CA AB 880
vetoedState government grants and contracts: payment of claims and grantees' indirect costs.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 880 pass?
No. CA AB 880 passed the legislature but was vetoed. Latest recorded action (2026-09-27): Vetoed by Governor.
What is CA AB 880 about?
The California Prompt Payment Act requires a state agency that awards a grant or that acquires property or services pursuant to a contract to make timely payments pursuant to the grant or contract. If a state agency or the Controller fails to take certain timely actions and payment is not issued within 45 calendar days from the state agency receipt of an undisputed invoice, the act requires the state agency or the Controller, as applicable, to pay certain penalties. The act provides an exception to certain penalty provisions applicable to services or equipment under the Medi-Cal program if the grant or contract was awarded to a nonprofit organization in an amount less than $500,000. The act defines the term "grant" to mean a signed final agreement between any state agency and a local government agency or organization authorized to accept grant funding for victim services or prevention programs administered by any state agency or restoration activities performed by a resource conservation district. The act also defines "nonprofit service organization" to mean a nonprofit entity that is organized to provide services to the public, but the act does not use that term in its provisions. This bill would revise the definition of "grant" to also mean a signed final agreement between a state agency and a nonprofit organization and would delete the $500,000 exception described above. The bill would remove the definition of "nonprofit service organization," and instead would define "nonprofit organization" to mean an organization that qualifies as an exempt organization under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The act authorizes a state agency to dispute for reasonable cause an invoice, refund request, or claim for Medi-Cal reimbursement, as specified, and defines "reasonable cause" to mean a determination by a state agency that any of certain conditions exist, including that there is a discrepancy between the invoice or claimed amount and either the claimant's actual delivery of property or services to the state or the state's acceptance of those deliveries. This bill would revise the condition described above to require the discrepancy to be of an amount greater than $250 or 5% of the invoice or claimed amount, whichever is less, in order to qualify as a reasonable cause for the state agency to dispute it. Existing law establishes the Department of General Services in the Government Operations Agency for purposes of providing centralized services of state government. Existing law establishes various state grant programs. Existing federal law provides uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal grant awards to nonfederal entities and provides guidelines for determining direct and indirect costs, as defined, charged to federal awards. This bill would require a state agency administering a grant program to reimburse a grantee's indirect costs, as defined, at one of specified rates as requested by the grantee in their grant program application, not to exceed 35% of the total grant award, unless prohibited by any other state or federal law. The bill would authorize the establishment of indirect cost pools, as specified. The bill would make these provisions applicable to a grant program administered by a state agency, regardless of whether the funding source is state funds, federal funds, or a combination thereof.
Who sponsors CA AB 880?
Bennett is the primary sponsor of CA AB 880, joined by 4 cosponsors.
Description
The California Prompt Payment Act requires a state agency that awards a grant or that acquires property or services pursuant to a contract to make timely payments pursuant to the grant or contract. If a state agency or the Controller fails to take certain timely actions and payment is not issued within 45 calendar days from the state agency receipt of an undisputed invoice, the act requires the state agency or the Controller, as applicable, to pay certain penalties. The act provides an exception to certain penalty provisions applicable to services or equipment under the Medi-Cal program if the grant or contract was awarded to a nonprofit organization in an amount less than $500,000. The act defines the term "grant" to mean a signed final agreement between any state agency and a local government agency or organization authorized to accept grant funding for victim services or prevention programs administered by any state agency or restoration activities performed by a resource conservation district. The act also defines "nonprofit service organization" to mean a nonprofit entity that is organized to provide services to the public, but the act does not use that term in its provisions. This bill would revise the definition of "grant" to also mean a signed final agreement between a state agency and a nonprofit organization and would delete the $500,000 exception described above. The bill would remove the definition of "nonprofit service organization," and instead would define "nonprofit organization" to mean an organization that qualifies as an exempt organization under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The act authorizes a state agency to dispute for reasonable cause an invoice, refund request, or claim for Medi-Cal reimbursement, as specified, and defines "reasonable cause" to mean a determination by a state agency that any of certain conditions exist, including that there is a discrepancy between the invoice or claimed amount and either the claimant's actual delivery of property or services to the state or the state's acceptance of those deliveries. This bill would revise the condition described above to require the discrepancy to be of an amount greater than $250 or 5% of the invoice or claimed amount, whichever is less, in order to qualify as a reasonable cause for the state agency to dispute it. Existing law establishes the Department of General Services in the Government Operations Agency for purposes of providing centralized services of state government. Existing law establishes various state grant programs. Existing federal law provides uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal grant awards to nonfederal entities and provides guidelines for determining direct and indirect costs, as defined, charged to federal awards. This bill would require a state agency administering a grant program to reimburse a grantee's indirect costs, as defined, at one of specified rates as requested by the grantee in their grant program application, not to exceed 35% of the total grant award, unless prohibited by any other state or federal law. The bill would authorize the establishment of indirect cost pools, as specified. The bill would make these provisions applicable to a grant program administered by a state agency, regardless of whether the funding source is state funds, federal funds, or a combination thereof.
- Introduced
- —
- Latest action
- 2026-09-27 — Vetoed by Governor.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Bennettauthor
- Limónprincipal coauthor
- Umbergprincipal coauthor
- Richardsoncoauthor
- Rubiocoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-27
Vetoed by Governor.
executive-veto
2026-09-03
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-26
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2026-08-26
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0.).
2026-08-26
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 6597.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-25
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).
2026-08-24
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
2026-08-20
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
2026-08-17
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
2026-08-13
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 13).
2026-08-13
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
2026-08-03
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
2025-07-23
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
2025-07-09
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2025-06-24
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-06-11
Referred to Com. on G.O.
referral-committee
2025-06-03
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-06-02
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1863.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-27
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-23
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-07
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-04-03
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 21. Noes 0.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-03-10
Referred to Com. on G.O.
referral-committee
2025-02-20
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
2025-02-19
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-02 · pass · 21-0
Member-level votes (22)
- Davies: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Ta: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Fong: yes
- Gipson: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Solache: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Berman: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Soria: yes
- Carrillo: other
Do pass.
2025-05-23 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Calderon: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Solache: yes
- Ta: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Sanchez: other
AB 880 Bennett Assembly Third Reading
2025-06-02 · pass · 79-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Rivas: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ward: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Patel: yes
- Solache: yes
- Chen: yes
- Bonta: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Lee: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Papan: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Davies: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Berman: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Soria: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Ta: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Flora: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Addis: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Krell: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Fong: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Hart: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Bains: yes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-06-24 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Jones: yes
- Choi: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Rubio: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-09-28T15:18:38.826436Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 880. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.