Committee hears bill to restore competitive procurement for Montana Lottery contracts

Senator Matt Regier, sponsor of Senate Bill 232, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill would reverse a 2023 floor amendment that he said created a broad exemption for the Montana Lottery from the Montana Procurement Act. "That exempted lottery by itself does not have to go out for bid for its contracts," Regier said, adding, "Senate Bill 232 rewinds that last minute amendment."

The bill’s backers said restoring competitive solicitations will increase transparency and protect public confidence. John Metropoulos, an attorney member of the Montana Lottery Commission, said the lottery commission had voted to issue a request for proposals (RFP) but was delayed after the 2023 amendment. "This amendment ... is a source of great mischief for the lottery commission," Metropoulos said, describing months of delay before the commission again voted in March to proceed with an RFP.

Representatives of businesses that place or manufacture gaming machines said an RFP process is necessary to attract qualified vendors. Shauna Helfert, representing the Gaming Industry Association, said the machines that host sports betting must be updated and that an open RFP "ensures a fair and transparent process as well as secures the best possible products for Montanans." Rhonda Wiggers of the Montana Coin Machine Operators Association and John Iverson of the Montana Tavern Association also testified in support, saying vendors were surprised the Lottery might not go to RFP.

Misty Ann Giles, director of the Department of Administration (DOA), appeared as an informational witness and told the committee DOA advises state entities on procurement but did not control the lottery commission’s decision. Giles said DOA’s legal guidance recommended that, even when an exemption exists, the lottery follow procurement procedures to maintain fairness and public confidence. She also raised a drafting concern flagged by committee members: removing an existing exemption for student activity fees could unintentionally require DOA involvement in student association purchases.

Committee members questioned specific language in the bill that the sponsor said he would be willing to revisit; Representative Staffman asked about a struck exemption for student activity fees and the sponsor deferred to DOA. No formal committee action or vote was recorded in the hearing transcript.

The bill had broad industry and commission support at the hearing and drew technical questions from DOA about unintended consequences in the statutory text. The sponsor closed by appealing to bipartisan support for competitive bidding on government contracts.

The committee moved on to its next agenda item after the hearing concluded.