commissioners of Frederick County may give an identical advantage to the lowest
responsive and responsible bid from a Frederick County firm over that of the nonresident firm.
(2) An advantage may include:
(I) A percentage preference;
(II) An employee residency requirement; or
(III) Any other provision that favors a nonresident firm over a Frederick County firm.
(c) The board of county commissioners may adopt regulations
to
carry out this section.
(1995, Chapter 613,
§
1)
Editor's note:
Ch.
613,
§
1, 1995,
added provisions designated as
§
2-2-3
ofthe Public Local Laws.
Inasmuch Chapter
28,
§
1, 1995,
already added provisions as a
§
2-2-3,
the editor has
redesignated these Chapter
613
provisions as
§
2-2-4.
GARRETT COUNTY CODE
§
30.22 Local Preference Program.
(A) (1) For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
LOCAL FIRM.
A business entity that has its principal office in Garrett County or maintains
an active business in Garrett County as defined and evidenced by criteria set by the County
Commissioners by ordinance or resolution.
NONRESIDENT FIRM.
A business entity that is not a local firm.
(B) The County Commissioners may establish by ordinance or resolution a local preference
program applicable to contracts awarded by the county by competitive bids in accordance with
this section.
(C) (1) Under a local preference program established under this section, if the state or the
political subdivision in which a nonresident firm is located gives an advantage to its resident
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
businesses, the County Commissioners may give an identical advantage to the lowest responsive
and responsible bid from a local firm over that of the nonresident firm.
(2) An advantage may include:
(a) A percentage preference;
(b) An employee residency requirement; or
(c) Any other provision that favors a local firm over a nonresident firm.
(D) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section may reserve to the County
Commissioners the right to provide in a solicitation for competitive bids that a local preference is
not available under the contract.
(E) A local preference is not available under any contract if the County Commissioners
determine that the preference would be inconsistent with the provisions of any applicable federal
or state grant or program.
(1986 Code, § 20-14.1) (1997, Ch. 589)
®