To amend sections 153.011, 153.99, 3333.071, and 5525.21 of the Revised Code to require iron or steel that is produced in the United States be used on projects supported by state funds.
HB284 would strengthen Ohio’s domestic-content requirements for iron and steel used on projects supported by state funds. The bill amends multiple sections of the Revised Code to require that, when state capital funds are involved, iron or steel products used in construction, repair, maintenance, or improvement projects be produced in the United States. It applies to a broad range of public projects, including buildings, structures, infrastructure, highway improvements, utility infrastructure, and certain higher-education capital projects.
The bill also defines key terms such as “produced in the United States” and “made primarily of iron or steel,” and it directs state agencies to follow preference rules consistent with federal American iron and steel standards. It preserves limited exceptions for public bridge projects, allowing a minimal amount of foreign iron or steel when authorized by the transportation director or when domestic materials are not reasonably available. The bill adds notice requirements for bid documents and establishes enforcement procedures and civil penalties for violations.
HB284 would expand and clarify Ohio’s existing “Buy American” style procurement rules for state-funded projects by making domestic iron and steel a mandatory requirement in covered contracts. It would affect state agencies, the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, the Department of Transportation, public institutions of higher education, contractors, and suppliers involved in state-supported construction and infrastructure work. The bill also increases compliance and enforcement consequences by tying violations to civil penalties and investigation procedures, while preserving narrow waiver and exception authority for bridge projects.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive of domestic manufacturing and public procurement preferences for U.S.-produced materials. The bill has multiple cosponsors and no recorded opposition, committee debate, or votes in the provided materials, suggesting it was introduced with at least initial legislative support. The framing of the bill emphasizes use of American-made iron and steel on publicly funded projects, which is typically presented as a jobs-and-industry protection measure.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be cost, supply availability, and administrative burden. Contractors and state agencies may be concerned that requiring U.S.-produced iron and steel could increase project costs or limit sourcing options, especially for specialized materials. The bill addresses those concerns in part by allowing limited foreign-content exceptions for bridge projects and when domestic materials are not reasonably available, but those exceptions are narrow and discretionary. Another possible issue is enforcement, since the bill imposes civil penalties and investigation procedures that could create compliance risk for purchasers and providers.