Defines public-private partnerships and provide the framework to encourage the use of public-private partnerships for proposals for state purchases.
H5870 amends Rhode Island’s state purchasing laws to create a formal framework for public-private partnerships (P3s) in state procurement. The bill defines key terms such as “private partner,” “public-private partnership agreement,” “risk,” “value for money,” and “project labor agreement,” and states that any contract type that best serves the state’s interests may be used, including P3 agreements.
The bill directs the chief purchasing officer in the Department of Administration to adopt rules by July 1, 2026, for state agencies to evaluate, solicit, and enter into P3 agreements. Those rules are intended to encourage P3 use and must be developed with input from design-builders, contractors, engineers, architects, labor organizations, and other professionals. The bill also requires competitive procurement, continued state oversight of delegated functions, and detailed request-for-proposal requirements, including project scope, oversight methods, financing plans, qualifications of private entities, and a value-for-money analysis. It also allows project labor agreements where appropriate and makes P3 agreements subject to the state’s privatization of state services law as applicable.
This bill would amend § 37-2-31 of the General Laws governing state purchases and would add a structured legal process for public-private partnership procurement in Rhode Island. It would not mandate P3s for any specific project, but it would authorize and encourage their use, require agency-level oversight, and establish procurement and evaluation standards that state agencies must follow when using this delivery method. It also interacts with existing construction and privatization statutes by requiring compliance with related contracting rules and, where appropriate, the privatization of state services act.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and supportive of expanding procurement options rather than overtly controversial. The bill’s language is framed as a modernization and planning measure, emphasizing transparency, competitiveness, and value-for-money analysis. The inclusion of consultation with labor organizations and construction professionals suggests an effort to build broad stakeholder support.
The main potential points of contention are likely to involve the use of public-private partnerships for state assets, the degree of privatization, and how much discretion agencies should have in selecting this delivery model. Labor organizations may focus on the bill’s allowance for project labor agreements and whether P3s could affect prevailing wage, job quality, or public control. Contractors, design professionals, and other industry stakeholders may differ on the rules, evaluation criteria, and the balance between encouraging P3s and preserving traditional public procurement safeguards. No specific opposition or amendments are reflected in the provided record.