Committee debates broad procurement reforms in House Bill 304, considers summer study for related measures

Committee members spent substantial time reviewing provisions in House Bill 304, a procurement bill that would expand contractors' ability to seek equitable adjustments and add requirements for debriefings and claims handling.

Committee staff and members highlighted several provisions they said warrant further study: a broad equitable-adjustment requirement that would compensate a contractor for increased cost and time when performance is affected by changes in law and that contains no dollar or contract-type limits; a requirement that a procurement officer provide a debriefing to an unsuccessful offeror on request and that the debriefing occur before a recommended contract award is presented for approval to the head of the unit or the Board of Public Works; new language clarifying that assisting in drafting specifications "does not include" providing information that does not give an unfair competitive advantage; expansion of protest and contracting-claim procedures from construction contracts to all contracts; and a requirement that, "prior to authorizing a payment on the claim," contractors supplement claims for any claims pending administratively or in court as of 07/01/2025.

One committee member described the equitable-adjustment provision as similar to another bill discussed earlier but broader because it lacks the prior bill's dollar and contract-type limits. Committee members noted the potential practical effect on procurement timelines if multiple debriefings are required before a contract is presented for approval.

Several members agreed the issues are complex and suggested placing the bills in a subcommittee summer study for more detailed review. The transcript records support for studying the bills over the summer but does not record a formal referral vote or an official subcommittee assignment during the meeting.

No floor or subcommittee action was recorded at the meeting; committee members said the bills had fared well in the House but had not yet advanced through the committee's subcommittee process. Members identified a number of technical and implementation issues staff should address if the bills proceed.