HB2751 amends Virginia’s Public Procurement Act to expand and clarify nondiscrimination and supplier-diversity requirements in state contracting. The bill adds “military family” and “military family-owned business” to the categories protected and promoted in public procurement, alongside existing protections and participation goals for small, women-owned, minority-owned, and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses. It also requires public bodies to include certified businesses from the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity’s lists when making solicitations and to maintain written programs designed to increase participation by these groups.
The bill further requires state agencies to file annual progress reports on procurement with small, women-owned, minority-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, military family-owned businesses, and employment services organizations. It allows contracts and subcontracts awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned or military family-owned businesses to count toward agencies’ small, women-owned, and minority-owned contracting goals. The measure also directs the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity to share military-family procurement information with the Department of Veterans Services upon request, and it retains the existing authority for the Governor to authorize enhancement or remedial measures, including limited price preferences for certified small businesses under certain conditions.
HB2751 also updates contract language for service contracts over $10,000 to require a subcontracting plan that includes small, women-owned, minority-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, and military family-owned businesses when subcontracting is intended. In addition, it preserves a separate nondiscrimination rule barring state agencies from rejecting bidders simply because they employ ex-offenders, unless the agency makes a written determination that such employment is not in its best interest for the specific contract. The bill defines key terms such as military family, military family-owned business, service-disabled veteran, small business, minority-owned business, and women-owned business.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. It advanced unanimously through subcommittee, committee, and both chambers, with no recorded dissenting votes at any stage. The vote pattern suggests broad bipartisan support for expanding procurement opportunities and formal recognition of military family-owned businesses within state contracting policy.
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record, but the bill’s main policy implications are in procurement preferences and reporting obligations. The most notable point of potential contention, if any, is the continued use of enhancement or remedial measures and limited price preferences in state contracting, which can raise concerns about balancing supplier diversity goals with open competition. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such concerns did not materially divide lawmakers during consideration.
The bill amends Virginia Code § 2.2-4310, the procurement nondiscrimination and participation statute under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, to add military family-owned businesses to the list of business categories supported in state procurement. It expands reporting, program-design, and subcontracting requirements for state agencies and public bodies, and it authorizes procurement crediting for awards to military family-owned businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses toward broader diversity contracting goals. It also preserves existing authority for enhancement or remedial measures and limited price preferences for certified small businesses under specified conditions.
The bill was received positively throughout the legislative process and passed each stage unanimously, indicating broad support for its procurement and business-participation goals. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the available voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a routine but meaningful expansion of supplier-diversity policy rather than a controversial change.
No major contention is reflected in the available transcripts or votes. The only likely policy tension is between expanding procurement preferences and maintaining competitive bidding principles, especially where the bill permits limited price preferences and credits certain awards toward diversity goals. Even so, the unanimous committee and floor votes suggest those issues did not generate visible opposition in this case.