Earlier this week, a group referred to as the Concerned Contractors made an ask to anyone who would listen: Please contact Governor Wolf and help protect the Separations Act. Like the 1913 law that they defend, their argument is archaic and it is not beneficial to Pennsylvania. But before we jump to the response, let's first state that the efforts to modernize the Separations Act are to allow CHOICE in construction delivery. If a public owner decides that the Separations Act is correct for a project and they want to use a multiple prime delivery system, that is fine. But if a delivery system like CM-at-Risk, Design/Build, IPD, Multiple-prime, etc. is best for a specific project, then the public owner has a choice. Remember taxpayer dollars are being used, so the public owner should be afforded options to spend tax dollars efficiently. Here's a rebuttal to the Concerned Contractors' letter to Gov Wolf, my responses are ALL CAPS: At the Senate budget hearing for DGS, Secretary Topper made comments that he favored changes to the law that requires multiple prime bidding on public works projects. IT’S GREAT TO KNOW THAT OUR STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE COMMONSENSE AND KNOW THAT REQUIRING THE STATE TO USE ONLY ONE CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY SYSTEM IS NOT AN EFFICIENT USE OF TAX DOLLARS. The Separations Act is a vital protection for local contractors. WE ARE ONE OF ONLY THREE STATES THAT ABIDE BY THIS ARCHAIC MANDATE AND OTHER STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE NOT EXPERIENCING THIS ISSUE, PLUS NO ONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR USES IT. It allows many more contractors to bid on public projects, particularly smaller firms that would otherwise be blocked from bidding directly to DGS and other public entities. HOW ARE THEY BEING BLOCKED FROM BIDDING? IN THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, A $240 MILLION TOWER WAS RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED AND THIS JOB EMPLOYED MANY SMALL, DBE FIRMS. Giving local contractors and workers the opportunity to work on projects in the communities where they live is a vital aspect of this law. IF WE ARE LOOKING AT 1913 WHEN THIS LAW WAS ENACTED, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD ARGUMENT. BUT YOUR DATED STATEMENT IS NOW HURTING TAXPAYERS. It is also important to recognize that multiple prime bidding saves the taxpayers money. IF TRUE, WHY DO UNIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA BUILD THEIR TRAINING CENTERS SINGLE PRIME? From 2000 to 2010, the PA Department of Education allowed some school districts to waive single prime bidding for certain construction projects. Head to head bids using both the multiple prime and single prime approaches demonstrated that single prime bidding was more expensive in every case. At a time when every penny of taxpayer money is dear, public policy should be aimed at saving money not needlessly spending more. THIS IS THE BIGGEST CROCK OF BS AND YOU SHOULD FEEL ASHAMED FOR SPREADING THIS NONSENSE. TALK TO ANY SCHOOL THAT BID A PROJECT DURING THE MANDATE WAIVER PERIOD AND LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY. EXAMPLE: GROVE CITY HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT BID BOTH WAYS AND ON BID DAY MULTIPLE-PRIME WAS SLIGHTLY LOWER BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT IT’S THE END PRICE THAT COUNTS. GROVE CITY ASKED ITS SOLICITOR IF THEY COULD PICK THE EVER SO SLIGHTLY HIGHER SINGLE PRIME BID BUT THE STATE LAW WOULD NOT ALLOW IT. AS EXPECTED THIS MULTIPLE PRIME PROJECT WAS OVER BUDGET AND WAS DELAYED. I encourage you to support the Separations Act and make it known that your Administration will stand up to protect Pennsylvania contractors, workers and taxpayers. DURING THE MENTIONED 2000 TO 2010 PA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MANDATE WAIVER PERIOD, PENNSYLVANIA CONTRACTORS, WORKERS AND TAXPAYERS WERE COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT WERE BUILT SINGLE PRIME SINCE THEY WERE UNDER BUDGET AND UNDER SCHEDULE. SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE SAD TO SEE IT GO SINCE IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL. Thank you for your support. CLASSY ENDING. CLICK HERE TO SIGN A PETITION TO SUPPORT A REPEAL OF THE SEPARATIONS ACT: https://www.change.org/p/pennsylvania-repeal-pa-separations-act