Bill aimed at boosting construction industry advances to Senate

By Cy Ryan

Published Friday, Feb. 18, 2011 | 1:45 p.m.

Updated Friday, Feb. 18, 2011 | 3:39 p.m.

CARSON CITY – A bill to help the hard-hit construction industry get back on its feet has cleared the Assembly 39-1.

The measure, which goes to the Senate, would give Nevada contractors a preference in bidding for local and state government contracts.

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, said it would give Nevada companies a leg up in bidding for contracts if they meet certain conditions.

The measure, Assembly Bill 144, says there has been a loss of 91,700 construction jobs from June 2006 to December 2010 in Nevada and investment in public works is crucial to the economic recovery of the state.

A company to receive a bidding preference would be required to have at least 50 percent of its workers and design professionals holding a Nevada driver's license or identity card; all vehicles must be registered in Nevada; at least 25 percent of the project materials must be bought in Nevada and payroll records must be kept in the state.

A firm that receives preference and gets the contract and then doesn't maintain the conditions can be assessed a penalty equal to 10 percent of the contract. The contractor would also lose the preference benefit anywhere from one to five years, depending on the size of the contract.

Assembly Minority Leader Pete Goicoechea, R-Elko, said he supported the bill but worried it could slow down the contract process. Smith said possible changes are being considered and contractors are backing the legislation.

Smith said requirements for the preferential treatment amount to only a small amount of paperwork.

The lone dissenting vote was cast by Assemblyman Ed Goedhart, R-Amargosa Valley, who said in a press release after the vote that “it’s a protectionist bill that could spark retaliatory efforts in other states which would place Nevada contractors at a disadvantage.”

He said it would drive up the costs of public works projects “and usher in a whole new anti-business regulatory environment of bureaucrats demanding ever-expanding reams of complicated paperwork to assure compliance.”