Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
This bill amends 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(2)(F) by removing the State of Minnesota from a list of states excluded from certain federal contracting requirements for engineering and design services. After the change, only West Virginia remains on that exclusion list.
Left emphasizes parity, transparency, and oversight benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that is clearly and precisely drafted to alter a single phrase in the U.S. Code.
This bill amends 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(2)(F) by removing the State of Minnesota from a list of states excluded from certain federal contracting requirements for engineering and design services.
After the change, only West Virginia remains on that exclusion list.
The effect is to subject Minnesota to the same contracting requirements that apply nationally (except for West Virginia).
Simple, technical, low-cost change with limited opposition risk; success depends on legislative timing and placement in a vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that is clearly and precisely drafted to alter a single phrase in the U.S. Code. The mechanism is explicit and integrates directly with existing law.
Left emphasizes parity, transparency, and oversight benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes parity, transparency, and oversight benefits
Likely supportive because the bill extends uniform federal contracting standards to Minnesota, promoting fairness and competition.
It aligns with priorities for transparency, oversight of federally funded projects, and equal treatment across states.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: the change is narrow and aims for administrative parity across states.
Support will depend on evidence that compliance costs are modest and that federal funds administration improves without unnecessary burden.
Skeptical because the bill removes a state-specific procurement exemption, which may be seen as federal encroachment on state procurement autonomy.
Views will weigh the small scope against principles of limited federal intervention.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, technical, low-cost change with limited opposition risk; success depends on legislative timing and placement in a vehicle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes parity, transparency, and oversight benefits
Simple, technical, low-cost change with limited opposition risk; success depends on legislative timing and placement in a vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that is clearly and precisely drafted to alter a single phrase in the U.S. Code. The mechanism is explicit and integrates di…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.