Relative to prohibiting the state from contracting with Chinese government owned or affiliated technology manufacturers.
If enacted, HB86 would amend existing laws in New Hampshire related to state contracts, requiring companies bidding for state-funded opportunities to certify that they are not affiliated with scrutinized Chinese companies. A false certification would result in severe penalties, including financial liability and disqualification from future contracts. This could shift the landscape of suppliers available to the state, as many tech firms may have links to global networks that include Chinese entities. The repercussions could ripple through supply chains and affect pricing and availability of goods and services provided to the state.
House Bill 86 aims to prohibit the state of New Hampshire from entering into contracts with technology manufacturers that are owned or affiliated with the Chinese government. This legislation addresses growing security concerns related to technology and procurement, specifically targeting companies that are perceived to pose a risk due to their ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The bill reflects a broader trend across several states and at the federal level toward increasing scrutiny of foreign entities in public sector contracts, particularly from nations viewed as geopolitical rivals.
The sentiment surrounding HB86 is primarily supportive among lawmakers who advocate for heightened national security measures and economic independence from potentially adversarial nations. Proponents argue that it is crucial for protecting the state's technological infrastructure and ensuring public safety. However, there is a concern among some stakeholders about the broad language of the bill, which may inadvertently impact a wide range of companies that have any level of affiliation with Chinese ownership, potentially leading to desqualifications that are viewed as overly restrictive.
One notable point of contention involves the definition of 'scrutinized company.' Opponents of the bill argue that the criteria for exclusion could be too expansive, unfairly penalizing companies that have legitimate business relationships in international markets. Critics caution that the bill might restrict competition and lead to increased costs or prolonged procurement processes for the state, as potential suppliers could be limited. The issue raises foundational questions about balancing national security interests with economic opportunities and operational efficacy in public projects.