An Act Requiring The Secretary Of The Office Of Policy And Management To Submit An Annual Report Concerning State Contracts Awarded To Out-of-state Businesses.
Summary
HB 6327 would require each state agency to report annually to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) all contracts awarded to businesses whose principal place of business is outside Connecticut. For each such contract, the report must identify whether resident businesses also bid and, if so, explain why the agency selected the out-of-state vendor instead of a Connecticut business. The first report would cover contracts awarded on or after July 1, 2025, and later reports would cover the prior reporting period.
The bill also directs OPM to compile the agency submissions into a statewide summary and submit that summary each year to the General Assembly’s Government Oversight committee. In effect, the measure does not prohibit awards to nonresident businesses; rather, it creates a transparency and accountability reporting requirement around those awards and the procurement decisions behind them.
Impact
The bill amends section 4-67i of the general statutes to add a new annual reporting obligation for state agencies and a corresponding annual compilation duty for the Secretary of OPM, effective July 1, 2025. It would affect state procurement administration by requiring agencies to track and disclose contracts awarded to out-of-state businesses, including bid participation by resident businesses and the rationale for vendor selection. The practical impact would fall on state agencies, OPM, and contractors competing for state work, especially Connecticut-based businesses seeking visibility into procurement decisions.
Sentiment
The available record shows little formal debate or recorded opposition: there were no committee transcript snippets provided and the vote history only reflects a vote-to-draft tally sheet with no yeas or nays recorded. Based on the bill’s text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed positively as a transparency and oversight tool, with an emphasis on monitoring how often state contracts go to out-of-state firms and why.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s focus on out-of-state awards and the implicit preference it may signal for resident businesses. Supporters are likely to view the reporting requirement as a way to promote accountability, measure the use of Connecticut vendors, and identify whether resident businesses are being overlooked. Opponents or concerned stakeholders could argue that the bill adds administrative burden, may chill procurement flexibility, or could be used to pressure agencies toward in-state vendors even when out-of-state businesses offer better value or expertise. No specific objections were recorded in the provided materials.