Virginia Public Procurement Act; procurement of imported goods, forced and child labor prohibition.
Summary
SB913 amends the Virginia Public Procurement Act to require certain public contracts for goods or services over $10,000 to include a prohibition on the use of forced or indentured child labor. The bill defines “forced or indentured child labor” as work or service exacted from a person under 18 under threat of penalty, or work performed by a person under 18 under a contract enforceable by legal process or penalties.
The measure also requires contractors to pass the same prohibition down to lower-tier transactions: every subcontract or purchase order exceeding $10,000 must include the child-labor prohibition so that it binds subcontractors and vendors as well. In practical terms, the bill creates a procurement compliance condition for public bodies and their contractors when purchasing imported goods or other services covered by the contract threshold.
Impact
The bill adds a new section, § 2.2-4311.3, to the Code of Virginia and directly affects state and local public procurement practices. Public bodies entering qualifying contracts must insert anti-child-labor clauses, and contractors must extend those clauses to subcontractors and vendors, creating a contractual compliance chain across the supply network. The law does not create a general criminal prohibition; instead, it uses procurement requirements to influence sourcing and contracting behavior for goods and services above the $10,000 threshold.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed the Senate unanimously at multiple stages, advanced through House committee and the full House with overwhelming margins, and was ultimately agreed to in conference by both chambers with strong votes. The voting history suggests the legislation was viewed favorably as a targeted labor-standards and procurement-integrity measure.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been procedural and drafting-related rather than ideological, as reflected by the repeated use of a substitute and the conference process. One Senate vote rejected the House substitute, indicating there were differences between chambers on the bill’s wording or scope before final agreement. However, the near-unanimous final votes suggest any disputes were resolved without significant controversy over the underlying policy of prohibiting forced or indentured child labor in public contracts.