Overview
Title
To require reporting on offerors that have denied requests for uncertified cost or pricing data.
ELI5 AI
The bill is like a new rule that says if a company doesn't share how much things cost when the government asks, the government has to make a note about that company in its big notebook. This is to help everyone see which companies are sharing prices and which aren't.
Summary AI
S. 4636, titled the “Contract Pricing Data Transparency Act,” is a bill introduced in the United States Senate on July 8, 2024. The bill requires the federal government to report, in a specific system, any companies that have refused to provide uncertified cost or pricing data when requested. It mandates an entry about these companies be made in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, which is part of the System for Award Management. This change aims to enhance transparency in how contractors handle requests for pricing data.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, the "Contract Pricing Data Transparency Act," aims to enhance transparency in government contracting, particularly concerning offerors who refuse to provide certain cost or pricing data. Introduced in the United States Senate, this bill mandates a change in the reporting requirements for contractors who deny requests for uncertified cost or pricing data.
General Summary
The bill seeks to amend the current guidelines under Title 10 of the United States Code. At present, when a contractor declines to furnish uncertified cost or pricing data, contracting officers may note this in a government monitoring system. The proposed change requires such denials to be recorded in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, effectively shifting the practice from optional to mandatory reporting. This system is part of the broader System for Award Management, where federal agencies track contractor performance and integrity.
Summary of Significant Issues
There are several significant concerns associated with this bill. Firstly, the shift from optional to compulsory reporting might increase the administrative load on contracting officers. Without a clear justification of the benefits, this could strain government resources. Secondly, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a “denied request,” leading to potential enforcement inconsistencies and legal challenges. Additionally, this requirement could impose new compliance burdens on contractors, possibly deterring their participation in government contracts. Such a deterrent effect may be more pronounced among smaller firms or newcomers to the market, who have fewer resources to handle increased compliance demands.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill's broader aim of ensuring transparency in government contracting may promise increased accountability and potentially lead to better spending of taxpayer dollars. However, if these changes discourage companies from bidding on government contracts, the reduced competition could result in higher costs or fewer choices for the government in procuring goods and services.
Impact on Stakeholders
This legislative proposal could have mixed consequences for different stakeholders. For government agencies, mandatory reporting might mean improved contractor monitoring but may also place an additional burden on contracting officers. Larger established firms with significant compliance infrastructure might adapt more easily, possibly even benefiting from reduced competition. Conversely, smaller businesses or those new to federal contracting may find these requirements too cumbersome, potentially excluding them from opportunities and diminishing the diversity of participants in the federal marketplace.
Overall, while the bill seeks to promote transparency and integrity, careful consideration should be given to its implementation to avoid unintended negative impacts on both current government operations and future contractor participation.
Issues
The shift from optional to mandatory reporting ('may include' to 'shall include') in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System as stipulated in Section 2 could significantly increase the administrative workload for contracting officers without a clearly articulated benefit, potentially impacting government efficiency and resource allocation.
Section 2 lacks specific guidelines on defining 'denied request for uncertified cost or pricing data,' leading to ambiguity that could result in inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges from contractors unsure of compliance requirements.
The legislative change in Section 2 may impose additional compliance burdens on offerors, which could deter participation in government contracts. This effect could be particularly pronounced if the perceived cost of compliance outweighs the benefits of engaging in government contracts, potentially impacting competition and market dynamics.
The amendment in Section 2 could disproportionately favor organizations with greater resources to manage compliance and reporting, creating a barrier for smaller firms or new market entrants, and potentially consolidating market power in larger, established companies.
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 that the official short title of this legislation is the “Contract Pricing Data Transparency Act.”
2. Requirement to report offerors that have denied requests for uncertified cost or pricing data Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the United States Code to require that any offerors who have denied requests for uncertified cost or pricing data must be recorded in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, which is part of the System for Award Management.