A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 2.2-4311.5, relating to Virginia Public Procurement Act; procurement of goods transported by privately owned commercial vessels; required contract provisions.
HB777 amends the Virginia Public Procurement Act by adding a new section requiring certain state procurement contracts to include a shipping-related compliance clause. For any state agency public contract for goods over $10,000, the contract must require the contractor to comply with section 901(b) of the federal Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which governs the use of privately owned commercial vessels in transporting goods. The bill defines “privately owned commercial vessel” for this purpose as an ocean-going vessel registered and operated under U.S. law, used in U.S. commercial trade, and owned and operated by a U.S. citizen or otherwise meeting federal documentation requirements.
In practical terms, the bill would add a procurement condition affecting state agencies and their contractors when goods are imported or shipped under qualifying contracts. It does not appear to change the underlying federal shipping law itself, but it would require Virginia public contracts to expressly incorporate compliance with that federal requirement. The main affected parties would be state purchasing officials, vendors, and any subcontractors involved in transporting goods for state contracts above the threshold amount.
HB777 would add a new statutory procurement requirement in Title 2.2 of the Code of Virginia, specifically creating § 2.2-4311.5. State agencies entering public contracts for goods over $10,000 would need to include a mandatory contract term requiring compliance with the Merchant Marine Act’s vessel-use provisions. The bill would therefore affect procurement drafting, vendor compliance obligations, and contract administration for state purchases involving shipping, especially imported goods or goods transported by ocean-going vessels.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was not controversial in committee, as it was continued to the next session in Finance and Appropriations by a unanimous 13-0 vote. That vote indicates broad support or at least no recorded opposition at that stage. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate stronger support or criticism.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded opposing votes, there is little direct evidence of disagreement in the available record. Any potential contention would likely center on the practical burden of adding federal shipping-compliance language to state contracts, the administrative impact on procurement staff and vendors, and whether the requirement could limit contractor options or increase costs. However, the bill’s unanimous committee vote suggests those concerns were not significant enough to produce visible opposition in the available proceedings.