Overview

Title

To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit to Congress an annual report on projects that are over budget and behind schedule, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

In H.R. 8335, also called the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024," there's a rule that big bosses have to tell on projects costing a lot more or taking way longer than planned, like if a toy is super expensive or it takes much longer to build than the grown-ups said.

Summary AI

H.R. 8335, also known as the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024,” requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to report annually to Congress on projects that are significantly over budget or delayed. The bill defines "covered projects" as those funded by U.S. agencies that are either over $1 billion beyond their original cost estimates or more than 5 years behind schedule. It mandates detailed reporting on each project, including information on cost overruns, delays, and any changes to the project's original scope, as well as details on contractors and the reasons for cost increases or delays.

Published

2024-05-10
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2024-05-10
Package ID: BILLS-118hr8335ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
833
Pages:
4
Sentences:
8

Language

Nouns: 234
Verbs: 70
Adjectives: 37
Adverbs: 2
Numbers: 33
Entities: 42

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.07
Average Sentence Length:
104.12
Token Entropy:
4.74
Readability (ARI):
53.27

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, officially referred to as the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024,” aims to enhance transparency and accountability in government spending. Introduced in the House of Representatives, the bill mandates that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submit an annual report to Congress. This report must outline projects managed by federal agencies that are either significantly over budget — by at least $1 billion — or delayed by more than five years past their original completion dates. The bill’s goal is to identify and provide detailed information on these projects, with the hope of improving oversight and reducing waste in government operations.

Summary of Significant Issues

One of the main concerns with the bill is the broad definition of what constitutes a "covered project." This definition might inadvertently include a vast number of projects, potentially overwhelming agencies with reporting requirements and complicating oversight processes. Additionally, the broad inclusion of both Executive and independent regulatory agencies under the term "covered agency" could introduce challenges in administering and overseeing these requirements effectively, leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Another critical issue lies in the methodology for adjusting and reporting project costs. The bill specifies using the Consumer Price Index to adjust cost estimates, which may not accurately reflect the unique financial dynamics of specific projects. Furthermore, the provisions within the bill that allow for awards or bonuses to projects that are delayed or over budget raise concerns about potentially rewarding inefficiency and could be perceived negatively by the public.

Impact on the Public

The bill attempts to improve government accountability by shedding light on expensive and delayed projects, potentially leading to better project management and reduced waste of taxpayer dollars. By identifying projects that are inefficient or mismanaged, the legislation may encourage government agencies to allocate resources more effectively, benefiting the public in the long run through improved service delivery and infrastructure.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For government agencies, the bill could impose significant administrative challenges, as they would need to gather and report extensive project information. This might require reallocating resources, potentially impacting other areas of government work. The requirement could strain smaller agencies lacking the necessary administrative capacity to comply efficiently.

Contractors and private sector stakeholders involved in these federal projects may view the transparency as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it could enhance trust and business opportunities by showcasing efficiently completed projects. On the other hand, increased scrutiny might deter companies from pursuing government contracts if they fear negative publicity or financial penalties for delayed or over-budget projects.

In conclusion, while the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024” seeks to foster accountability and transparency in government spending, its implementation requires careful consideration of the potential administrative burdens and broader impacts on stakeholders involved in government projects.

Financial Assessment

The proposed legislation, H.R. 8335, known as the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024,” emphasizes fiscal accountability by requiring detailed governmental reporting on financially significant projects. Key financial references within the bill focus on projects that are either costly—exceeding $1 billion more than originally estimated—or markedly delayed, running over 5 years behind schedule. This financial scrutiny is pivotal, as it seeks to ensure taxpayers' money is managed responsibly by federal agencies.

Summary of Financial References

The bill’s primary financial stipulation mandates an annual report on what it terms "covered projects." These projects are defined as federal initiatives that exhibit a financial overrun, quantified as a $1 billion excess over projected budgets, or that experience major timeline slips, specifically, being delayed by more than 5 years. This focused approach targets large-scale projects where such discrepancies are most impactful financially.

