Overview
Title
To require plain language and the inclusion of key words in covered notices that are clear, concise, and accessible to small business concerns, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Plain Language in Contracting Act (H.R. 787) wants to make sure that government letters and notices are written in an easy-to-understand way so small businesses can know what's important to them without any confusion. It asks the people in charge to make sure this happens, but they won't get extra money to do it.
Summary AI
The Plain Language in Contracting Act (H.R. 787) aims to make notices from federal agencies easier for small businesses to understand. It requires these notices to be clear, concise, and well-organized, with key words included to help small businesses quickly identify relevant opportunities. The bill instructs the Small Business Administration to create rules to ensure compliance. Additionally, no extra funding is authorized for implementing this act.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Plain Language in Contracting Act," aims to enhance the clarity and accessibility of government-issued notices for small businesses. Introduced in the House of Representatives, the bill is designed to ensure that such notices are understandable and reachable for small business operators. This involves mandating clear and concise language and the inclusion of key words that make it easier for small businesses to identify relevant contract opportunities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is tasked with establishing rules to implement these requirements shortly after the bill becomes law. Importantly, the bill stipulates that no additional funds will be allocated to cover the costs of its implementation.
Summary of Significant Issues
One substantial issue with the bill is the challenge posed by the 90-day timeframe for the SBA to issue required rules. This period may not be sufficient for comprehensive rulemaking, leading to the possibility of poorly prepared guidelines that inadequately fulfill the bill's objectives. Additionally, the bill falls short in providing specific instructions on how to select and apply the "key words" mentioned, which could result in inconsistent applications across different agencies.
Another concern lies in the reliance on terminology and definitions from existing laws, specifically from section 1708 of title 41, United States Code. This reliance may complicate the bill's accessibility for individuals who are not familiar with these legal references.
Moreover, the section concerning compliance with "CUTGO" is vague, as it neither defines the term nor elaborates on its implications, which could lead to misunderstandings about what this requirement entails.
Lastly, the absence of additional funding might impede the effectiveness of the bill's implementation. If unforeseen challenges or expenses arise, the limitations in financial resources could hinder progress toward the bill's intended goals.
Potential Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, the bill, if implemented effectively, could substantially improve the ability of small businesses to navigate government contracting opportunities. By mandating simpler and clearer language in official notices, more small business owners could participate in the bidding process, potentially leading to more diverse and competitive offerings for government contracts. However, the success of this outcome greatly depends on the detailed guidelines and their uniform enforcement across different federal agencies.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For small business owners, especially those who struggle with navigating complex bureaucratic language, this bill holds the promise of making government contracting opportunities more attainable. By making notices clearer, small businesses might save time and resources traditionally spent on deciphering complex government communications.
However, federal agencies may face challenges in complying with the bill's requirements, particularly within the proposed 90-day timeframe. Ensuring that all notices meet the new standards could require additional training and resources, tasks that might be constrained further by the bill's stipulation against additional appropriations.
Moreover, the broader community of legal and regulatory professionals might find themselves needing to address gaps or uncertainties left by the bill, especially with regards to interpreting references to other legal statutes.
Overall, while the bill aims to foster inclusiveness and clarity in government-small business interactions, its success hinges on the effective resolution of these highlighted issues.
Issues
The directive for rules to be issued within 90 days as per Section 2 (c) could lead to hasty and potentially insufficient guidelines, as this period may not be adequate for thorough rulemaking, especially when considering the complexity of ensuring clarity and accessibility in government notices for small businesses.
Section 2 (b) requires the inclusion of 'key words' in notices but does not detail how these words are to be chosen or who is responsible for their determination. This lack of specificity could result in inconsistent identification and application across different agencies, affecting the notices' effectiveness for small businesses.
The bill's reliance on definitions and standards from other laws in Section 2 (d)(1)—specifically, terminology from section 1708 of title 41, United States Code—might complicate understanding for individuals not already familiar with these references, potentially undermining the bill’s objective of enhancing accessibility for small businesses.
Section 3 mentions compliance with 'CUTGO', but it doesn't define the acronym or explain its implications. This omission could lead to misunderstandings about the financial responsibilities and constraints imposed by the bill, especially for readers unfamiliar with the term.
The absence of additional appropriations as declared in Section 3 may hinder the effective implementation of the Act, especially if unforeseen expenses arise. This could weaken the bill's ability to meet its objectives of promoting clearer and more accessible communication with small businesses.
Section 2 lacks detailed guidelines for what constitutes 'clear, concise, and well-organized' language and 'best practices,' leading to potential inconsistencies in how various agencies implement these requirements. This could result in unequal adherence to the bill’s objectives across different fields or agencies, thus limiting its intended impact.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states that the official name of the law is the “Plain Language in Contracting Act”.
2. Accessibility and clarity in covered notices for small business concerns Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that notices for small businesses should be clearly written and easy to understand, following best practices for clarity and organization. Additionally, such notices must include key words to help small businesses find relevant opportunities. The Small Business Administration is required to establish rules to implement these requirements within 90 days of the law's enactment.
3. Compliance with CUTGO Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states that no extra money is authorized to be spent to implement the Act or its changes, ensuring compliance with the CUTGO rule, which requires that any increase in spending be offset by cuts elsewhere.