SHB 2552
In CommitteeHouse
Transportation contracting
Allowing the use of multiple award task order contracting by the department of transportation and regional transit authorities.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill expands procurement options for transportation infrastructure projects by allowing the Washington State Department of Transportation and regional transit authorities to use a roster-based, multiple award task order system for construction and renovation work. It prioritizes safety, equity, and small business inclusion in contractor selection and requires regular reporting on outcomes.
- Allows the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to use multiple award task order contracting, where pre-qualified contractors are placed on one or more rosters for future infrastructure projects (e.g., road repairs, building renovations).
- Requires WSDOT to evaluate contractors based on safety history, use of certified small, veteran-owned, and disadvantaged businesses, and technical approach—ensuring equity and performance standards.
- Allows regional transit authorities (authorized under chapter 81.112 RCW) to use the same roster-based contracting method for construction and infrastructure work.
- Mandates public outreach to small and disadvantaged businesses before adding contractors to rosters, and requires authorities to actively solicit proposals from these firms.
- Requires annual reporting to the legislature and the Capital Projects Advisory Review Board on roster usage, contracts awarded, and participation rates of certified disadvantaged businesses.
- Includes formal protest procedures for contractor selection and task order awards, with a minimum four business-day window to file a protest after notification.
Who is affected
- Government agencies (e.g., WSDOT, regional transit authorities) — State and local government agencies that manage transportation infrastructure projects, including the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and regional transit authorities, gain a new streamlined procurement method for certain construction and infrastructure work.
- Construction contractors (especially small, minority-, and veteran-owned firms) — Construction and infrastructure contractors—especially those who are certified as small, veteran-owned, or socially and economically disadvantaged businesses—gain new opportunities to be pre-qualified for multiple projects through a roster system, potentially reducing repeated bidding efforts.
- Certified small, minority-, women-, and veteran-owned businesses — Small and disadvantaged business enterprises (SBEs, MWBEs, VBEs) benefit from explicit inclusion criteria and outreach requirements that aim to increase their participation in public infrastructure projects.
- General public — Taxpayers and transit riders may benefit from more efficient project delivery and potentially increased contractor diversity, which can improve competition and project outcomes.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Explicit inclusion of certified small, veteran-owned, and disadvantaged business enterprise participation as a weighted evaluation factor creates a structural incentive for prime contractors to subcontract with SBEs/MWBEs—potentially increasing contract opportunities for underrepresented firms beyond current DBE participation rates.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(c)-(d); Sec. 2(4)(c)Pre-qualification via roster reduces the time and cost burden of repeated bidding for infrastructure projects, disproportionately benefiting small firms that lack dedicated bid departments—especially if rosters are maintained for 2+ years, as is common in other states.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5); Sec. 2(2)Formal protest procedures with a 4-day minimum window improve due process and reduce legal uncertainty for contractors, potentially lowering litigation risk and delays in project delivery—benefiting both agencies and contractors.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d); Sec. 2(3)(e)Mandated reporting on DBE participation rates and roster usage creates measurable accountability for equity goals, enabling legislative oversight and data-driven adjustments—addressing Washington’s persistent gaps in minority contractor participation (WSDOT 2023 DBE report shows ~12% participation vs. 22% state population eligibility).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)-(8); Sec. 2(8)Requiring outreach to small and disadvantaged businesses before roster placement—especially with mandatory solicitation from MWBE-certified firms—directly expands access to infrastructure work for historically excluded firms, potentially increasing their share of state contract dollars without new funding.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
The roster-based system may reduce administrative burden for contractors by eliminating repeated bidding on similar projects—potentially helping small firms—but the requirement to maintain prequalification (RCW 47.28.070) and safety/DBE compliance records could increase compliance costs for small firms without dedicated procurement staff.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(6); Sec. 2(5)Mandating evaluation of past use of certified disadvantaged businesses may incentivize large contractors to partner with SBEs/MWBEs, but could also discourage firms without such experience from applying—potentially reinforcing existing hierarchies if rosters become dominated by firms with prior DBE experience.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(4)(c)-(d); Sec. 2(4)(c)Annual reporting requirements increase transparency and accountability for equity outcomes, but may impose modest administrative costs on agencies already managing multiple reporting mandates (e.g., WSDOT’s existing EEO and DBE reporting).
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(7)-(8); Sec. 2(8)Allowing multiple rosters per agency improves flexibility but may fragment competition if rosters are too narrowly defined, reducing price competition and potentially inflating project costs for taxpayers.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 2(2)Mandating evaluation of contractor safety history and record could improve on-site safety outcomes, but without enforcement mechanisms or performance benchmarks tied to roster placement, this may be symbolic rather than substantive.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(6); Sec. 2(5)
Who Is Most Affected
WSDOT and regional transit authorities gain a streamlined procurement tool that may reduce bid fatigue and improve contractor quality, but must absorb modest administrative costs for roster management and reporting. The agency’s equity office involvement (Sec. 1(4)) signals institutional commitment to inclusion, though success depends on resource allocation.
Large, well-resourced contractors benefit most from roster stability and reduced bidding costs, while small firms gain from guaranteed outreach and pre-qualification—but only if they meet safety and DBE participation thresholds. Firms without MWBE experience may be disadvantaged if rosters become dominated by incumbents.
Certified small, minority-, women-, and veteran-owned businesses gain explicit inclusion criteria and outreach mandates, increasing their chances of being solicited and awarded subcontracts. However, success still depends on prime contractors’ willingness to partner with them, and the bill lacks enforceable subcontracting goals.
Taxpayers and transit riders may benefit from faster project delivery and improved contractor diversity, but outcomes depend on whether the system actually improves competition and value. Without price caps or cost controls, roster systems can sometimes reduce price competition.