The Budget and Taxation Committee debated House Bill 1499, a bill that would require state procurement contracts for construction and security services valued at $1,000,000 or more and lasting three years or longer to include clauses allowing equitable contract adjustments when statutory changes or collective bargaining increase contractors' compensation or benefits costs.

Committee staff noted the fiscal note raises questions about potential procurement cost increases and added administrative workload for state procurement staff, and that the bill's effect would depend on future events. Staff also observed ambiguity in the reprint about the role of the Board of Public Works — the House amendment makes modifications “subject to approval by the Board of Public Works,” but the transcript record left unclear whether that language preserves the Board’s authority to reject or only to document approved modifications.

Senators and outside witnesses discussed scope and intent. John Pica, speaking on behalf of NASCO and Allied Universal, said the bill’s drafting was intended to limit collective‑bargaining provisions to security services and that DGS (Department of General Services) and MDOT had worked on agreed language; he urged limiting the application to security services. Committee members suggested alternative drafting choices, including raising the monetary threshold (one member suggested $2.5 million) or explicitly limiting the provision to security services to narrow the bill’s scope.

Staff noted the House had extended the bill's effective date to October 2026. Committee members requested additional input from DGS and MDOT and said they would bring the matter back before final action. One participant summarized the practical concern: if a long‑running contract encounters a collective‑bargaining outcome that raises labor costs, the contractor could seek a contract modification to pass those costs through to the state.

The committee did not take a final vote on the reprint during the transcript excerpt and signaled plans to revisit the bill with additional agency input and a potential amendment limiting scope or changing the threshold.