Overview
Title
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
H. R. 856 wants to make sure that when the government buys things, they don't just choose the cheapest option if it could be bad for safety. They want to look into this and make sure everyone knows what they find out.
Summary AI
H. R. 856, titled the “Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing Act,” mandates the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to investigate how using the lowest price technically acceptable process in buying decisions affects national security. Within 180 days of the Act's passage, the Director must submit a report on the findings to both the House's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate's Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The goal is to ensure that cost-cutting measures don't compromise national security by negatively impacting procurement processes.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing Act" mandates a crucial review by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This review aims to assess whether the procurement process known as the "lowest price technically acceptable" (LPTA) affects national security. Specifically, the Director is tasked with examining how both Defense and Civilian agencies are managing their procurements under this process. The findings are to be reported to relevant Congressional committees within 180 days after the enactment of the bill.
Summary of Significant Issues
A notable issue with this legislation is its lack of definition regarding "national security risk." This omission may complicate the review's focus and effectiveness, as it’s unclear what specific risks should be assessed. Furthermore, the bill does not specify a methodology for conducting the review, which could lead to inconsistent findings. The 180-day deadline for report submission may not be adequate, considering the breadth of agencies involved and the potential complexity of their procurement practices.
Beyond the report submission, the bill does not outline how its findings will be addressed or what actions might follow if risks are identified. This absence of a follow-up mechanism or accountability measures could render the review less effective in prompting actionable changes.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill underscores the importance of scrutinizing government procurement procedures to safeguard national security. While the intention is to ensure that selecting contractors based simply on the lowest bid doesn't compromise security, the lack of a clear action plan following the review could mean that potential issues might not be promptly addressed. If risks associated with LPTA practices go unmitigated, they may indirectly affect public safety or the integrity of government projects.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government Agencies: Defense and Civilian agencies could face scrutiny under this review. The review's findings might pressure them to modify procurement practices but without specific recommendations, agencies might be uncertain about how to proceed.
Contractors: Contractors who frequently engage in government procurement might see changes in how contracts are awarded if the review suggests that LPTA practices are problematic. This could benefit higher-quality contractors who may not always compete on price but offer better value.
National Security Entities: For entities concerned with national security, this bill represents a proactive step. However, the absence of specific measures following the review might be viewed as insufficient if immediate risks are identified.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to address potential national security vulnerabilities in government procurement, its lack of clarity on defining risks and enacting follow-ups may undermine its effectiveness. Stakeholders across government and the business sector may need to prepare for change, though the direction and extent of these changes remain uncertain under the current bill framework.
Issues
The bill requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a review on the impact of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process on national security, but it lacks specificity on what constitutes a 'national security risk', which could impact the effectiveness and focus of the review (Section 2).
The methodology for conducting the review is not specified, which may result in inconsistencies and impact the reliability of the findings (Section 2).
The timeline of 180 days for completing the review and submitting the report might be insufficient considering the potential complexity and scope of the review, which involves both Defense and Civilian agencies (Section 2).
There is no outlined process for how the findings of the review will be acted upon, nor are there consequences specified if procurement practices are found to pose a national security risk (Section 2).
The bill does not specify any accountability measures or ongoing oversight following the submission of the report, raising concerns about how identified risks will be mitigated or monitored (Section 2).
The section providing the short title contains only procedural content and does not impact the substance of the bill (Section 1).
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.