An Act to amend and reenact § 2.2-4301 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Public Procurement Act; definitions; "professional services."
HB1308 amends the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s definitions section, specifically § 2.2-4301 of the Code of Virginia. The bill revises and restates a number of procurement-related terms used throughout the chapter, including “affiliate,” “best value,” “construction,” “goods,” “informality,” “job order contracting,” “multiphase professional services contract,” “nonprofessional services,” and “potential bidder or offeror.”
The most notable substantive change is to the definition of “professional services.” The bill keeps the existing list of licensed professions—such as accounting, architecture, law, medicine, pharmacy, and professional engineering—and expands the definition to expressly include certain services procured by state entities: economists procured by the State Corporation Commission and licensed investment advisors, financial advisors, or insurance brokers procured by the Department of the Treasury. By clarifying these categories, the bill updates which services may be treated as professional services for procurement purposes under state law.
The bill affects state procurement law by changing the statutory definition section that governs how public bodies classify and procure services under the Virginia Public Procurement Act. In practice, the revised definition of “professional services” can influence which procurement procedures apply, including whether a contract is handled under professional-services rules rather than general competitive bidding or negotiation requirements. The amendment also provides clearer statutory guidance for agencies and vendors by refining several core procurement terms used across the chapter.
The available record does not include committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or amendment activity in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s narrow, definitional nature and its enactment as chapter law, the overall sentiment appears to have been neutral to favorable, with the measure likely viewed as a technical update to procurement statutes rather than a major policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If there was any disagreement, it is not reflected in the available transcript or voting history. The only potentially notable policy issue is the expansion of “professional services” to include certain economists and financial-related professionals when procured by specific state entities, which could affect procurement flexibility and exemption treatment, but no opposition is shown in the record provided.