Mississippi House Bill HB197

Mississippi 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/17/24
• Refer: 1/17/24
• Failed: 3/5/24

Caption

Reverse auction; revise method of receiving bids through for agencies and governing authorities.

Impact

The implications of HB197 could lead to a more controlled approach to public procurement processes. By requiring agencies and governing authorities to explain their refusal to utilize reverse auctions, the bill is designed to promote transparency and accountability in government spending. This greater oversight may improve public trust in procurement processes, as more detailed justifications will be publicly available. Additionally, the bill is intended to streamline bidding procedures while maintaining competitive pricing, potentially benefiting the state’s fiscal health as it would encourage better fiscal decisions regarding contracts.

Summary

House Bill 197 aims to amend Section 31-7-13 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 to revise the reverse auction bidding method used by state agencies and governing authorities. The bill seeks to establish clear guidelines that differentiate how reverse auctions are handled between these entities, adding layers of accountability before an agency can opt out of using this method. If an agency concludes that a reverse auction is not in its best interest, this decision must be approved by the Public Procurement Review Board. Similarly, if a governing authority finds the method unsuitable, it must obtain approval from its governing board and provide an explanation justifying the decision.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB197 include concerns from some legislators regarding the potential for bureaucratic overload. Critics argue that adding additional layers of approval might complicate and prolong the procurement process, ultimately slowing down essential services or projects that require rapid responses. There is also apprehension that these requirements may deter some organizations from doing business with state agencies if they perceive the process to be too cumbersome. Proponents, however, believe that enhancing transparency will result in more effective use of public funds and better overall outcomes.