WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 25-1310

Purchasing Transparency Information Technology Procurement

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Mark Baisley and 4 co-sponsors

The bill would require state IT procurements to be publicly reported and centralized into a searchable data portal to increase transparency and accountability.

House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 25-1310

Summary — HB 25‑1310: Purchasing Transparency — Information Technology Procurement

Status and procedural posture
- Introduced in the House on March 28, 2025; assigned to the House Committee on State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs.
- Amended in committee and referred to Appropriations on April 14, 2025.
- May 13, 2025: House Committee on Appropriations laid the bill over unamended; amendment(s) previously proposed failed.

Sponsors
- Primary sponsors: Rep. Janice Marchman, Rep. Ron Weinberg, Rep. Mark Baisley, Rep. Brianna Titone
- Cosponsor: Rep. R. Rodriguez

Purpose and intent
- The bill’s title, “Purchasing Transparency Information Technology Procurement,” indicates the primary intent is to increase transparency and public reporting around state procurement of information technology goods and services. The goal is to make IT contracting and spending more accessible and accountable to legislators, procurement oversight bodies, vendors, and the public.

Key provisions (based on bill title and typical legislative approaches)
Note: The actual bill text was not provided. The following reflects the likely substantive components consistent with the bill’s title and standard procurement‑transparency measures:

  • Public reporting requirements: Agencies would be required to publish information on IT procurement actions (e.g., solicitations, awards, contract amounts, vendor names, contract periods, purpose/use of the procurement).
  • Centralized procurement data: Directing a central state procurement office (or Department of Personnel & Administration) to collect standardized procurement data from agencies and maintain a searchable public dashboard or data portal.
  • Contract detail and justification disclosures: Requirement to disclose evaluation criteria, scoring summaries, sole‑source or emergency procurement justifications, and contract modifications or renewals.
  • Timeliness and format standards: Specified timelines for data submission and a prescribed machine‑readable format to facilitate analysis (CSV/JSON/XML).
  • Data protection carve‑outs: Provisions to exempt or redact trade secrets or sensitive cybersecurity information while balancing transparency needs.
  • Implementation support: Possible authorization for appropriation of funds or staff responsibilities to build and operate the reporting system.

Who would be affected
- State agencies and departments engaged in IT procurement — they would bear the primary compliance and reporting responsibilities.
- Vendors and contractors who sell IT products and services to the state — increased public disclosure of contract terms and procurement processes.
- Oversight entities, legislators, media, and the public — improved ability to monitor IT spending, vendor relationships, and procurement practices.

Potential impacts and considerations
- Transparency benefits: Greater public oversight, potential cost savings from enhanced visibility, reduced conflict of interest risk, and better policy analysis of IT spending.
- Administrative costs: Agencies may incur costs (staff time, system changes) to collect, standardize, and publish procurement data. The bill may require funding or phased implementation.
- Confidentiality tradeoffs: Need to balance transparency with protection of proprietary vendor information and cybersecurity details.
- Procurement practice effects: Increased disclosure could influence vendor behavior (e.g., pricing, competitiveness) and procurement timelines.

Next steps
- The bill is currently in the House Appropriations Committee after being laid over unamended. The committee may schedule additional consideration, take no action (effectively stalling the bill), or advance it to the full House for floor debate and vote. If passed by the House, it would proceed to the Senate for consideration.

If you’d like, I can:
- Search for and summarize the bill’s full text if you provide it or allow me to retrieve it.
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison with existing Colorado procurement transparency laws or similar statutes in other states.

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

Sign in to ask a question.