Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Employment Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to expand state contracting opportunities for people with disabilities
Summary
Witnesses including Work Inc. told the committee that legislation modeled on the federal AbilityOne (Wagner-O'Day) program would create jobs for people with disabilities on state contracts and reduce reliance on public assistance, while supporters asked for updated cost estimates tied to recent federal benefit changes.
Workforce and nonprofit representatives urged the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight to approve a bill that would encourage state agencies and municipalities to use qualified employers that hire people with significant disabilities for contracted services. Supporters described the measure as modeled on the federal Wagner-O'Day / AbilityOne program and said the Commonwealth could create thousands of jobs without raising service costs.
Andrea Cook, vice president of communications and community relations at Work Inc., described the organization’s federal contract work in facilities management and custodial services at multiple locations and said at least 75% of direct service hours on those federal contracts are performed by people with significant disabilities. Cook said the bill would create a purchasing preference — testimony described an “up to 10%” preference for covered employers with 75 or more full‑time equivalent employees that contract with the Commonwealth — and estimated fiscal and social benefits from increased employment.
Representative Davis and other members asked about the fiscal math. Witnesses estimated a per‑person swing of roughly $42,000 of avoided public assistance costs and a net fiscal improvement of approximately $50,000 when factoring taxes, citing internal analyses and federal program experience. Supporters noted the need to reanalyze those numbers after changes to federal benefits and programs mentioned in testimony (referred to in testimony as the “big beautiful bill” at the federal level) and said they would provide updated estimates.
The bill drew bipartisan support on the merits of expanding opportunities, and sponsors urged the committee to consider the bill alongside companion House language. No committee vote was held; members asked for written analyses and clarified that the bill’s cost estimates should be updated once federal policy details are available.
