Committee holds prompt‑payment and debriefing bills for more study; DGS says current debriefing practice uses seven‑day request deadline

The Budget and Taxation Committee discussed two related procurement measures — Senate Bill 671 (prompt payment and interest rules) and Senate Bill 213 (debriefings, contract modifications and consolidated claims processes) — and decided to hold the bills for further study and small‑group work.

SB 671 was presented as a bill that would change timelines for interest accrual on late payments, narrow or expand applicability and address whether contractors may waive interest. Committee members signaled concern about an information gap and suggested gathering data and targeted reporting requirements before adopting broad statutory changes.

Members debated whether a procurement ombudsman office would help smaller contractors and suppliers and whether systems changes (for example, to allow more timely payments to subcontractors via the financial system) would be a practical alternative. Staff said they could explore options and, if members desired, include funding in the upcoming budget.

On SB 213, which the House already moved, the proposed amendments would require unsuccessful offerors to be able to obtain debriefings and direct the Office of State Procurement and DGS to set timelines and a deadline for requesting debriefings. Committee members worried that a late request could stall award processes; DGS procurement officer Valerie Roddy responded that DGS’s existing practice issues a recommended‑award notice and a "Dear John" letter that gives non‑awardees a seven‑day deadline to request a debriefing. Roddy said allowing that short, prescribed window and the current protest process means the bill, as amended, ‘‘is not going to change that substantially.’’

The amendments also narrow contractor modification requests related to changes in state law (so the clause does not automatically apply to federal or broadly phrased law changes), consolidate bid‑protest and contract‑claim processes with defined timelines, and seek clarity on recovery windows (an example discussed: a 60‑day recovery look‑back tied to a notice filing date). Committee members suggested moving an effective date from July 1 to October 1 to give agencies more time to implement technical changes.

Outcome: The committee chose to hold SB 671, SB 213 (for additional review and data gathering) and SB 644 pending consultations with affected agencies and the Comptroller’s office.