New York Assembly Bill A10647

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26

Caption

Prohibits the inclusion of confidential clauses in contracts entered into for the purchase of services or commodities by the state

Summary

This bill amends the New York State Finance Law to prohibit state agencies from including “confidential clauses” in contracts for the purchase of services or commodities. The bill defines a confidential clause as any clause that is not made available to the public through the procurement opportunities newsletter under the Economic Development Law. In effect, it would require procurement contract terms to be publicly accessible and consistent with guidelines issued by the State Procurement Council. The measure is aimed at increasing transparency in state procurement by limiting the use of nonpublic contract provisions. It applies to state agency contracts for goods and services and would take effect on January 1 following enactment, with immediate authorization for any needed rulemaking or regulatory changes.

Impact

The bill would modify section 163 of the State Finance Law, which governs state procurement, by adding a new restriction on contract drafting and disclosure. State agencies would be barred from using hidden or nonpublic clauses in procurement contracts, and contract terms would need to be available through the procurement opportunities newsletter or otherwise publicly disclosed. The practical impact would fall on state agencies, vendors, and procurement officials, who would need to ensure contract language complies with the new transparency requirement.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s caption and lack of recorded opposition or committee debate in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed positively as a government transparency and accountability measure. The available context suggests a straightforward policy proposal rather than a controversial one, with no votes or transcript excerpts indicating organized support or resistance. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable toward openness in state contracting.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between transparency and the state’s ability to use confidential or proprietary contract terms. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing secrecy in public procurement, while critics may argue that some confidentiality provisions are necessary to protect trade secrets, negotiation leverage, or sensitive vendor information. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no evidence of specific objections from legislators or stakeholders in the available materials.