WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 307

Local Government, General - As introduced, authorizes a local government having a population of 100,000 or more and having centralized purchasing with a full-time purchasing agent to use any project delivery method that the local government determines most effectively meets the needs of the local government for the construction of local projects or additions to existing buildings. - Amends TCA Title 12, Chapter 3, Part 12.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Richard Briggs

Allows eligible Tennessee local governments (pop 100k+, centralized purchasing) to choose any project delivery method (CMAR, Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, DBFO) for public constr

Passed on Second Consideration, refer to Senate State and Local Government Committee
#general #localgovernment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 307

Summary: SB 307 / HB 1054 (Tennessee, 114th General Assembly)

Main purpose and intent

  • Authorizes certain large local governments to choose any project delivery method for construction projects or additions to existing buildings, rather than being restricted to a single traditional method.
  • The bill targets local governments with a population of 100,000 or more that have centralized purchasing with a full-time purchasing agent.
  • The aim is to allow local decision-makers to select the most effective method for each project, potentially improving efficiency, cost control, and outcomes.

Key provisions and changes

New authority for eligible local governments

  • A local government meeting ALL of the following criteria may use any project delivery method it determines most effectively meets its needs:
    • Population of 100,000 or more (per 2020 or subsequent federal census).
    • Has centralized purchasing with a full-time purchasing agent.
    • The project involves construction of local projects or additions to existing buildings.
    • All applicable purchasing laws are followed.

Authorized project delivery methods

  • The following four project delivery methods are specifically authorized:
    1. Construction Manager at-Risk (CMAR)
      • The construction manager acts as the local government’s general contractor, advising the designer and builder and delivering the project within a guaranteed maximum price.
    2. Design-Bid-Build
      • Traditional method with three sequential phases: design, procurement, construction; two separate contracts (design and construction).
    3. Design-Build
      • Single contract encompassing both design and construction services.
    4. Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO)
      • A private sector party is awarded a contract to design, construct, finance, and operate the capital project.

Definitions (for clarity)

  • The bill provides formal definitions for:
    • Local government (broadly includes counties, municipalities, metropolitan governments, towns, utility districts/authorities, local education agencies, and other local entities).
    • Project delivery method (the four methods listed above).

Effective date

  • The act takes effect upon becoming law.

Who is affected

  • Eligible local governments and related entities:
    • Counties, municipalities, metropolitan governments, towns, utility districts/authorities, local education agencies, and similar local entities with:
    • Population of 100,000 or more, and
    • Centralized purchasing with a full-time purchasing agent.
  • Potentially impacts utility districts/authorities and local education agencies within the population threshold.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Legislative history:
    • Introduced and referred to committees in early 2025.
    • Passed second consideration in February 2025; previously passed first consideration in January 2025.
  • Not a statewide mandate; applicability is limited to qualifying local governments meeting the population and purchasing criteria.
  • No new funding authorization or revenue mechanism is created; fiscal note indicates “not significant” impact, implying the change is procedural and in-line with existing procurement laws.

Potential implications and considerations

  • Flexibility: Local governments can tailor project delivery to each project, potentially improving schedule, cost control, and risk management.
  • Procurement compliance: Requires adherence to existing purchasing laws despite broader delivery-method choices.
  • Budget and oversight: CMAR and DBFO models shift some risk and responsibilities (e.g., guaranteed maximum price in CMAR; private sector involvement in DBFO) and may affect oversight needs and contract management practices.
  • Equity and competition: Could alter how local firms bid on projects depending on chosen method.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific city or provide a side-by-side comparison of the four delivery methods as applied to typical projects.

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

Sign in to ask a question.