The bill, titled the Government Services Delivery Improvement Act, adds new sections 1 through 5 to chapter 43.105 RCW and creates a new procedural framework within Washington Technology Solutions by establishing a Washington state government service delivery lead. This is a new law that creates an administrative position and government-wide procedural requirements; it does not create new crimes or change criminal penalties in the extracted text. The lead’s duties include facilitating government-wide service delivery improvements, advising the director, developing service delivery standards, policies, and guidelines, collecting and reporting qualitative and quantitative information through existing reporting mechanisms, evaluating service quality using performance metrics, engaging stakeholders, and coordinating with Washington Technology Solutions and other executive agency stakeholders. The head of each state entity must designate or appoint a senior official responsible for that entity’s government service delivery; those designees must have specified reporting lines and authority, coordinate across the entity, collect and report data, and submit implementation plans when directed by the state government service delivery lead. The act defines key terms such as “government service delivery,” “government service delivery channel,” “high impact service provider,” “state entity,” and “state-funded program” (defined as receiving at least 50 percent of its funding directly from the state). Affected entities include Washington Technology Solutions, executive and judicial branch state entities (including institutions of higher education as referenced in RCW 28B.10.016), high-impact service provider programs to be identified by the director, and contractors or nonprofits acting on behalf of state entities. Deadlines in the extract require entity heads to designate a senior official within 180 days of the effective date of the relevant section, an implementation plan to be submitted within one year when directed, and the director to provide an annual report to the governor, legislative leaders, and appropriations committees no later than 90 days before each regular legislative session. The bill identifier in the extract is S-1312.2 / Senate Bill 5751, 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session, and Sec. 6 addresses codification. The extract omits several implementation details: it does not state the director’s official title or statutory placement, it does not provide the actual effective date referenced for deadlines, it does not specify criteria or procedures for identifying “high impact service providers,” it does not specify the exact data elements or reporting formats required, and it contains no information on enforcement, funding, or penalties for noncompliance.

If enacted, the bill creates a new state-level service delivery lead position housed in Washington Technology Solutions to push government-wide improvements, and it requires every state entity (including agencies, higher education institutions, corrections, and programs that get at least 50% of their funding from the state) to name a senior official within 180 days. Those designees must coordinate service improvement work, collect and report qualitative and quantitative information, and — if directed by the state lead — submit an implementation plan within one year; the director must also deliver an annual government-wide report 90 days before each regular legislative session to the governor, legislative leaders, and appropriations committees. The people most affected will be agency heads and the designated senior officials, who will take on new responsibilities and likely need to shift staff time and resources to data collection, coordination, and planning, which could create administrative costs or workload pressure; contractors and nonprofits delivering state-funded programs also fall under the new duties. Important details are missing from the provided text — the director’s formal title, the bill’s effective date, how “high impact” programs will be identified, what specific data or reporting formats are required, and whether any funding or enforcement mechanisms are provided — so the exact scale of costs and how compliance will be ensured is unclear.