[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 122 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ON S. 1587

  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, today we embark on the last stage of a 
long journey: the passage of the conference agreement on S. 1587, the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. This comprehensive 
procurement reform effort is aimed at streamlining the acquisition 
process and fulfilling many of the recommendations of the Vice 
President's National Performance Review [NPR] for the procurement 
system.
  When I introduced S. 1587 with Senators Bingaman, Levin, Nunn, 
Bumpers, and Lieberman, I pointed out that a year and a half ago, the 
staffs of our respective committees met to review the laws and 
regulations of the entire procurement system. This review was rooted in 
the report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel assembled pursuant to 
section 800 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1991, legislation I Introduced in this and other Congresses, notably S. 
554, 555, and 556, Senator Levin's commercial products legislation, and 
the NPR.
  A lot has happened in the last year and a half since we began this 
process. After I Introduced the bill last October, we engaged in long 
discussions with the administration and interested parties. In early 
1994, the Governmental Affairs Committee conducted three joint hearings 
with the Armed Services Committee on S. 1587.
  The Committees received testimony on the bill from DOD, GSA, OFPP, 
GAO, the DOD IG, the ABA, Business Executives for National Security, a 
coalition of various contractor industry associations including the 
Acquisition Reform Working Group, the Information Technology 
Association of America, the Computer and Communications Industry 
Association, the Small Business Legislative Counsel, the Minority 
Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Computer 
Business Equipment Manufacturers Association. In short, we heard from 
the spectrum of interests in the Federal procurement field.
  Following the hearings, representatives of the bipartisan leadership 
of all three Committees reviewed each comment and recommendation 
proposed during the hearings and in testimony received for the record. 
Based upon the review, a substitute bill was prepared.
  On April 26, 1994, the Governmental Affairs Committee took up S. 1587 
and approved the bill as amended by a complete substitute offered by 
myself and Senators Roth, Levin, and Cohen, on a voice vote. On the 
afternoon of April 26, the Armed Services Committee met and approved 
the bill, as amended by the Governmental Affairs Committee, by a vote 
of 22-0.
  This past June, both Houses of Congress took up companion measures on 
procurement reform. In the House, H.R. 2238 was championed by House 
Government Operations Committee Chairman John Conyers, along with 
ranking minority member William Klinger, and joined by House Armed 
Services Committee Chairman Ron Dellums, ranking minority member Floyd 
Spence, and a collective of other members from committees of outside 
jurisdiction.
  Over the past 2 months, our respective staffs have been plugging away 
at reconciling the two bills. What we have now, Madam President, is 
what I believe to be an improved product that represents a fine balance 
of the many interests affected by our procurement system. Testament to 
this achievement can be found not only in the range of views reflected 
in the bipartisan cosponsers of this conference agreement, including 
Senators Thurmond, Smith, Roth, and Cohen, but also in the committees 
of outside jurisdiction involved in this conference, including House 
Committees on Small Business, Education and Labor, Judiciary, and 
Public Works.
  We have come a long way, Madam President, and that accomplishment 
should be noted by my colleagues as we move forward to consider this 
conference report. We have wrestled year in and year out with these 
issues, and have failed to enact any meaningful reform.
  Why has this been the case? Well, anyone working in this field knows 
that reform is a tall order. The procurement system impacts across the 
spectrum of interests in our society, and it has overlaid upon it 
nonprocurement programs which seek to address various social and 
economic policy concerns. Reconciling all of these interests and policy 
concerns has not been easy.
  In spite of these difficulties, as we face almost certain budgetary 
constraints in the short-run, it is imperative that we maximize the 
efficiencies of our procurement system to assure we can meet the needs 
of our citizens.
  When we began drafting this bill, concerns were raised regarding the 
administrative burden associated with some of these oversight tools, 
which resulted in the bifurcation of the government and commercial 
markets. Thus, we sought to minimize this undesirable consequence of 
these well-intentioned provisions in an effort to strike a balance 
between efficiency and oversight.
  In addition, we have all heard stories that it is too difficult to do 
business with the government. From cost accounting standards to 
socioeconomic laws, the Federal marketplace is represented to be a 
quagmire of laws and bureaucratic redtape.
  Another major criticism of our acquisition process is our proclivity 
to over-specify our needs to the extent that we tell companies how to 
manufacture their products. We no longer have the luxury to specify 
costly processes. Indeed, the section 800 panel and others have called 
for us to leave this practice and jump into the commercial market like 
any other large customer. Therein lies the benefits of competition and 
our national productive capacity. And that change is at the core of S. 
1587.
  But change is not without risk. We have been forced to examine 
traditional roles of the Federal procurement system. The Government is 
not like any other commercial customer. For one thing, it spends 
precious taxpayer dollars, and thus, is in a position of great public 
trust. In addition, the Government is expected to foster an array of 
social policy goals--policy goals that may not exist in the commercial 
market.
  And that's why I refer to our work as a balance. Among the three 
Committees, I believe, we have struck the essential balance to move 
meaningful reform into the Federal marketplace. S. 1587 seeks to foster 
and improve:
  The acquisition of commercial items;
  The streamlined acquisition procedures under an elevated small 
purchase threshold;
  The competitive acquisition process;
  The protest and oversight process; and
  The procurement integrity and ethics laws.
  In addition, the bill streamlines the procurement code through the 
repeal of redundant and obsolete laws, and it simplifies the system by 
standardizing government-wide thresholds for the Truth in Negotiations 
Act and statutory contract cost principles.
  What we have is an agreement on major improvements that will bring 
our Federal procurement system into the next century. We are at a 
critical point, Madam President. For the first time, we have not only 
both Houses of Congress motivated to enact reform, but also the 
administration. I implore my colleagues to seize this moment and 
quickly move to enact this reform measure for the benefit of the system 
and the nation as a whole.
  At this time, Madam President, I want to take the opportunity to 
thank Chairmen Conyers and Dellums, Congressmen Klinger and Spence, and 
the many outside conferees in the House for their tireless work on this 
agreement. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty in making 
themselves available and working around the clock everyday of the week 
to come to closure on the outstanding issues in the respective bills. I 
also want to thank all of the Senate conferees, Senators Nunn, Levin, 
Sasser, Pryor, Dorgan, Exon, Bingaman, Shelby, Bumpers, Roth, Thurmond, 
Cohen, McCain, Stevens, Warner, and Smith for their tireless efforts 
and their spirit of collegiality. At a time when the U.S. Congress is 
suffering criticism for the way it does business, indeed, sometimes 
unfair criticism, the efforts of all the conferees manifest what's 
right with this institution. I am proud to be associated with such 
dedicated people.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record 
following my remarks a summary of the conference agreement on the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Conference Report Language Agreed Upon


