House Committee Debates CMAR Procurement Changes after Interim Study; Industry Voices Deep Division

Representative Ben Koppelman, chair of the interim Government Services Committee, presented House Bill 1028 as the product of an interim study into public procurement for construction management at risk (CMAR). Koppelman said the bill aims to standardize the selection form, limit manipulation of pricing, and ensure cost is a meaningful component of the selection for projects funded by taxpayers.

Proponents including David Wood (Rohrs Construction) argued that some CMAR procurements have used relatively low weight for fees (as little as 5%) while heavily weighting experience tied to particular institutions, which has led to the same large firms being awarded a disproportionate share of state work. Wood gave an anonymized example where his firm’s fees were roughly $246,000–$431,000 lower than the teams actually selected and testified the current scoring produced only a 2‑point differential on a 400‑point scale despite the material fee difference.

Opponents — including the Associated General Contractors (AGC), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the Department of Transportation, school districts and large contractors such as Construction Engineers — argued the bill would undermine qualification‑based selection for architects and engineers, conflict with federal procurement rules for DOT projects, and reduce owner‑directed discretion in assembling teams. Several speakers said the current law (adopted after an interim study in 2005–07) has functioned for nearly two decades and that mandated minimum fee weights or limits on an owner’s ability to accept self‑performing work would hamper complex projects.

DOT’s deputy director testified that the Brooks Act and federal requirements prohibit cost‑based selection for architect/engineer services where federal funds are involved; Koppelman offered a narrow amendment intended to exempt DOT‑funded procurements from the bill’s proposed subsection. Other opponents warned that requiring every subcontractor to submit sealed bids or forbidding owner‑approved self‑performance would in some projects remove needed flexibility and could increase cost or delay schedules.

Ending: The committee heard extended, often contentious testimony from construction managers, architects, engineers, owners (including school districts) and DOT; proponents asked the committee to prioritize taxpayer value and to adopt the standard bid form and minimum fee weight, while opponents urged the committee to keep qualification‑based selection intact and to preserve owner discretion. The committee took no final vote during the hearing and closed testimony for later consideration.