Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents review procurement guidelines under House Bill 2560; staff proposes higher contract‑notice threshold
Summary
Board staff presented draft guidelines under newly enacted House Bill 2560 allowing state universities to assume more procurement responsibility for design and construction; staff recommended raising the contract‑notice threshold to $2.5 million and preserving qualifications‑based selection for technical services, with a final policy planned for the board's June meeting.
Chair opened the standing items and turned the committee to the Kansas Campus Restoration Act and related facilities policy work. Director Chad Bristow told regents the Campus Restoration Act Fund was fully funded for FY27 and that allocation of the $30,000,000 is on the consent agenda. He reviewed prior facility policy changes that increased university CEO authority for capital projects to $1,500,000 (from $500,000) and delegated approval of project amendments under $10,000,000 to the board president/CEO.
Vice president Elaine Frisbie summarized draft guidelines staff prepared to implement House Bill 2560, which she said authorizes state universities to adopt policies that must then be approved by the Board of Regents before taking effect. Frisbie said the guidelines focus on procurement of professional design, construction and development services and are intended to preserve qualifications‑based selection for architects, engineers and land surveyors while providing clarity about competitive processes for design‑bid‑build, construction manager at risk, and design‑build delivery methods. She added the guidance addresses easements, official hospitality and surplus property disposition when those subjects appear in university policies.
On reporting and contracts, staff noted an outdated requirement that universities must notify the board president/CEO of any contract exceeding $1,000,000 (a threshold last set in 1990). Frisbie said staff recommend raising that notification level to $2.5 million and removing a filing requirement tied to legislative post audit because the underlying statute has changed. Bristow and Frisbie said they will share draft policy language with university CFOs for review and bring a formal policy proposal to the board for a June consideration.
Regents asked clarifying questions about how price will be treated in qualifications‑based selections; Bristow explained that, as a best practice for technical professional services, price is typically negotiated after qualifications are evaluated and is not used as a primary selection criterion. Several regents urged staff to continue balancing oversight and accountability with efficiencies that address construction inflation and project budget uncertainty.
Next steps: staff will circulate draft policy language to campus CFOs, accept regent feedback, and present a recommended policy for board review at the June meeting. No final action was taken by the committee at this session.
