Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act of 2026
HB 188 would create a new subtitle in the State Finance and Procurement Article barring certain “scrutinized entities” from doing business with the State and other public bodies. A scrutinized entity is defined as an entity owned, operated, or controlled by the government of a country subject to an embargo under specified federal International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The bill would prohibit those entities from bidding on, submitting proposals for, entering into, or renewing contracts for goods or services with the State, local governments, public instrumentalities, and other governmental units.
The bill directs the Board of Public Works to identify scrutinized entities using credible public information, maintain and update a public list at least every 180 days, and give 90 days’ written notice before adding a person or entity to the list. It also requires public bodies to obtain certifications from bidders and contractors that they are not on the list, and it establishes procedures for challenging a proposed listing or a false certification. If a false certification is found, the bill authorizes contract termination, civil penalties, recovery of costs and fees, and a temporary procurement ban. The bill also preempts conflicting local procurement rules and is set to expire automatically if federal law no longer authorizes states to adopt this type of restriction.
HB 188 would add a new procurement restriction to Maryland law by creating Subtitle 7A in the State Finance and Procurement Article. It would affect state agencies, local governments, public instrumentalities, and other governmental units that award contracts for goods and services, as well as vendors and contractors seeking public work. The bill also assigns new administrative duties to the Board of Public Works and the Attorney General, including list maintenance, notice procedures, and enforcement actions for false certifications. Local ordinances or regulations that conflict with the new subtitle would be preempted.
The available legislative history shows a generally favorable posture toward the bill, with the House committee reporting it favorably and the House adopting it. No committee transcript or recorded vote details were provided, so there is limited evidence of public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s progress, the measure appears to have had support in committee and on the House floor.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the procurement ban, the use of a government-ownership/control standard tied to foreign countries subject to federal embargoes, and the risk of erroneous inclusion on the public list. The bill anticipates these concerns by requiring notice, an opportunity to respond, and removal from the list if an entity shows it is not a scrutinized entity. Another likely issue is the enforcement regime, including civil penalties, contract termination, and the Attorney General’s authority to sue over false certifications. Because the bill preempts local procurement rules, local governments could also view it as limiting their discretion.