PEBB seeks to streamline RFP and contract approvals; retiree groups and unions oppose reduced board oversight

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard Assembly Bill 22, introduced by representatives of the Public Employees' Benefits Board (PEBB), which would revise portions of NRS 287.04345 to alter how PEBB issues, evaluates and approves requests for proposals (RFPs) and resultant contracts.

Celestina Glover, Executive Officer for the Public Employees' Benefits Board, told the committee the bill is intended to streamline procurement steps that her office says can delay contract awards for months. Under current language, board participation in evaluations is permissive; AB 22 would require that one or more board members participate on evaluation committees. The bill would also remove the requirement that the full board review RFP results in a closed session after the evaluation committee selects a winning vendor. Glover said the change would allow the evaluation committee and staff to complete procurement steps without a separate closed meeting and reduce multi‑meeting delays that can push contracts past operational deadlines.

Glover explained the board already reviews and approves RFPs before issuing them and that the executive officer is not a member of the evaluation committee. She said the evaluation committee’s work typically includes staff and board volunteers and that state purchasing, the attorney general’s office (DAG) and the governor’s finance office also review contracts before the schedule for Board of Examiners consideration. “We go to the board in the beginning to ensure that they are approving any RFPs that we request,” Glover said. She said the proposed changes are not intended to remove oversight but to reduce process steps that have delayed large contracts.

Multiple stakeholders testified in opposition. Kent Irvin of the Nevada Faculty Alliance argued the bill would remove final board authority over contract awards and weaken fiduciary oversight for major participant‑facing contracts such as provider networks and claims payers; he said SB 502 (2017) struck a balance by allowing confidential evaluation committee work while retaining the board’s final award authority. Terri Laird, executive director of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada, and Tess Opherman of AFSCME retirees echoed concerns that the change would curtail board oversight and reduce transparency for retirees and plan participants. Ryan Beeman representing Professional Firefighters in Nevada said the bill would erode the board’s fiduciary responsibilities.

Committee members asked how frequently the board meets (Glover said the board typically meets six times per year) and whether board members are volunteers (they are appointed by the governor and serve multi‑year terms). Members asked whether the board had been involved in drafting the bill; Glover said the board was not involved in the drafting phase because the BDRs were kept confidential while the governor’s office decided which proposals to move forward, although she said most board members “didn’t have an issue” when the change was discussed later.

History cited in the hearing: Glover said the law was changed in 2015 to allow closed‑session review after open‑meeting problems and vendor complaints about competitors learning confidential evaluation details. Opponents at the hearing cited SB 502 (2017) as a prior reform that preserved board authority while protecting confidentiality during evaluations.

No committee vote was recorded in the transcript. Testimony on AB 22 was received in person; the hearing record closed and the committee moved to presentations. The transcript does not show any committee amendment or formal action to adopt the bill during the session.