Tennessee Senate Bill SB2334

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Engrossed: 4/2/26
• Enrolled: 4/15/26
• Passed: 4/27/26
• Chaptered: 5/4/26

Caption

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

Summary

SB2334 expands the authority of certain Tennessee local governments to use alternative construction project delivery methods for large public building projects. For qualified local projects—construction, renovation, or expansion projects estimated to cost more than $5 million—an eligible local government may choose the delivery method it believes best fits the project, including construction manager at-risk, design-bid-build, or design-build. The bill applies only when the local government meets specified procurement and fiscal thresholds, or receives approval from the comptroller of the treasury or the comptroller’s designee. To use this authority, a local government must have a full-time purchasing agent or procurement employee acceptable to the comptroller, must either meet minimum annual general revenue thresholds or obtain comptroller approval, must select the delivery method provider through a competitive proposal process, and must have local rules authorizing that process. The bill also defines the required elements of that competitive proposal process, including public disclosure of evaluation criteria, a scoring system that gives majority weight to qualifications and experience, minimum weight to price, disclosure of selection committee membership and conflicts, publication of selection results and scores, a protest procedure, and public-records access to procurement documents.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 12, Chapter 3, Part 12 by adding supplemental authority for eligible local governments to procure construction of qualified local projects using alternative delivery methods. It does not eliminate existing procurement options or limit other authority under state law; instead, it creates an additional pathway for larger local projects, subject to fiscal, staffing, and transparency requirements. The practical effect is to give certain counties, municipalities, metropolitan governments, utilities, and local education agencies more flexibility in how they contract for major construction work, while imposing statewide procedural safeguards and comptroller oversight.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate State & Local Government Committee unanimously and later cleared floor votes overwhelmingly, including a 93-1 passage vote in the House and unanimous concurrence on the House amendment. The lack of recorded committee opposition and the strong floor margins indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably as a local-government procurement flexibility bill with transparency protections.

Contention

There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the bill’s structure suggests the main policy tension is between flexibility and oversight. Supporters appear to favor allowing larger local governments to choose the construction delivery method that best fits a project, especially for high-cost projects, while the safeguards reflect concern about accountability, favoritism, and price transparency in public contracting. Any potential objections would likely center on whether the revenue thresholds, comptroller approval process, and competitive proposal requirements are sufficient to prevent misuse or whether they create unnecessary administrative burden.