Requesting The Auditor To Conduct An Audit Of No-bid Contracts Issued By State And County Agencies Under Proclamations Declaring States Of Emergency During The Six-year Period Between January 1, 2020, And December 31, 2025.
Summary
SR104 is a Senate resolution requesting the Hawaii State Auditor to conduct an audit of no-bid contracts awarded by state and county agencies under emergency proclamations from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2025. The resolution focuses on emergency procurement practices used during states of emergency, including the legal authority that allows procurement rules to be suspended when an emergency is declared by the Governor or a county mayor.
The audit is directed to examine how agencies justified issuing no-bid contracts, what standards were used to select vendors, how agencies determined whether prices were reasonable, and what accountability measures were applied. The Auditor is also asked to provide findings, recommendations, and any proposed legislation to the Legislature before the 2027 Regular Session. The resolution is investigative and advisory in nature; it does not itself change procurement law, but it is intended to inform possible future reforms to emergency contracting rules and oversight.
Impact
SR104 does not amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes or create new procurement requirements. Instead, it directs the Auditor to review emergency no-bid contracting practices by state and county agencies and to report on potential weaknesses or inconsistencies in the current system. Its practical impact is to increase legislative oversight of emergency procurement and to generate information that could support future statutory changes affecting chapter 103D, emergency proclamations under chapter 127A, and public contracting accountability.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is cautious and oversight-oriented. The bill’s findings suggest concern that emergency powers may have been used in ways that reduced transparency or accountability, especially in light of COVID-19-era contracts and questions about public spending. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no evidence of formal opposition or support in the record beyond the resolution’s own framing, which is generally critical of inconsistent emergency procurement practices and supportive of review.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between emergency flexibility and procurement accountability. Supporters of the resolution appear concerned that suspending procurement rules during emergencies can lead to inconsistent vendor selection, questionable pricing, and insufficient oversight of public funds. The resolution specifically references contracts involving the National Kidney Foundation of Hawaii and the City and County of Honolulu as examples that raised concerns. Any opposition would likely center on the need for agencies to act quickly in emergencies and the risk that retrospective scrutiny could second-guess urgent decisions, but no explicit opposing arguments are included in the provided materials.
Same As
Requesting The Auditor To Conduct An Audit Of No-bid Contracts Issued By State And County Agencies Under Proclamations Declaring States Of Emergency During The Six-year Period Between January 1, 2020, And December 31, 2025.