House Bill 25-1152 expands Colorado contract requirements to address technology accessibility for people with disabilities when a contractor is responsible for noncompliance. The bill amends public school contract law and state procurement law to require contracts to include provisions obligating contractors to comply with accessibility standards adopted by the Office of Information Technology. If those provisions are omitted, they are deemed included by operation of law for covered contracts.
The bill also requires contractors to indemnify and hold harmless the public school district, state agency, or public entity, along with their officers, employees, and agents, for costs and liabilities arising from the contractor’s failure to meet accessibility standards. In addition, contracting entities may require a qualified third party to determine and attest to the contractor’s compliance. The measure applies to new, amended, or renewed contracts entered into on or after the effective date.
Impact
HB1152 changes Colorado law governing public school contracts and state procurement by making accessibility compliance an express contractual obligation and by shifting financial responsibility for contractor-caused accessibility violations to the contractor. It adds new statutory language to section 22-1-135 for public school contracts and section 24-85-104 for state agency and public entity procurement, while carving out professional services contracts and certain public school contract provisions from the new procurement subsection. The bill is aimed at reinforcing enforcement of existing accessibility standards under section 24-85-103 and expanding remedies available to public entities when contractors fail to comply.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and generally favorable sentiment in both chambers, as reflected by strong committee and floor votes. It passed House and Senate votes with comfortable margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee action in some instances and only limited opposition on the floor. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a practical procurement and disability-accessibility policy rather than a controversial change.
Contention
The main policy issue is the allocation of liability: the bill places the cost of noncompliance on contractors rather than on school districts, state agencies, or other public entities. Another point of potential concern is the requirement that contractors comply with accessibility standards and possibly undergo third-party attestation, which could add compliance costs and administrative burden, especially for smaller vendors. The bill also distinguishes between public school contracts, general public procurement, and professional services, indicating some effort to limit the scope of the new requirements where they may be less workable or already governed by other rules.
State management: purchasing; awarding contracts to entities that donate or contribute to certain political candidates or committees; prohibit. Amends 1984 PA 431 (MCL 18.1101 - 18.1594) by adding sec. 264b.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; certain donations by a contractor or prospective contractor under state contract; prohibit. Amends 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.201 - 169.282) by adding sec. 30a.