Michigan House Bill HB5175

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/30/25
• Refer: 10/30/25

Caption

Highways: construction and repair; 10-year warranty contract on state road projects; require. Amends 1951 PA 51 (MCL 247.651 - 247.675) by adding sec. 13c. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5176'25

Summary

HB 5175 would amend Michigan’s Highway Code to require the state transportation department, and allow local road agencies, to use a long-term design-build-operate-preserve-maintain contract for new construction or full reconstruction of a highway segment or bridge. For projects bid on or after January 1, 2026, the contractor would be responsible for the project not only during construction but also for at least 10 years after completion, or until the first capital preventative maintenance treatment, whichever is later. The bill also makes the prime contractor responsible for subcontractors’ work for the life of the contract. The bill allows the department or local agency to negotiate performance standards and define what counts as general maintenance that remains outside the contractor’s responsibility. It also permits financing arrangements within the contract and requires minimum contract protections, including remedies if the contractor breaches the agreement, a rule that annual payments cannot vary too drastically over the contract term, and an exemption for disaster-related damage when a state or county emergency is declared. The bill defines key terms such as “disaster,” “general maintenance,” and “new construction or full reconstruction,” and clarifies that “operate” does not include tolling a highway segment or bridge.

Impact

HB 5175 would change state transportation contracting law by creating a new framework for long-term warranty-style road and bridge contracts under 1951 PA 51. It would affect the Michigan Department of Transportation and local road agencies by requiring or authorizing them to include extended contractor responsibility on qualifying highway and bridge projects, shifting more lifecycle maintenance risk to contractors and potentially changing how projects are bid, financed, and managed. The bill would also interact with existing transportation statutes governing road construction, maintenance, and funding, while expressly excluding toll operation from the definition of “operate.”

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was introduced as a transportation infrastructure measure with a practical, performance-based approach to road quality and long-term accountability. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the materials. The bill’s structure, including its detailed contract protections and disaster exception, suggests an effort to balance contractor responsibility with flexibility for public agencies.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the shift of long-term maintenance responsibility to contractors, the requirement that the department must use this contract structure for qualifying state projects, and the effect on project costs and bidding competition. Contractors may be concerned about extended liability, subcontractor accountability, and the payment-floor requirement, while road agencies may debate how much discretion they retain in setting maintenance standards and defining general maintenance. The disaster exemption and the exclusion of tolling from “operate” appear designed to address some of those concerns, but the bill could still raise questions about cost, risk allocation, and implementation.