WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 2180

Relates to requiring a digital equity officer be appointed by the director of the office of information technology services

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Kevin Parker

MA bill tightens public bid fraud rules: requires perjury-style certification, expands responsible bidder standards, and imposes a 5% bid deposit.

REFERRED TO INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 2180

Summary — S.2180 (2025): “An Act relative to the definition of fraud in public construction bid laws”

Note: There are inconsistencies in the provided metadata. The bill text and docket (Senate Docket No. 124, filed 01/08/2025) clearly describe a Massachusetts state-law amendment on fraud and bid certifications in public construction procurement. Some header information (a different title about a “digital equity officer”) and a list of federal senators as sponsors appear unrelated to the bill text. This summary follows the bill text.

Purpose

To tighten and clarify the statutory definitions and certification requirements regarding fraud, misrepresentations, and bidder responsibility in Massachusetts public construction procurement. The bill revises bid-certification language, defines “fraud” in procurement statutes, revises the definition of “responsible” bidders, and adjusts prequalification appeal and bid-deposit/certification requirements.

Key provisions (by section)

  • Section 1 (amending G.L. c.30, §39M(a))

    • Replaces existing bid certification wording with a new statement requiring bidders to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the bid is bona fide, fair, made without collusion, and "contains no intentional misrepresentations, omissions or false statements."
    • Explicitly defines “person” to include natural persons, joint ventures, partnerships, corporations, or any other business/legal entity.

  • Section 2 (amending G.L. c.149, §44A)

    • Inserts a statutory definition of “Fraud”: a statement, act or omission about a material fact that (i) would naturally be relied upon or influence the average person, (ii) is knowingly false/misleading or in reckless disregard of truth, and (iii) is intended to mislead — regardless of whether it is actually relied upon.

  • Section 3 (amending the definition of “responsible” in G.L. c.149, §44A)

    • Expands “responsible” to mean demonstrably possessing skill, ability, and integrity and to include a certification that the bid contains no misrepresentations, omissions, or false statements (typo in bill reads “now” but context implies “no”).

  • Section 4 (amending G.L. c.149A, §2)

    • Adds the same definition of “Fraud” into the chapter governing designer/CM-at-risk prequalification.

  • Section 5 (amending G.L. c.149A, §8(f))

    • Limits prequalification appeal rights: committee decisions are final and not subject to appeal except on grounds that a submission contains intentional, material misrepresentations/omissions/false statements, or collusion.

  • Section 6 (amending G.L. c.149A, §19)

    • Prescribes that RFP responses must include a bid deposit (bond, cash, certified/treasurer’s/cashier’s check) equal to 5% of the bid value.
    • Requires a perjury-style certification with responses that the bid is bona fide, fair, made without collusion, and “contains no intentional material misrepresentations, omissions or false statements,” with the same inclusive “person” definition.

Who is affected

  • Contractors, joint ventures, subcontractors, designers, and any business or legal entity bidding on Massachusetts public construction contracts.
  • Awarding authorities and procurement administrators (responsible for bid evaluation, prequalification, and enforcing certifications).
  • Potentially increases exposure to administrative disqualification, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution where statutes are enforced.

Practical implications

  • Creates a broader and clearer statutory standard for “fraud” in public contracting (adds reckless disregard and intent-to-mislead language and removes reliance as a required element).
  • Raises bidder compliance burdens: stronger certifications, expanded definition of “responsible,” and potential prequalification consequences.
  • May increase administrative scrutiny, debarments, bid rejections, and litigation over alleged misrepresentations; bidders may adopt stricter internal verification and disclosure processes.
  • Imposes a specified bid deposit of 5% for certain procurements (under chapter 149A), potentially increasing upfront costs to bidders.

Procedural status / timeline (selected items provided)

  • Senate Docket No. 124 filed: 01/08/2025 (sponsored by Sen. Michael O. Moore and numerous Massachusetts state senators).
  • Introduced in Senate: 06/26/2025 (read twice and referred).
  • Referred to State Administration & Regulatory Oversight: 02/27/2025 (per bill text chronology).
  • Referred to Internet and Technology: 01/15/2025 (metadata conflict).
  • Hearings scheduled/rescheduled: multiple dates in 2025 (e.g., hearings scheduled for 10/01/2025; rescheduled to 10/08/2025).
  • Committee reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways & Means: 11/24/2025.

Related bills

  • SD 124 (replaces)
  • Prior-session related proposals: S.9095, S.5931, S.4846

Notes and considerations

  • The bill tightens mens rea and procedural language used to evaluate and disqualify bidders, which could reduce fraud but also increase disputes about intent and materiality.
  • Parties bidding on public construction work should review internal compliance, disclosure practices, and bonds/deposits to account for the 5% deposit requirement and the stronger certifications.
  • The metadata supplied with the bill contains inconsistent title and sponsor information; this summary is grounded in the bill text filed with the Massachusetts Senate (Docket No. 124).

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

Sign in to ask a question.