Kansas House Bill HB2116

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 1/28/25
• Report Pass: 2/11/25
• Engrossed: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/20/25
• Report Pass: 3/10/25
• Enrolled: 4/9/26
• Passed: 4/9/26

Caption

Requiring that certain contractual provisions be incorporated in all contracts for certain cities and counties, including the provisions of form DA-146a, with certain exceptions.

Summary

HB2116 requires certain cities and counties in Kansas to include the mandatory contract provisions contained in Department of Administration form DA-146a in their contracts. For contracts entered into after July 1, 2026, those provisions are treated as incorporated by law even if they are not written into the agreement, unless the local governing body affirmatively votes to omit some of the DA-146a terms. The bill also makes clear that the core provisions in sections 2 and 3 cannot be waived or omitted. The bill establishes two major public-policy rules for covered municipal and county contracts. First, cities and counties may not agree to indemnify or hold harmless other parties for damages, injury, or death caused by those other parties’ actions or failures to act; any contract violating that rule is void and unenforceable. Second, covered contracts must be governed by Kansas law, may not choose another state’s law, and may not submit disputes to courts outside Kansas. These rules apply only to cities of the second or third class and counties with populations under 35,000.

Impact

HB2116 changes the contracting authority of smaller Kansas cities and counties by imposing mandatory contract language and limiting their ability to negotiate indemnity, choice-of-law, and forum-selection provisions. It effectively amends how local governments draft and approve contracts, and it overrides inconsistent contract terms by declaring them contrary to Kansas public policy and unenforceable. The bill’s practical effect is to standardize local government contracts and reduce exposure to out-of-state law and litigation forums for the covered municipalities and counties.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the House 119-0, the Senate 40-0, and both chambers later adopted the conference committee report unanimously. The unanimous votes suggest general agreement on the need to protect smaller local governments from unfavorable contract terms and to keep their contracts tied to Kansas law and Kansas courts.

Contention

No major opposition is reflected in the available committee or floor information, and there are no transcript snippets indicating debate. The main policy choices embedded in the bill are the restrictions on indemnification and on selecting non-Kansas law or courts, but the unanimous votes indicate those issues did not generate visible contention in the recorded legislative history. The only built-in flexibility is that local governing bodies may vote to omit some DA-146a provisions, though they cannot waive the core public-policy protections in sections 2 and 3.