SB1827 amends the Counties Code, the Illinois Municipal Code, and the Fire Protection District Act to standardize and clarify how local governments and fire protection districts may use design-build procurement for construction projects. For counties and municipalities, the bill requires a two-phase selection process: Phase I evaluates qualifications and shortlists firms, and Phase II evaluates technical and cost proposals. It specifies the information that must be included in requests for proposals, including scope and performance criteria, budget parameters, schedules, delivery requirements, and the level of design detail expected from bidders.
The bill also requires local governments to use a licensed design professional or public art designer to prepare or evaluate the scope, performance criteria, and proposal submissions, and it bars the person who prepares the criteria from participating in a project proposal. It sets mandatory evaluation factors for both phases, including experience, financial capability, past performance, compliance with minority- and women-owned business utilization goals, technical quality, constructability, and cost. The bill caps the cost weighting in Phase II at 30%, allows shortlist sizes between two and six entities, permits a single respondent to proceed if the local government finds it in its best interest, and allows project scope refinements without invalidating the contract.
For fire protection districts, the bill adds explicit authority to use design-build contracts for construction projects, so long as the district uses a competitive process consistent with the statute’s purpose. It also preserves the existing competitive bidding framework for most purchases and improvements over the statutory dollar thresholds, while clarifying that design-build is an available procurement method for district construction work. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous in the Senate and House, including concurrence in the Senate, indicating broad bipartisan support and no recorded opposition. There were no committee transcript snippets provided, but the voting history suggests the bill was viewed as a technical procurement update rather than a contentious policy change.
The main policy issues addressed are procurement transparency, fairness in evaluation, and conflict-of-interest safeguards. The bill’s notable points of contention, if any, would likely center on the balance between giving local governments discretion in selecting design-build teams and imposing detailed statutory criteria and scoring requirements. Another possible point of interest is the explicit authorization for fire protection districts to use design-build contracting, which expands their procurement options while still requiring a competitive selection process.
The bill updates local government procurement law by revising design-build procedures for counties and municipalities and by expressly authorizing fire protection districts to use design-build contracting for construction projects. It amends Sections 5-45020 and 5-45025 of the Counties Code, Sections 11-39.2-20 and 11-39.2-25 of the Illinois Municipal Code, and Section 11k of the Fire Protection District Act. The changes impose detailed RFP, evaluation, shortlist, and scoring requirements, add conflict-of-interest restrictions, and require use of licensed design professionals or public art designers in preparing or reviewing design-build criteria and submissions. The bill also preserves existing competitive bidding rules for fire protection districts while carving out design-build as a permissible method for construction procurement.
The bill appears to have enjoyed unanimous support throughout the legislative process, with 54-0 passage in the Senate, 114-0 passage in the House, and 56-0 concurrence in the Senate. That voting pattern indicates a broadly positive, low-conflict reception. No committee transcript material was provided, but the absence of recorded opposition suggests legislators viewed the measure as a practical procurement clarification and expansion of local government authority rather than a divisive policy change.
No major opposition is evident in the available record. The most likely areas of concern are procedural rather than ideological: some stakeholders may prefer greater local discretion in design-build procurement, while others may favor the bill’s added safeguards, such as mandatory evaluation factors, scoring records, and conflict-of-interest limits. The explicit permission for fire protection districts to use design-build could also draw attention from parties concerned about how that method interacts with traditional competitive bidding requirements, but the unanimous votes suggest those issues did not generate significant controversy.