Overview
Title
An Act To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget conduct a review to determine the impact of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process on national security, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants a special government person to look into whether picking the cheapest option for government work could cause safety problems for the country, and then tell important people what they find out.
Summary AI
H.R. 856 is a proposed law that aims to ensure safe federal purchasing practices by having the Director of the Office of Management and Budget conduct a review of the current procurement practices in Defense and Civilian agencies. Specifically, it looks at whether selecting contracts based on the lowest price poses any national security risks. The Director must report the findings to Congress within 180 days. The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview
The bill under consideration, H. R. 856, titled the "Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing Act," is aimed at examining the procurement practices of Defense and Civilian agencies in the U.S. Specifically, it mandates the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct a review focused on the "lowest price technically acceptable" (LPTA) source selection process. This review seeks to identify any potential national security risks associated with this procurement method.
Summary of Significant Issues
One critical issue with the bill is the broad scope of the review. It encompasses all Defense and Civilian agencies, yet lacks precise definitions of what might constitute a "national security risk" related to procurement practices. This ambiguity could result in varied interpretations and affect the consistency and reliability of the review outcome.
Another area of concern is the absence of a clear methodology for conducting the review. The bill does not specify how the OMB Director should approach the review, which might lead to inconsistency in execution and outcomes. A standardized method could ensure objectivity and reliability in assessing whether the LPTA process exposes agencies to security risks.
The timeline of 180 days set for the completion and submission of the report could be problematic. Given the complexity and breadth of evaluating numerous agency practices, this timeframe might be insufficient, potentially compromising the thoroughness and accuracy of the findings.
Additionally, the bill lacks clarity on the actions to be taken post-report submission. It does not specify what measures or consequences will follow if the review finds procurement practices that pose national security risks. This vagueness might hinder meaningful policy responses or corrective measures.
Finally, there is no mention of ongoing oversight or accountability in the bill. If significant risks are identified, the absence of provisions for follow-up or accountability might allow problems to persist unaddressed.
Potential Impacts
The potential impact of this bill on the public is mixed. On a positive note, if effectively implemented, the review could uncover and rectify procurement practices that potentially compromise national security, thereby enhancing the safety of the nation. Ensuring that the government does not prioritize cost over security could lend greater public trust in federal agencies.
However, lacking clearly defined outcomes or accountability measures, the review might result in minimal actual change. Without specific actions or consequences, any identification of risk might not lead to significant restructuring or policy adjustments.
Specific Stakeholders:
Defense and Civilian Agencies: These bodies could face significant scrutiny under the review, potentially requiring changes in procurement strategies if risks are identified. This may lead to increased administrative burdens as they adjust to new guidelines post-review.
Contractors and Vendors: Companies engaged in government contracts may experience shifts in bid evaluation processes. Moving away from LPTA could lead to increased competition on quality and innovation rather than just pricing, affecting their contract-winning strategies.
Security and Policy Analysts: Individuals involved in national security and procurement policy development may find new opportunities to shape more secure procurement practices as part of this review. However, they may also face challenges if the review leads to uncertain or undefined policy responses.
In summary, while the bill proposes a potentially beneficial review of procurement practices to bolster national security, its effectiveness will greatly depend on the clarity of definitions, methodology, and follow-up actions outlined by the policy makers.
Issues
The scope of the review in Section 2 is broad as it involves all Defense and Civilian agencies but lacks specificity in what constitutes a 'national security risk' resulting from procurement practices. This ambiguity could potentially lead to varied interpretations and affect the outcome of the review.
Section 2 does not outline a clear methodology for how the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will conduct the review of procurement practices. Without a specified methodology, there is a risk of inconsistency and lack of objectivity in how the review is performed.
The timeline for the submission of the report in Section 2 is set at 180 days. This may be insufficient considering the complexity and breadth of the review, potentially compromising the thoroughness and accuracy of the findings.
Section 2 does not specify how the findings of the report will be acted upon or what consequences might follow if procurement practices are found to pose a national security risk. This lack of clarity may hinder effective policy response.
There is no indication of ongoing oversight or follow-up after the report is submitted in Section 2, which could be a concern if the review identifies significant risks to national security.
The text in Section 2 lacks accountability measures if it is found that national security risks have been created by the current procurement process. This omission might lead to a lack of responsibility-taking and corrective actions by relevant parties.
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 the Act states its short title, which is “Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing Act.”
2. Review to determine the impact of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process on national security Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review the procurement practices of certain government agencies to see if they pose any national security risks and report the findings to specific Congressional committees within 180 days. It also defines key terms used in the section.