WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 4742

State contracts with person or business convicted of fraud precluded.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Brion Curran and 1 co-sponsor

The bill prohibits Minnesota state contracts with any person or business convicted of fraud.

Author added Rehrauer
#contracts #governmentaloperations-state
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 4742

Summary of HF 4742 (2025-2026) – Minnesota: State contracts with person or business convicted of fraud precluded

Purpose and Intent

HF 4742 seeks to prohibit the state of Minnesota from entering into or renewing contracts with individuals or businesses that have been convicted of fraud. The bill aims to promote integrity, accountability, and prudent use of public funds in state contracting by ensuring that entities with fraudulent conduct are disqualified from government work.

Key Provisions

  • Prohibition on state contracts: The state (including its agencies, departments, and political subdivisions) would be barred from contracting with a person or business that has a fraud conviction. The bill specifies that the prohibition applies to contracts for goods, services, or construction awarded by state government entities.

  • Definition of “fraud”: The bill defines fraud broadly to include criminal convictions involving fraudulent acts. (Note: The precise statutory definition in the bill would specify categories of fraud or related offenses that trigger disqualification; exact language should be consulted in the enrolled bill.)

  • Disqualification mechanism:

    • Entities with applicable fraud convictions would be ineligible for state contracting.
    • The bill may include provisions for verifying a bidder’s or awardee’s criminal history and for updating the disqualification status when convictions occur or expire.

  • Grandfathering/ exemptions: The bill could include transitional provisions or exemptions for certain contracts already in progress, ongoing procurements, or cases involving de minimis or non-financial fraud. (The exact text would specify any exceptions.)

  • Remedies and enforcement: Provisions may address how agencies verify compliance, handle bid protests, and enforce the prohibition, including potential penalties for knowingly contracting with disqualified entities.

  • Coordination with existing law: The bill would align with or modify Minnesota procurement rules and supplier diversity or ethics statutes as they relate to contracting eligibility and misconduct.

Affected Parties

  • Primary:
    • State of Minnesota and its agencies, departments, and political subdivisions involved in purchasing goods, services, or construction.
  • Secondary:
    • Businesses and individuals seeking state contracts, including prime contractors and subcontractors, who must ensure eligibility and disclose any fraud convictions.
    • Procurement officials and state compliance staff responsible for evaluating bids and awarding contracts.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Intro and referral: Introduced and referred to the State Government Finance and Policy Committee (March 26, 2026).
  • Authorship: Noted author addition on April 7, 2026 (Rehrauer); co-sponsors listed as Kari Rehrauer and Brion Curran.
  • Next steps (typical): Committee discussion, potential amendments, committee vote, floor consideration, and potential passage by the Legislature, followed by gubernatorial decision (depending on the session status).

Practical Implications

  • If enacted, potential bidders with fraud convictions would be disqualified from state contracts, which could impact:
    • Existing vendors with prior fraud records seeking renewal.
    • New bids from firms with fraud histories.
  • Agencies would need processes to verify conviction status, maintain up-to-date misconduct databases, and apply the disqualification consistently.
  • The policy emphasizes ethical use of public funds and may influence vendor due diligence practices in Minnesota’s procurement ecosystem.

Note: The summary above reflects the bill’s stated intent and typical structures used in similar anti-fraud contracting provisions. For precise language, definitions, exemptions, and implementation details, consult the enrolled bill text and accompanying fiscal notes once available.

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

Sign in to ask a question.