Summary#

B26-0815 is the Contract No. CW130810 with Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. and Modification Nos. M01 and M02 Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2026. It does not amend an existing law; it would approve the contract and two modifications, despite a requirement in the District’s procurement law, and authorize payments of up to $5 million. Its stated goal is to approve the contract and authorize payment for goods and services received and to be received.

• The Council approves Contract No. CW130810 with Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., and modifications M01 and M02.
• The act authorizes payment up to $5 million total for goods and services received and to be received under the contract; it does not require the full amount to be paid.
• The approval applies notwithstanding a requirement in the District’s Procurement Practices Reform Act.
• The act would take effect after mayoral approval or a Council override of a veto, and would remain in effect for no more than 90 days. The bill has passed the Council and been delivered to the Mayor.

What it means for you#

• District government: If the act takes effect, it may pay for the contract’s goods and services, up to the $5 million total cap. The act does not describe a payment process.
• Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.: The contract and its two modifications would receive Council approval, and payment under them would be authorized up to the cap.
• District residents and taxpayers: The bill does not directly change individual rights, taxes, fees, or public services. It authorizes public payments, but does not say how much will actually be paid.

Money#

The act authorizes payments of up to $5 million total; the available material does not state the expected actual cost.

• The Council adopts the Chief Financial Officer’s fiscal impact statement, but that statement is not included in the supplied material.
• No publicly available information is provided here about the contract’s funding source, prior payments, or how the $5 million cap relates to the contract’s full value.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not describe what goods or services the contract covers, or what changes modifications M01 and M02 make.
• It does not explain which procurement-law requirement is being set aside or why.
• No publicly available information is provided here about the contract’s duration, payment schedule, or how much has already been paid.
• The bill does not explain how the 90-day limit affects payments or contract obligations after the act expires.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to let the District approve the contract and pay for goods and services received or still to be received.
• Approving the contract and its modifications together, with a clear $5 million cap, could provide payment authority while limiting the total amount authorized.
• The emergency act is temporary: its authority lasts no more than 90 days.

Case against#

• The bill sets aside a procurement-law requirement without explaining why that is needed or what the requirement would normally ensure.
• The contract’s scope and the changes in the two modifications are not described, making it hard to assess what the District would pay for.
• The $5 million cap limits authorized payments, but the supplied material does not show the expected amount or the fiscal impact statement’s analysis.