An Act amending Title 62 (Procurement) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in source selection and contract formation, further providing for supplies manufactured and services performed by pers . . .ons with disabilities.
HB487 amends Pennsylvania’s procurement law governing contracts for supplies manufactured and services performed by persons with disabilities. The bill keeps the existing no-bid procurement framework for qualifying agencies, but updates the eligibility and compliance rules that those agencies must meet to receive state contracts. It replaces older terminology and definitions with a modernized definition of “persons with disabilities,” and revises the standard for “appreciable contribution” to tie it to new direct labor ratio requirements.
The bill also adds new oversight and labor-related conditions for state contracts over $300,000 per year. The Department of General Services, working with the purchasing agency, would conduct annual compliance reviews, allow 45 days to cure deficiencies, and may terminate contracts and move to competitive bidding if an agency is out of compliance. HB487 further prohibits new contracts using federal 14(c) subminimum wage certificates immediately and phases out their use entirely after two years. It also requires integrated work environments for covered agencies after two years, with attestation, site visits, and ongoing monitoring, and allows limited exceptions for emergencies, pilot programs, or other circumstances that support competitive integrated employment.
In addition, the bill preserves and clarifies fair-market-price determinations, order distribution procedures, and procurement preferences for qualifying disability agencies when supplies or services are available at fair market price. It also retains a special exception for driver’s license photo center contracts, requiring at least 70% of payments to be used for wages, salaries, and specified costs. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s text and sponsorship is supportive of disability employment and modernization of state contracting rules. The bill appears aimed at expanding competitive integrated employment opportunities while maintaining state procurement opportunities for nonprofit disability agencies. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support from floor or committee action in the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are the new labor and integration requirements, especially the ban on new 14(c) subminimum wage contracts and the eventual prohibition on their use. Agencies that rely on sheltered workshop models or segregated work settings may view these changes as burdensome or disruptive, while advocates for disability rights are likely to support them as a move toward integrated, competitive employment. The annual review, site-visit, and attestation requirements also add compliance obligations that could be debated by affected providers and contracting agencies.
HB487 would amend Title 62 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, section 520, which governs procurement from agencies for persons with disabilities. It would update statutory definitions, revise the standard for qualifying contributions to state contracts, and impose new compliance, integration, and wage-related requirements on agencies that receive Commonwealth contracts. The bill would also shift oversight responsibilities to the Department of General Services and authorize contract termination and competitive rebidding for noncompliance.
The bill’s apparent policy direction is broadly supportive of disability inclusion and employment reform. Its sponsors are from the House Democratic caucus, and the text emphasizes integrated employment, disability representation, and the elimination of subminimum wage arrangements. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded legislative debate in the supplied materials, but the bill’s structure suggests support from disability-rights advocates and likely concern from providers that would need to change existing employment models.
The most notable contention points are the prohibition on new federal 14(c) subminimum wage contracts, the two-year phaseout of those certificates, and the requirement that covered agencies operate in integrated work environments. Providers that use sheltered workshop or segregated employment models may object to the operational and financial impact of these changes, while supporters are likely to argue that the bill promotes competitive integrated employment and better labor standards. Additional friction may arise from the annual compliance reviews, site visits, and the possibility of contract termination if agencies fail to meet the new standards.