                            commercial items

                               In general

       The conference agreement establishes a new Chapter in Title 
     10 and new provisions in the Federal Property Act that 
     encourage the use of commercial items, and where such items 
     are not available, non-developmental items other than 
     commercial items (NDIs) and makes it substantially easier for 
     federal agencies to purchase such items.
       The purchase of proven products such as commercial and NDIs 
     can eliminate the need for research and development, minimize 
     acquisition lead time, and reduce the need for detailed 
     design specifications or expensive produce testing.
       Expands current definition of commercial items and adds to 
     it commercial service that are sold in substantial quantities 
     in the commercial market and also expands the current non-
     developmental items definition, establishes requirements to 
     promote consideration of such items, and requires the 
     issuance of regulations to make it easier to buy commercial 
     products. Both the NPR and the Advisory Panel have 
     recommended similar provisions.
       Other key features of the conference agreement: The 
     definition of commercial also includes:
       Commercial items not yet available in the commercial 
     marketplace if they evolve out of commercial items, based on 
     advances in technology or increases in capability and will be 
     available in time to meet commercial requirements;
       leased items and intra-company transfers;
       modified commercial items;
       goods ``customarily'' used in the private sector; and
       NDIs if the item was developed at private expense and has 
     been sold in substantial quantities on a competitive basis to 
     multiple state and local governments.
       The agreement would provide a preference for commercial 
     items and NDI's other than commercial items to clarify that--
       to the maximum extent practicable, contract requirements 
     and market research should facilitate the use of commercial 
     items and, where such items are not available, NDIs other 
     than commercial items;
       in the procurement process, commercial items would compete 
     on a level playing field with all other products and 
     services; and
       agency efforts to train personnel and eliminate contractual 
     impediments should focus on commercial items, rather than 
     non-commercial NDI's

                       Commercial item exemptions

       Reduces impediments to the purchase of commercial items by 
     exempting such purchases from over 30 statutes that are 
     unique to government purchases, and have no counterpart in 
     the commercial sector.
       Commercial item purchases would be exempt from the 
     following requirements generally applicable to other federal 
     purchases:
       Contingent fees certification.
       Procedural requirements of the Anti-Kickback Act.
       Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
       Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.
       Prohibition limiting subcontractor direct sales to the U.S.
       Requirement to identify suspended or debarred 
     subcontractors identification of suppliers and sources.
       Fly American restrictions.
       Procurement integrity certifications.
       Federal Water Pollution Control Act certifications.
       Clean Air Act certifications.
       Inventory accounting requirements.
       Prohibition on persons convicted of defense-related 
     felonies.
       In addition, the bill would provide that any future enacted 
     provision of law that does not explicitly refer to commercial 
     items, as determined the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 
     Council, would be included on a list of inapplicable statutes 
     in the FAR. Further, this list would also include statutes 
     that are inapplicable to subcontracts under contracts for 
     commercial items.

