SB 997, titled the Procurement Protection Act of 2025, would restrict Oklahoma state agencies and political subdivisions from awarding contracts for goods or services to certain foreign-linked companies. The bill defines categories of prohibited vendors, including state-owned enterprises of foreign adversaries, foreign adversary companies, and federally banned corporations, with foreign adversaries specifically including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, and Syria, plus any other entity designated by the Governor. It also creates a certification requirement for bidders to attest they are not disqualified under the act.
The bill adds disclosure and reporting requirements for bidders and offerors, including disclosure of recent business operations involving foreign adversaries and related entities. It authorizes the Office of Management and Enterprise Services and political subdivisions to receive and share disclosed entity names, and it imposes significant penalties for false certification: a civil penalty of $250,000 or twice the contract amount, whichever is greater, contract termination, and a 60-month ban on bidding for state contracts. The bill also allows limited exceptions when no reasonable alternative exists and the procurement is pre-approved because not procuring the good would pose a greater threat to the state. It includes an emergency clause so it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
In practical terms, the bill would amend Title 74 procurement law by creating new restrictions and compliance obligations for state procurement and local government contracting. It would affect vendors, contractors, and their parent or subsidiary companies, especially those with ownership, control, or business ties to foreign adversary governments or federally restricted telecommunications and security-related entities. The measure also appears to broaden Oklahoma’s procurement screening framework by tying eligibility not only to current ownership or control, but also to recent business relationships with foreign adversary entities.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is generally supportive, with the bill advancing through both chambers by comfortable margins, though not unanimously. The Senate and House votes suggest broad agreement with the goal of limiting state contracting exposure to foreign adversary-linked companies and federally banned corporations. The emergency clause and repeated favorable votes indicate the bill was treated as a priority procurement and security measure.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the restrictions and the compliance burden they create. Potential concerns include the expansive definitions of foreign adversary company and control, the reach of the 60-month lookback period, and the possibility that the bill could limit competition or increase procurement costs by excluding otherwise qualified vendors. The exception process for necessary goods suggests lawmakers anticipated situations where the restrictions could conflict with practical procurement needs, and the split votes indicate some members may have viewed the bill as overly broad or administratively burdensome.
SB 997 would create new procurement eligibility rules in Oklahoma law, codified primarily in Title 74, by barring certain foreign adversary-linked companies and federally banned corporations from bidding on state and local government contracts. It would require certifications from bidders, establish disclosure and reporting obligations, and authorize penalties, contract termination, and multi-year debarment for false certifications. The bill would also give state agencies limited authority to approve otherwise prohibited purchases when no reasonable alternative exists and the procurement is deemed less risky than not procuring the good.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in both chambers, passing committee and floor votes by solid margins. The vote history suggests broad bipartisan support for the bill’s national-security and procurement-integrity rationale, though the presence of several dissenting votes indicates some lawmakers were not fully comfortable with its scope or consequences. The emergency clause and successful advancement through the House and Senate show the measure was viewed as important and time-sensitive.
Likely areas of disagreement include the bill’s broad definitions of foreign adversary, foreign adversary company, and control, as well as the 60-month prohibition on bidders with certain foreign business ties. Critics may worry that the measure could sweep in companies with indirect or limited connections, reduce competition, or raise costs for state and local procurement. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on protecting state contracting from national-security risks and from vendors tied to governments or entities viewed as hostile to U.S. interests.