Tennessee Senate Bill SB0307

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 12, Chapter 3, Part 12, relative to construction project delivery methods.

Summary

SB0307 authorizes certain larger Tennessee local governments to choose among multiple construction project delivery methods for local projects and additions to existing buildings. The bill applies to local governments with populations of 100,000 or more based on the 2020 or later federal census and that have centralized purchasing with a full-time purchasing agent. Covered entities may use whichever method they determine best meets their needs, so long as all applicable purchasing laws are followed. The bill defines the available delivery methods as construction manager at-risk, design-bid-build, design-build, and design-build-finance-operate. It also supplies statutory definitions for each of those terms, clarifying how the methods differ and how they are used in public construction contracting. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 12, Chapter 3, Part 12, by adding a new section that expands procurement flexibility for qualifying local governments. It does not mandate a single delivery method; instead, it removes restrictions that might otherwise limit larger local governments from selecting the project delivery approach they believe is most effective for a given public construction project. The practical effect is to broaden options for counties, municipalities, metropolitan governments, towns, utility districts, utility authorities, local education agencies, and similar entities that meet the population and purchasing criteria.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal opposition in the provided materials, so there is no documented debate to gauge detailed sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears administrative and permissive rather than controversial, aimed at giving qualifying local governments more discretion in managing construction procurement. The absence of recorded objections or amendments in the provided context suggests the bill may have been viewed as a technical or efficiency-oriented procurement update.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill’s subject matter, would likely involve whether expanding access to alternative delivery methods could improve efficiency and cost control or, conversely, reduce transparency and oversight compared with traditional design-bid-build procurement. Any concern would most likely come from stakeholders focused on public bidding rules, local purchasing compliance, or the use of private-sector financing and operations in public projects.