                       Trust in Negotiations Act

       Amends the Truth in Negotiations Act for Department of 
     Defense to make permanent the $500,000 threshold and to 
     create a new commercial items exception. This would relieve 
     commercial contractors from their number one complaint--the 
     burden of collecting cost data for the government. The 
     Advisory panel recommended a similar exception.
       The conference agreement would exempt commercial contracts 
     from the burdensome requirement to provide ``cost or pricing 
     data'' by:
       Retaining the deletion of the post-award price adjustment 
     provision in the original version of S. 1587; requiring 
     agencies to conduct procurements of commercial items on a 
     competitive basis to the maximum extent practicable. Where a 
     commercial item is purchased on the basis of adequate price 
     competition, the purchase would be exempt from cost or 
     pricing data requirements; for items where it is not 
     practical to purchase commercial items on a competitive 
     basis, contracting officers are to seek pricing information, 
     and if this information is adequate to demonstrate price 
     reasonableness, the contracting officer must exempt the 
     acquisition from cost and pricing data requirements. Only if 
     the contracting officer makes a written determination that 
     adequate pricing information is not available may she or he 
     require submission of cost or pricing data; providing audit 
     authority for up to two years after the date of contract 
     award in connection with commercial pricing information on 
     sole source commercial buys; clarifying the statutory 
     exemption for modifications of commercial contracts; and 
     extending the commercial products exemption to cover 
     commercial products that are transferred from one division of 
     a company to another.
       In addition, the substitute would:
       Provide that contracting officers shall not require 
     certified cost or pricing data in cases where there is 
     adequate price competition or catalog or market pricing. The 
     agreement would clarify, however, that a contracting officer 
     may require submission of other, uncertified information if 
     necessary to determine price reasonableness.
       Where the head of the procuring activity makes a written 
     determination that certified cost and pricing information in 
     below-threshold procurements is necessary, the agency may 
     obtain that information unless there is adequate price 
     competition or catalog or market pricing available; and 
     provide that implementing regulations for civilian agencies 
     shall be placed on the FAR, rather than written on an agency-
     by-agency basis.
       The bill codifies TINA for civilian agencies with same 
     provisions as described above.


                    simplified acquisition threshold

       There is a current ``small purchase threshold'' of $25,000.
       Purchases under $25,000 may use simplified procedures 
     established by regulation in lieu of the detailed ``full and 
     open competition'' procedures established by statute.
       The bill would replace the $25,000 threshold with a new 
     ``Simplified Acquisition Threshold'' of $100,000, as 
     recommended by both the Vice President's National Performance 
     Review (NPR) and the Advisory Panel.
       The bill would establish a $100,000 threshold for 15 
     different statutes that establish paperwork and record-
     keeping requirements not applicable in the commercial sector. 
     Purchases below the small purchase threshold would be exempt 
     from these requirements, which apply to other government 
     procurements. These include:
       Contingent fees certification.
       Contract audit requirements.
       Procedural requirements of the Anti-Kickback Act.
       The Miller Act.
       Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
       Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.
       Prohibition limiting subcontractor direct sales to the U.S.
       Requirement to identify suspended or debarred 
     subcontractors.
       Inventory accounting requirements.
       Identification of suppliers and sources.
       10 U.S.C. 2534, miscellaneous limits on procurement.
       This threshold would expand the streamlined process of 
     making small purchases and reduce the amount of staff time 
     needed for such purchases, resulting in substantial savings 
     for the government.
       The agreement would extend the simplified acquisition 
     threshold to leases of less than $100,000 per year.
       The agreement would continue the requirement that a notice 
     of any procurement over $25,000 be published in the Commerce 
     Business Daily 15 days prior to the issuance of a 
     solicitation.
       After the issuance of this notice, however, simplified 
     acquisitions could follow any procedures described in the 
     notice--for example, by shortening the period for the 
     submission of offers.
       The agreement would phase out the requirement to publish 
     notice of purchases below $100,000 when electronic commerce 
     procedures and systems are in place.
       The agreement reserves contracts, above $2,500 but under 
     the simplified acquisition threshold for small business, and 
     specifically authorizes continued set-asides of all contracts 
     under the threshold for minority small businesses, as 
     recommended by the Advisory Panel.
       The agreement would exclude purchases of less than $2,500 
     from the small business reservation, to make it possible for 
     agency officials to make simplified purchases and credit card 
     purchases.
       The agreement establishes a section 1207 program 
     (contracting goal for small disadvantaged businesses) for 
     civilian agencies similar to the program for DoD.


                  federal acquisition network (facnet)

