WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1439

BEST CONSUMER PRICE ACT

104th Regular Session Introduced by Emil Jones

Illinois public institutions may require best customer pricing in procurements, with supplier attestations and letters of supply, to lower costs and help small firms.

Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Assignments
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1439

Summary — SB 1439: Best Customer Price Act

Status: Rule 3-9(a) / Re‑referred to Assignments (introduced 2025)
Primary sponsor(s): Emil Jones, III (document also lists KOUCHI as a sponsor)
Companion: HB 1120
Effective date: Upon becoming law

Note: the submitted document bundle also contains unrelated SB 1439 text from other jurisdictions (Arizona, Hawaii). This summary focuses on the Illinois “Best Customer Price Act” language included in the packet.

Purpose and intent

The bill authorizes public institutions of higher education and State agencies to require that goods they procure be offered at the supplier’s or reseller’s “best customer pricing.” The stated legislative goal is to level the procurement playing field for small and mid‑sized businesses (including minority‑, women‑, and veteran‑owned firms), increase fairness and transparency in pricing, and ensure taxpayers receive the most favorable terms.

Key provisions

  • Permissive authority: A public institution of higher education or a State agency may require “best customer pricing” for any goods it procures (section 15(a)).
  • Supplier/reseller attestation: If the State purchases goods from a supplier or reseller, that vendor must attest that the price offered is the supplier’s/reseller’s best customer price.
  • Letter of supply requirement: The supplier/reseller must include in the manufacturer’s “letter of supply”:
    • An assertion that the supplier/reseller can secure the supply and quantity required, and
    • A statement that the manufacturer has extended the same best customer pricing to each supplier/reseller registered with the State for the relevant goods.
  • Limitations:
    • Manufacturers are not required to extend best customer pricing for goods not purchased by the State (section 15(b)).
    • The statute does not regulate private commercial relationships that do not involve State purchases (section 15(c)).
    • Proprietary information protections: vendors/manufacturers are not compelled to disclose proprietary supplier information in letters of supply (section 15(d)).
  • Bid discretion: If an agency or institution requires best customer pricing but considers the offered price not competitive, it may decline to award the bid (section 20).

Definitions (select)

  • “Best customer pricing”: the best price offered to any customer for the goods the State seeks to buy, including prices, discounts, commissions, rebates, and other incentives.
  • “Letter of supply”: document from the manufacturer indicating the supplier/reseller can secure the goods.
  • “Supplier” / “Reseller”: registered State vendors that supply goods they do not manufacture.
  • “Public institution of higher education” and “State agency”: as defined in the Illinois Procurement Code.

Who is affected

  • State purchasing entities (public higher education institutions and State agencies) — gain an optional tool to demand most‑favored pricing.
  • Suppliers/resellers and manufacturers — may need to provide attestations and letters of supply and verify pricing parity across registered vendors.
  • Small/mid‑sized businesses, including minority‑, women‑, and veteran‑owned firms — intended beneficiaries if the measure reduces pricing disadvantages.
  • Taxpayers — potential benefit from lower prices or better procurement terms; potential for procurement delays or fewer bidders if compliance burdens deter vendors.

Procedural/timeline notes

  • The bill is introduced and would take effect immediately upon enactment.
  • Because the authority to require best customer pricing is permissive (“may require”), implementation would depend on procurement policy changes at agencies/institutions and on standard solicitation language and vendor registration procedures.
  • Potential administrative impacts include added verification steps during procurement, revised vendor documentation requirements, and possible legal review of attestations/letters of supply.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Pros: could secure lower net costs and create more equitable bidding opportunities for smaller vendors; increase transparency of downstream pricing practices.
  • Cons: additional paperwork and verification burdens on vendors and agencies; risk that some manufacturers or large suppliers resist or cannot extend parity pricing, possibly reducing competition or complicating supply availability; enforcement and audit mechanisms are not specified in the bill text.
  • Administrative guidance and procurement rule changes would likely be needed to operationalize attestations and letters of supply.

If you want, I can draft suggested procurement-contract language or an implementation checklist agencies could use to apply this statute.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.