Highway Contracting Bill Removes Minnesota from Federal Code, Leaving Only West Virginia

The aptly named Parity in Engineering Act is short, but it makes a highly specific change to how the federal government handles contracts for highway engineering and design services.

The Change: A Clean-Up on Aisle 23

This bill focuses entirely on a single subsection of federal law, Section 112(b)(2)(F) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which deals with federal highway projects. If you’ve ever wondered why certain states seem to have different rules for bidding on federal infrastructure jobs, it’s often because of these highly specific sections. This particular clause previously mentioned both Minnesota and West Virginia together, likely giving them a specific status or exception regarding engineering contracts.

What the Parity in Engineering Act does is remove Minnesota from that specific mention. After this bill, that section of the law will only refer to the State of West Virginia. This is essentially a statutory cleanup, but it's the kind of cleanup that can have real-world consequences for engineering firms and state transportation departments.

Who Feels This Change?

For most people, a change in Title 23 is about as exciting as watching paint dry. But if you’re running an engineering firm in St. Paul or Duluth that relies on federal highway contracts, this could matter. The bill doesn't explain why Minnesota was listed there in the first place, or what specific benefit or exception that listing provided. But whatever that special status was, it’s gone for Minnesota.

Think of it this way: Imagine a federal rule that says, “States A and B can use a simplified process for hiring engineers for bridge repairs.” This bill just takes State A (Minnesota) off the list. State B (West Virginia) still gets the simplified process. For Minnesota, this means their Department of Transportation and local engineering firms might now have to follow the standard, potentially more complex, federal rules for those specific contracts, while West Virginia continues with the previous arrangement.

Since the bill is just a technical edit, we don't know the full context of the original rule. However, removing Minnesota from this specific statutory mention could mean the state loses a procedural advantage or a unique contracting flexibility it previously enjoyed under federal highway law. This is a subtle shift, but in the world of multi-million dollar infrastructure contracts, even small procedural changes can affect who gets the job and how quickly projects move forward.