Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Human Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to prioritize local human‑services contractors fails after administration warnings
Summary
House Bill 749 would have required state agencies to prioritize in‑state experience and local relationships in scoring human‑services contracts; the Department of Administration and procurement officials warned the measure conflicts with Montana procurement law and federal procurement rules and the committee voted it down.
Representative Mary Cafaro (sponsor) told the committee House Bill 749 seeks to add priority criteria in solicitations for human services and public assistance contracts so Montana providers with local experience and demonstrated ties to communities would score higher. "We would like to see in the process of awarding these contracts that the Montana way of doing business will be valued," the sponsor said.
Proponents — including Montana Nonprofit Association, community action networks, child‑care and early childhood advocates, and workforce providers — described the loss of local contractors, service disruptions and job reductions after recent procurements awarded statewide contracts to out‑of‑state firms. Several witnesses read firsthand accounts of clients who said services and communication worsened after management shifted to a distant contractor.
Officials from the Department of Administration, State Procurement Services and DPHHS testified in opposition. Misty Ann Giles, Director of the Department of Administration, read the Montana Procurement Act’s purposes and said the bill “runs entirely counter to the purposes of the Montana Procurement Act,” warning that prescribed scoring criteria in statute would limit fair and open competition. John Thomas of State Procurement Services and Don Harris, legal counsel, raised reciprocal preference and federal competition concerns and said the change could reduce competitive bidding and invite litigation.
Committee members pressed both sides on how scoring factors such as "leveraging relationships" or "length of time operating in state" would be measured; Department of Administration witnesses said agencies typically set solicitation weighting and that codified scoring could be hard to administer. Supporters argued the criteria would not bar out‑of‑state bidders but would ensure the evaluation recognizes local knowledge and community accountability.
On executive action the committee held a roll call: the motion to report HB749 do‑pass failed, 9 yes to 12 no. The committee then voted to table the bill. The bill’s sponsor and proponents said they plan to continue advocating for ways to retain Montana‑based service capacity.
