Maryland 2025 Regular Session

Maryland House Bill HB0284

Caption

Public Safety - Licensed Firearms Dealers - Notification Regarding Compromising Events

Summary

HB0284 amends Maryland’s procurement law to clarify how fees for electronic procurement transactions are handled. The bill authorizes primary procurement units to continue conducting procurement activities electronically, including bid solicitation, proposal evaluation, contract award, execution, and administration, consistent with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. It also preserves the rule that bidders and proposers who use electronic procurement systems consent to electronic processing of the procurement process. The main substantive change is to specify that any fees collected for electronic procurement transactions that are due to the State must be deposited into the Operations Revenue Fund. The bill distinguishes those state-owned fees from amounts that may be owed to a private contractor providing the electronic procurement system. It also retains the requirement that any such fee be approved by the Chief Procurement Officer, and that no fee may be charged unless approved by the Board of Public Works.

Impact

The bill makes a narrow but important clarification to § 13-226 of the State Finance and Procurement Article. It does not broadly change how electronic procurement works, but it resolves ambiguity over whether collected transaction fees belong to the State or to a third-party vendor. As amended, fees due to the State must go to the Operations Revenue Fund, while private contractor compensation remains separate. The bill affects state procurement units, bidders, proposers, contract awardees, and vendors that provide electronic procurement platforms.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the text, the bill appears technical and administrative rather than controversial, with a likely neutral-to-supportive reception because it clarifies fee handling without changing the underlying procurement framework. The bill was enacted and approved by the Governor, suggesting it moved through the process without visible resistance in the available record.

Contention

The only apparent point of contention is the allocation of fees generated by electronic procurement systems: whether they are state revenues or payments owed to a third-party provider. The bill resolves that issue by stating that fees collected and due to the State must be deposited in the Operations Revenue Fund. Any remaining dispute would likely concern how to distinguish state fees from vendor compensation and whether the approval requirements for charging fees are sufficient, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

PA HB1970

In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in licensing of drivers, further providing for issuance and content of driver's license and for carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.

CA AB1800

Portable electronics and optical products insurance.

TX SB1531

Relating to the electronic payment of ad valorem taxes; authorizing a fee.

PA SB861

In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in licensing of drivers, further providing for issuance and content of driver's license and for carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.

NJ S1336

The "Uniform Electronic Wills Act"; authorizes electronic wills.

NJ A3229

The "Uniform Electronic Wills Act"; authorizes electronic wills.

MD SB842

Electronic Smoking Devices - Seizure and Wholesaler Record-Keeping Requirements

NV AB18

Revises provisions relating to the electronic filing of certain documents. (BDR 5-469)