Texas House Bill HB76

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/15/25

Summary

HB 76 would add a new section to the Texas Local Government Code restricting how governmental agencies may evaluate bids in competitive procurement processes. The bill bars agencies from considering any factor unless it is required by law or is objective, measurable, and directly tied to the cost, quality, reliability, or legal compliance of the good or service being procured. It also specifically prohibits giving preference to bids based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria unless those criteria directly relate to the procurement’s core performance or legal requirements. The bill requires written contract selection criteria to be included in publicly available bid specifications and solicitation documents. It also creates a complaint-and-enforcement process allowing any person to submit a suspected violation to the attorney general. If the attorney general finds a violation, the agency may be ordered to remove prohibited criteria during an ongoing procurement or terminate an awarded but unexecuted contract; failure to do so would render the contract void. The attorney general is also authorized to seek injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the law.

Impact

HB 76 would directly affect local governmental agencies and other governmental agencies covered by Section 271.003 of the Local Government Code when they use competitive procurement processes for goods and services. It would narrow the discretion of public purchasers by limiting evaluation criteria to legally required or objectively measurable factors tied to the procurement itself, while expressly restricting ESG-based preferences. The bill would also add transparency requirements for bid documents and give the attorney general enforcement authority, including the power to force removal of criteria, compel contract termination, and seek court relief.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a procurement-oversight and anti-ESG bill, emphasizing objectivity, transparency, and legal compliance in public contracting. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The available context therefore suggests the bill’s intent and likely appeal to proponents, but does not show any formal sentiment from committee or floor action.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s prohibition on considering ESG criteria and its restriction on non-objective procurement factors, which could be viewed by critics as limiting local discretion and excluding policy goals beyond price and performance. Supporters would likely argue that the bill prevents subjective or politically driven contracting decisions and ensures fair, transparent bidding. Another possible area of dispute is the attorney general’s enforcement role, including the authority to void contracts and compel termination, which could be seen as a strong state-level intrusion into local procurement decisions.