Relation to Identified Issues

  1. Broad Coverage of Projects: The definition of "covered project" is notably extensive, potentially encompassing a wide range of initiatives. While this breadth ensures comprehensive oversight, it may inadvertently overwhelm agencies with the substantial administrative task of reporting on numerous projects. The financial implications here hinge on the potential diversion of resources from project execution to compliance reporting.

  2. Calculation of Cost Overruns: Adjusting project cost estimates using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a financial allocation method mentioned in the bill. This approach ensures costs are inflated to account for general economic changes, yet it may not fully capture specific variations in project environments or sectors. Therefore, financial assessments could become inaccurate, influencing funding and oversight decisions.

  3. Awards and Bonuses: The bill mentions potential awards or bonuses, which could introduce financial incentives within project reporting. However, these monetary rewards might be perceived as paradoxical if allocated to projects plagued by substantial overruns or delays. Such financial practices could raise public concern regarding the effectiveness of rewarding projects notorious for fiscal inefficiency.

  4. Administrative Burden and Resource Allocation: The extensive financial reporting requirements outlined could place a significant administrative load on agencies. This burden might necessitate the reallocation of financial and human resources, which could otherwise be dedicated to effective project management and completion.

In summary, H.R. 8335 contains significant financial considerations aimed at increasing accountability for major federal projects. While the detailed financial oversight is commendable, the practical execution of these requirements highlights areas where the balance between comprehensive reporting and efficient resource utilization must be carefully managed to avoid unintended financial ramifications.

Issues

  • The definition of 'covered project' is broad, potentially including too many projects. This could lead to oversight challenges as the requirement to report may overwhelm agencies with an extensive number of projects to cover (Section 2, Definitions).

  • The term 'covered agency' broadly includes both Executive and independent regulatory agencies, which can complicate the administration and oversight of this requirement, creating potential bureaucratic issues and inefficiency (Section 2, Definitions).

  • The provision for adjusting cost estimates according to the Consumer Price Index might not account for variations outside of general inflation, potentially leading to inaccurate financial assessments of project costs (Section 2, Requirement).

  • The provisions allowing for awards or bonuses related to covered projects could be seen as rewarding inefficiency, especially if these projects exceed original estimates or are significantly delayed, which could cause public concern over financial incentives (Section 2, Requirement).

  • There is a lack of specific criteria for determining which projects receive awards or bonuses, which could lead to perceptions of favoritism or lack of accountability, undermining the integrity of the reporting process (Section 2, Requirement).

  • The complex language used to describe the reporting requirements for covered agencies could lead to inconsistencies and misunderstandings in how these requirements are implemented, posing a risk of ineffective oversight (Section 2, Requirement).

  • The extensive scope of information required for each project might create significant administrative burdens for agencies, potentially diverting resources away from effective project management (Section 2, Requirement).

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

The first section of this act states its short title, which is the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024.”

Money References

  • This Act may be cited as the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2024”.

2. Annual report Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, the bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance for government agencies to report annually on certain large projects that are delayed or over budget. The report should include details like project descriptions, costs, locations, contractors, and reasons for any delays or cost increases.

Money References

  • (a) Definitions.—In this section— (1) the term “covered agency” means— (A) an Executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code; and (B) an independent regulatory agency, as defined in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code; (2) the term “covered project” means a project funded by a covered agency— (A) that is more than 5 years behind schedule, as measured against the original expected date for completion; or (B) for which the amount spent on the project is not less than $1,000,000,000 more than the original cost estimate for the project; and (3) the term “project” means a major acquisition, a major defense acquisition program (as defined in section 4201 of title 10, United States Code), a procurement, a construction project, a remediation or clean-up effort, or any other time-limited endeavor, that is not funded through direct spending (as defined in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c))).