Overview
Title
To require Federal agencies to conduct a benefit-cost analysis on relocations involving the movement of employment positions to different areas, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 1171 wants U.S. government agencies to do a check like a "pros and cons" list before moving jobs to new places, to make sure it's a good idea and tell others about it. This is to be fair with money and help the government do its work better.
Summary AI
S. 1171, titled the “COST of Relocations Act,” aims to ensure Federal agencies conduct a benefit-cost analysis before moving employment positions to different locations. The bill requires that agencies submit this analysis to their Office of Inspector General, which then reviews and reports the findings to Congress. The analysis must include various factors, such as the anticipated outcomes, stakeholder engagement, and potential impacts on the agency's mission. This legislation is designed to ensure transparency and justify the use of federal funds for such relocations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act" or the "COST of Relocations Act," aims to increase transparency and accountability in the processes by which Federal agencies relocate employment positions. Specifically, it mandates that Federal agencies conduct a thorough benefit-cost analysis before proceeding with certain relocations. These analyses are intended to ensure that any moves are justified in terms of cost-effectiveness and alignment with agency missions. The bill also requires that findings from these analyses be reviewed by each agency's Office of Inspector General and subsequently reported to Congress. This involvement of oversight bodies is designed to enhance Congressional scrutiny over Federal relocations.
Summary of Significant Issues
One primary concern with the legislation is the potential for bureaucratic delays. The requirement for a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis, along with review and reporting processes, might slow down relocations that are necessary for operational efficiency. The complexity and ambiguity surrounding the definition of "covered relocation" could lead to inconsistencies in application and interpretation.
The bill's language about holding individuals accountable for relocation milestones is criticized for being potentially challenging to implement. Additionally, the need for agency inspector generals to report to multiple Congressional committees could result in redundant efforts and increased administrative burden. There are also subjective elements in the legislation, such as the terms "anticipated outcomes and improvements," that might lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications.
Finally, the requirement for a real estate comparison only if relocation occurs outside the National Capital Region could imply a bias towards keeping functions within that area.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, this legislation could offer increased trust in how Federal agencies manage taxpayer dollars. By ensuring that relocations are thoroughly vetted, there might be better assurance of cost-effectiveness and operational efficiency in government operations, potentially leading to improved public services.
However, the potential for bureaucratic slowdowns could negatively impact public services if relocations that could improve federal efficiency are delayed or obstructed due to procedural mandates. Such delays might negate any intended efficiency improvements or cost-saving measures.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal employees are a significant group of stakeholders affected by this bill. The requirement for agencies to develop detailed employee engagement plans as part of the relocation process could ensure that employees are adequately informed and considered during these transitions—potentially reducing disruption to their professional and personal lives.
For Federal agencies, the stipulated process could present increased workloads and resource demands, as conducting these extensive analyses and then having them reviewed and reported adds complexity to the administrative process. This could lead to reallocation of resources away from service delivery and mission-focused activities.
Lastly, regions that are potential relocation destinations outside the National Capital Region might feel disadvantaged by a perceived geographic bias. The requirement to compare real estate options principally when moving outside this area could imply a protective stance towards keeping functions localized within the Capital region, potentially stifling regional development opportunities elsewhere.
In summary, while the COST of Relocations Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in federal operations, its implications for bureaucratic efficiency and regional development warrant careful consideration.
Issues
The requirement for a benefit-cost analysis on 'covered relocations' in Section 2 might lead to significant bureaucratic delays in making necessary relocations or adjustments, which could disrupt Federal agency operations.
The complexity and potential ambiguity of the term 'covered relocation' in Section 2(e)(2) could lead to interpretation challenges, causing inconsistencies in how Federal agencies apply the law.
The language in Section 2(b)(2)(A)(viii), particularly regarding identifying and holding accountable the 'persons accountable for meeting such milestones,' is complex and may be difficult to implement consistently.
The requirement for the Office of Inspector General to report to multiple committees as stated in Section 2(c) could lead to redundancy and increased administrative burden on Federal agencies.
The subjective terms 'anticipated outcomes and improvements' and 'appropriate measures' in Section 2(b)(2)(A)(i) may lead to variable interpretations and inconsistent application of the benefit-cost analysis, potentially undermining the objectivity of agency reports.
The detailed employee engagement plan required under Section 2(b)(2)(A)(iv) could be seen as overly prescriptive, potentially leading to unnecessary expenditure of resources and time.
The requirement to compare real estate options only when moving positions outside the National Capital Region, as outlined in Section 2(c)(3)(B), may imply a geographic bias favoring the National Capital Region.
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 introduces its official name, which is the "Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act," also known as the "COST of Relocations Act."
2. Benefit-cost analysis on certain relocations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Federal agencies must conduct a benefit-cost analysis before certain relocations, ensuring detailed plans and assessments are made public. The agency's Inspector General must review these analyses and report findings to Congress, while existing legal relocation requirements remain intact.