Mississippi 2025 Regular Session

Mississippi Senate Bill SB2372

Introduced
1/20/25  
Refer
1/20/25  

Caption

Performance and payment bonds; increase the lump-sum threshold to $75,000.00 for.

Summary

SB 2372 amends Mississippi Code Section 31-5-51, which governs performance bonds, payment bonds, and related insurance requirements for public construction contracts. The bill raises the threshold for a public owner to elect a lump-sum payment at completion of the job, and to avoid requiring performance and payment bonds, from $25,000 to $75,000 for contracts involving the state, counties, cities, political subdivisions, or other public authorities. Contracts at or above that amount would continue to require the existing bond protections. The measure leaves intact the broader framework for public works contracting, including the requirement that contractors furnish performance and payment bonds, the rights of laborers and suppliers to sue on payment bonds, the notice requirements for lower-tier claimants, and the general liability insurance requirement for public contracts. The bill is set to take effect on July 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill would directly amend Section 31-5-51 of the Mississippi Code by expanding the class of smaller public construction contracts that may be paid in a lump sum at completion without performance and payment bonds. In practical terms, more relatively small public projects would be exempt from bond requirements, reducing administrative and bonding costs for contractors and public entities on contracts under $75,000. The change affects state agencies, local governments, public authorities, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, and laborers involved in public building and public works projects.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or roll-call history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a targeted administrative adjustment rather than a major policy overhaul, suggesting a likely focus on efficiency and reduced burden for smaller public contracts. The caption and committee referral to Accountability, Efficiency, and Transparency also indicate the bill was framed as a contracting-process reform.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the tradeoff between reducing costs and paperwork for smaller public projects and preserving payment security for contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and laborers. Raising the no-bond threshold to $75,000 could be viewed as easing procurement for public owners and small contractors, but critics may worry it weakens protections that ensure completion of work and payment to lower-tier participants. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the available materials as having raised objections or support.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

MS HB1

Economic development; provide incentives for certain economic development projects.

MS SB2001

Economic development; provide incentives for certain economic development projects.

MS HB2

Appropriation; additional to MDA for certain projects.

MS SB2002

Appropriation; additional to MDA for certain projects.

MS HB1

Project Atlas Fund; create.

MS SB2001

Project Poppy Fund; create.

Similar Bills

CA AB1931

Insurance: home protection companies.

CA AB2187

Public contracts: contracts for services.

AZ HB2895

Task order contracts; website; posting

AZ HB2445

task order contracts; website; posting

CA AB1809

Public contracts: school and community college districts.

CA SB272

San Mateo County Transit District: job order contracting: pilot program.

CA AB483

Fixed term installment contracts: early termination fees.

NJ S3306

Requires notification to members of health club if club is to be sold and health club services contract assigned to new owner.