Provides for required information from entities with state contracts (OR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)
Impact
The legislation aims to improve transparency and accountability in state contracting processes. By requiring detailed disclosures from contractors, it seeks to minimize the risks of fraud and mismanagement of public monies. The enforcement mechanism stipulates that failure to comply with these reporting requirements can result in termination of the contract and denial of compensation, which underscores the seriousness with which the state approaches contractor accountability. Such measures could positively influence public trust in how state contracts are managed, though they also add an administrative burden on contractors.
Summary
House Bill 805 mandates that any entity contracting with the state must submit detailed information about their organization to the Office of Facility Planning and Control within 45 days of executing the contract. This information includes the entity's legal name, address, type of organization, governing body, contract amount, and a comprehensive budget outlining anticipated expenditures. Additionally, the bill requires contractors to certify that they have no outstanding audit issues and discloses any familial ties to elected officials involved with the organization, thereby enhancing oversight on the use of public funds.
Sentiment
Sentiment surrounding HB 805 appears to be largely supportive, particularly among proponents of government transparency and accountability. Advocates argue that the increased scrutiny on contractors will lead to better governance and more responsible use of taxpayer dollars. However, some concerns were raised about the potential administrative challenges that smaller businesses may face in complying with the stringent requirements of the bill. Critics suggest that while the intention is commendable, the oversight burden may inadvertently marginalize smaller entities that cannot afford the resources to meet the detailed requirements.
Contention
The primary contention revolves around the balance between necessary transparency and the potential for overregulation affecting small businesses. Critics often express concerns about the implications of excessive requirements on entities that may lack the administrative capabilities to handle such demands. Balancing thorough vetting of contractors while maintaining an accessible contracting environment for small firms remains a point of discussion. Additionally, ensuring that the enforcement mechanisms do not inadvertently lead to avoided contracts due to perceived regulatory risks is a concern that some stakeholders have voiced.
Requires certain contracting entities to submit information to the commissioner of administration prior to contracting with a state agency or receiving monies (OR +$60,000 GF EX See Note)
Requires certain contracting entities to submit information to the legislative auditor prior to contracting with a state agency or receiving state monies (OR +$121,500 GF EX See Note)
Requires certain contracting entities to submit information to the legislative auditor prior to contracting with a state agency or receiving state monies (RE INCREASE GF EX See Note)
Requires certain contracting entities to submit information to the legislative auditor prior to contracting with a state agency or receiving state monies (Item #33) (RE INCREASE GF EX See Note)
Provides for the mandatory training in cybersecurity awareness for all state and local employees, officials, and contractors (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)