WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3361

Solicitor funding

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tommy Pope

Cuts the decision window in Section 39P from 30 to 15 days, with a hard cap of 60 days, forcing faster procurement rulings for agencies and bidders.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3361

Summary — H 3361 (House Bill) — “Solicitor funding” / “An Act relative to timely decisions by awarding authorities”

Note: The bill packet contains two distinct items. The primary Massachusetts bill text (House No. 3361) amends procurement law to require timelier decisions by awarding authorities. Separately, the packet includes an unrelated South Carolina draft provision about county funding for circuit solicitors; that South Carolina language is not part of the Massachusetts bill and appears to be included in error. This summary focuses on the Massachusetts bill.

Sponsor, status, and key dates

  • Sponsor: Rep. Daniel J. Hunt (13th Suffolk)
  • Prefiled: 12/05/2024; Introduced and read first time: 01/14/2025
  • Referred: Committee on Judiciary (also appears referred to State Administration and Regulatory Oversight in the record)
  • Legislative actions: Senate concurred 02/27/2025; hearings scheduled and rescheduled between 10/01/2025 and 10/08/2025 (committee hearing locations/times updated)
  • Classification: Bill (House No. 3361); replaces HD 1069

Purpose / intent

The bill seeks to shorten and clarify the timeframe within which an “awarding authority” must issue a decision under Section 39P of Chapter 30 of the Massachusetts General Laws — a section located in the public procurement statutes. The stated intent is to require more timely decisions in procurement-related administrative processes.

Key provisions

  • Amends Section 39P of Chapter 30 by replacing each occurrence of the word “thirty” with “fifteen.” (Text indicates every statutory reference to “thirty” within that section is changed to “fifteen.”)
  • Adds the following clause at the end of Section 39P: “, but such date shall not exceed 60 days from submission.” This imposes an outer cap of 60 days measured from the date of submission.

Taken together, the amendment appears to:
- Reduce the presumptive or default decision period from 30 days to 15 days in the specific contexts governed by Section 39P; and
- Explicitly limit any allowed extension so that the decision date cannot be set later than 60 days from the original submission.

Who is affected

  • Awarding authorities: state agencies, departments, and public entities that conduct procurements and make administrative determinations under Section 39P. They would need to process certain procurement decisions more rapidly or document reasons for relying on the 60‑day outer limit.
  • Bidders, vendors, and prospective contractors: they would receive decisions (approvals, denials, or other determinations) on protests, submissions or disputed procurement matters more quickly, improving predictability.
  • Procurement offices and legal staff: may face increased workload or need for procedural adjustments to comply with shorter decision windows.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Positive: faster procurement decisions could reduce uncertainty and delay for vendors and contracting authorities; may accelerate project timelines.
  • Operational: awarding authorities may need to reallocate resources, streamline review processes, or adopt new internal deadlines to meet a 15-day target while relying on the 60-day cap only when necessary.
  • Legal/interpretive: the interaction between replacing “thirty” with “fifteen” and adding a “not exceed 60 days” cap could raise interpretive questions (e.g., when the 15‑day rule applies versus when a longer period up to 60 days is permitted). Implementing guidance or regulations may be necessary to clarify application.
  • No fiscal figures are specified in the bill text.

Procedural/timeline notes

  • The bill is in committee (Judiciary) with hearings scheduled and rescheduled for fall 2025. Further committee action (reporting out) would be required before floor action.
  • Because the bill amends a statutory procurement provision, agencies responsible for procurement oversight may be asked to provide testimony or fiscal/operational impact statements at hearings.

If you want, I can:
- Pull the current text of Section 39P, Chapter 30 to show where “thirty” appears, or
- Draft potential legislative language to resolve any ambiguities between the 15‑day requirement and the 60‑day cap.

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

Sign in to ask a question.