Two bills introduced just before the start of Alabama’s 2026 legislative session would alter how lawmakers oversee and approve state contracts, expanding the authority of the Legislature’s Contract Review Permanent Legislative Oversight Committee and narrowing the circumstances under which agencies may bypass that review.
House Bill 137, introduced by Representative Chris Pringle, R-Mobile, and Senate Bill 40, introduced by Senator Sam Givhan, R-Huntsville, both deal with the contract review process but take different approaches. Both reflect growing legislative interest in tightening oversight of executive branch contracting, particularly in emergencies and high-dollar agreements.
HB137 would amend state law governing emergency contracts, which currently allows executive agencies to enter into contracts without review by the contract oversight committee if the agency head declares an emergency affecting public health, safety or welfare.
Under existing law, that declaration alone is sufficient to exempt a contract from review, though emergency contracts are limited in duration and must be reviewed if extended beyond 60 days. HB137 would add a new requirement for executive branch agencies: “a contract may be let to the extent necessary to meet an emergency without review by the committee only if the Governor, prior to the contract going into effect, certifies to the committee that the nature of the danger to public health, public safety, or public welfare justifies the need for an emergency contract,” the bill reads.
If passed, the bill would shift part of the authority for emergency exemptions away from individual agency heads and place it with the governor, adding a layer of oversight for contracts entered under emergency declarations. The bill would apply to executive branch agencies, including boards and commissions.
SB40 focuses on the role of the Contract Review Permanent Legislative Oversight Committee itself. Current law requires the committee to review contracts for personal or professional services paid with state or federal funds and allows it to hold hearings and comment on those contracts, but it does not explicitly provide a mechanism for the committee to weigh in on whether the governor should approve them.
SB40 would change that by authorizing the committee to recommend that the governor not sign a contract under review. While such a recommendation would not be binding, it would formalize the committee’s ability to advise against approval and elevate its role in the contracting process.
Under current law, the Contract Review Permanent Legislative Oversight Committee does not have the power to approve or reject contracts, but it can effectively delay them. When a contract or letter of intent is submitted, the committee may place it on hold for up to 45 days while it reviews the agreement and holds a public hearing. If the committee does not act within that timeframe, the contract is deemed to have been reviewed by default and may proceed.
While the committee can question agencies, request additional information and publicly raise concerns, its authority is advisory, and contracts ultimately move forward unless withdrawn by the agency or delayed through other executive action.
Neither bill directly alters the committee’s existing timelines or review thresholds, but together they would reshape how and when lawmakers can intervene in executive branch contracts. Both measures are pending further action as the 2026 regular session continues.
