Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates expanding procurement options for cities; amendment fails, bill circled
Summary
Lawmakers debated SB 155, which would let political subdivisions use design-build and CMGC contracting methods. An amendment to broaden eligibility failed 36–36 after extended floor debate; lawmakers voted to ‘circle’ the bill for further consideration.
Representative Neal (Representative Nielsen) introduced Senate Substitute Bill 155 as an effort to allow certain political subdivisions greater flexibility in contracting for construction by authorizing design‑build and construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) delivery methods for qualifying projects.
Supporters said the change would let local governments choose delivery systems that can lower change‑order costs and improve coordination between designers and contractors. "There are advantages and disadvantages to every delivery system," Representative Nielsen said, adding that DFCM experience shows some alternatives can reduce overall costs by lowering change orders.
Opponents warned the change could shrink competition and advantage a small set of large firms. Representative Morley argued that value‑based procurement had already reduced competition for state work and warned that expanding design‑build to local governments risks assigning disproportionate weight to nonprice criteria.
Representative Sandstrom moved Amendment No. 2 to expand eligibility beyond first‑class cities and the bill’s original thresholds, saying the change would provide municipalities statewide the option to save money and increase competition. Supporters of the amendment described successful, competitive design‑build examples in neighboring states; opponents argued the amendment went too far.
After extended questioning and floor debate, the motion to adopt Amendment No. 2 failed in a division vote, recorded as 36 yes and 36 no. The House then voted to "circle" SB 155 for additional consideration rather than pass it in its current form.
The circled status means the measure will return to the House calendar; no final policy change took effect during this session.
Next steps: the bill was circled for future consideration; proponents and critics signaled they may continue negotiating statutory language and eligibility thresholds.
