Hawaii Senate Bill SCR111

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/16/26
• Refer: 3/19/26

Caption

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

SCR111 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution requesting the Hawaii State Auditor to examine 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 during declared states of emergency, including how agencies justified bypassing competitive bidding, how vendors were selected, and what pricing or valuation methods were used to determine whether contracts were reasonable. The resolution also asks the Auditor to identify any accountability standards used in awarding and evaluating these contracts and to provide findings, recommendations, and any proposed legislation to the Legislature before the 2027 Regular Session. The measure does not itself change procurement law; instead, it directs an audit intended to inform possible future reforms to emergency procurement rules and oversight.

Impact

SCR111 would not directly amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes or alter procurement procedures on its own. Its practical effect is to require a legislative audit of emergency no-bid contracting practices across state and county agencies, with particular attention to contracts issued under emergency proclamations and the standards used to justify them. The audit could influence future legislation affecting chapter 103D emergency procurements, emergency proclamations under chapter 127A, and oversight of public spending during emergencies.

Sentiment

The resolution appears to be driven by concern over transparency, consistency, and accountability in emergency contracting, especially in light of COVID-19-era contracts and questions about public spending. The tone of the measure is generally skeptical of how no-bid contracts have been handled and supportive of closer review. Because there is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, there is no evidence of formal opposition or support beyond the resolution’s stated rationale.

Contention

The main point of contention is the balance between emergency flexibility and procurement accountability. Supporters of the audit are concerned that emergency proclamations may have been used inconsistently to justify no-bid contracts, potentially leading to poor vendor selection or questionable pricing. The resolution specifically references concerns raised by contracts involving the National Kidney Foundation of Hawaii and the City and County of Honolulu, suggesting scrutiny of particular pandemic-era arrangements. Any opposition would likely come from those who view emergency procurement discretion as necessary for rapid response and who may be wary of retrospective criticism of decisions made under crisis conditions.