Changes provisions relating to design-build contracts
HB513 revises Missouri law governing two alternative project delivery methods used by public entities: construction manager-at-risk and design-build contracting. The bill repeals and reenacts sections 8.690, 67.5050, and 67.5060 to update definitions, eligibility thresholds, and procurement procedures for political subdivisions and the Office of Administration. It authorizes the Office of Administration to use construction manager-at-risk for civil works projects and design-build for non-civil works projects above specified dollar thresholds, while limiting the number of smaller non-civil works design-build projects it may contract for in a fiscal year.
For political subdivisions, the bill sets detailed procedures for selecting construction managers-at-risk and design-builders, including public notice, qualification-based shortlisting, evaluation criteria, interviews, and negotiation steps. It requires separate treatment of qualifications and cost, mandates public opening of bids or proposals, and preserves requirements for licensed architects, engineers, and other design professionals. The bill also addresses subcontracting, bonding, railroad consultation for affected projects, and special rules for wastewater and water projects, including allowing those projects to use design-build and protecting them from being excluded from certain state funding programs solely because of that delivery method.
The bill would change state procurement law by expanding and clarifying when Missouri public bodies may use construction manager-at-risk and design-build contracting, while imposing updated procedural safeguards and project-size limits. It affects state agencies, political subdivisions, architects, engineers, design-build firms, construction managers, subcontractors, and public owners of infrastructure and building projects. It also modifies related bonding, licensing, and funding treatment for water and wastewater projects, and preserves exemptions for certain metropolitan sewer districts and home-rule or special charter local governments that have already adopted their own processes.
The bill appears to have broad support in the House, passing third reading on consent by a vote of 137-1. The lack of committee transcript material suggests little recorded public controversy in the available record, and the consent vote indicates the measure was generally viewed as a technical or administrative update rather than a highly divisive policy change. Overall sentiment in the available history is strongly favorable.
The main points of potential contention are the expanded use of alternative delivery methods for public construction and the detailed allocation of authority between public owners and private design/construction teams. Some stakeholders could object to the reduced reliance on traditional low-bid contracting, the ability to shortlist bidders and weigh qualifications against cost, or the exemptions and special rules for certain local governments and water/wastewater projects. The bill also raises issues around licensing, subcontractor selection, and whether public entities should have discretion to reject all proposals or require replacement bidders, but no recorded debate in the provided materials identifies a specific organized opposition.