West Virginia House Bill HB2942

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Engrossed: 3/7/25
• Refer: 3/11/25
• Report Pass: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Report Pass: 4/7/25
• Enrolled: 4/12/25
• Passed: 4/25/25

Caption

Administration of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Design-Build Pilot Program

Summary

HB2942 extends and revises West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection Design-Build Pilot Program. The bill continues to allow the DEP secretary to combine design and construction into a single contract for eligible projects, with the goal of speeding delivery and potentially reducing costs. It also requires the secretary to maintain procedural rules governing project approval, bidder selection, proposal submission and evaluation, negotiations, contract award, and protest procedures. The bill makes two key program changes: it raises the maximum aggregate value of active design-build projects from $50 million to $75 million, and it extends the program’s sunset date to December 31, 2027. It also preserves the requirement that only contracts awarded directly by the DEP may use this delivery method and that the secretary submit annual reports to the Legislature on completed projects, including cost and time savings, change orders, work quality, and number of bids received.

Impact

HB2942 amends §§22-34-2 and 22-34-5 of the West Virginia Code to expand the scope and duration of the DEP’s design-build authority. The practical effect is to allow more and larger environmental projects to proceed under a streamlined procurement model, while keeping the program subject to rulemaking, reporting, and a hard cap on total active project value. The bill does not create a new program, but it modifies the existing pilot by increasing the financial ceiling and extending the expiration date.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House overwhelmingly, passed the Senate unanimously, and then returned to the House for concurrence in the Senate’s amended title with another strong vote. The voting pattern suggests general legislative agreement that the DEP pilot program should continue and be expanded modestly.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The only notable issue reflected in the legislative history is the Senate’s amended title, which the House later concurred in, indicating a technical or drafting adjustment rather than a policy dispute. The main policy choice in the bill is whether to continue and enlarge the DEP’s design-build authority, but the near-unanimous votes suggest that any concerns about procurement flexibility, oversight, or the size of the project cap were not strongly contested.