       The agreement calls for the establishment of a Federal 
     Acquisition Network (FACNET) to require the government to 
     evolve its acquisition process from a paper-based process to 
     an electronic process. This electronic commerce process must 
     provide a single face to industry and interoperability within 
     the government.
       The agreement sets forth parameters for a FACNET system 
     along functional lines, with parameters set forth for 
     government and private users, and for general functions. 
     These functions are to be implemented by agencies within 5 
     years of enactment of the Act. FACNET capability can be 
     implemented on a procuring activity basis, and procuring 
     activities or even agencies as a whole may ``piggyback'' on 
     the systems developed by other agencies.
       The agreement allows agencies to use simplified procedures 
     for all contracts below $50,000, while maintaining the 
     streamlined Commerce Business Daily (CBD) notice requirement 
     in sec. 4202 for contracts above $25,000.
       The agreement waives the CBD notice requirement and 
     increases the threshold for the use of simplified procedures 
     to $100,000 for agencies or procuring activities which have 
     interim electronic commerce capability. Interim capability 
     includes electronic notice and response.
       The agreement also requires any agency that has not 
     achieved full electronic commerce capability by December 31, 
     1999 to revert back to $50,000 for simplified procedures. 
     Full capability is 75% of suitable acquisitions above $2,500 
     and below $100,000 conducted through electronic commerce. It 
     involves developing the capability to use electronic 
     procedures for processing certain orders, responding to 
     questions about solicitations, and compiling data about the 
     acquisition process.
       Also, upon full government-wide implementation of 
     electronic commerce (75% of all government suitable 
     acquisitions between $2,500 and $100,000), the agreement 
     waives the CBD notice requirements for all contracts below 
     $250,000 that are conducted using electronic commerce.
       Until October 1, 1999, the agreement requires procuring 
     activities to continue to provide individual reports on all 
     contracts above $25,000 to the Federal Procurement Data 
     System.


                       competition in contracting

                       Full and open competition

       The bill retains the essential features of the Competition 
     in Contracting Act (CICA)--full and open competition, with 
     limited exceptions--as recommended by the Section 800 
     Advisory Panel.

            Task orders for advisory and assistance services

       The agreement adds a new section to CICA to specifically 
     address task order contracts for advisory and assistance 
     services (e.g., consultants).
       A task order contract is a contract that does not specify a 
     firm quantity of services.
       Such contracts serve a useful purpose, but must be 
     structured carefully to ensure that they are not abused to 
     avoid competition and funnel money to favored contractors.
       The new provisions added by the agreement would expressly 
     authorize the use of such contracts, subject to the 
     following:
       The duration of the contract is limited to 5 years.
       If the contract is to exceed 3 years and the estimated 
     value is in excess of $10 million, then under most 
     circumstances the solicitation must provide for multiple 
     awards--i.e., two or more contractors to have the 
     opportunity, during the period of the contract, to compete 
     for specific tasks under the contract.
       These restrictions do not apply to or expand the existing 
     authority to enter into task or delivery order contracts for 
     other goods and services (i.e., for matters other than 
     advisory and assistance services), or the authorities under 
     the Brooks ADP and Books A&E Acts.
       Provisions also have been added clarifying agencies 
     authority to enter into task order and delivery order 
     contracts for other than advisory and assistance services.

                     Acquisition of expert services

       The agreement would amend the Competition in Contracting 
     Act to add a new exception, giving agencies the flexibility 
     to retain expert witnesses for use in litigation without 
     going through a competitive process. As is the case with 
     other CICA exceptions, this provision would require agencies 
     to obtain a justification and approval under CICA prior to 
     making a sole source purchase.


                              BID PROTESTS

                         Notice and debriefing

       There is widespread consensus that the volume of protests 
     is attributable in part to the fact that disappointed 
     offerors lack clear information on why their offers were not 
     accepted.
       By requiring contractor debriefings, the agreement 
     provisions should reduce the number of protests that are 
     either without merit or seek information simply to confirm 
     that the award process was fair.
       The agreement would:
       Require greater detail to be made available with respect to 
     evaluation factors and subfactors;
       Establish an accelerated notice, debriefing, and protest 
     schedule.
       Notice must be given to all offerors within 3 days after 
     the contract is awarded.
       Requests by offerors for debriefings must be made with 3 
     days after notice of the award is received.
       The debriefing, to the maximum extent practicable, must 
     take place within 5 days of receipt of a request, and must 
     contain basic information about the award decision.

                          Protest adjudication

       Authorizes the payment of consultant and expert witness 
     fees (in addition to attorneys' fees) in protests to the GAO 
     and the GSA Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA), as recommended 
     by the Advisory Panel. These provisions would also limit 
     attorneys fees, except for small businesses, to $150 except 
     where higher fees can be justified. This provision should add 
     uniformity and cost savings to the process.
       Addresses frivolous or bad faith protests to the GSBCA, as 
     recommended by the Advisory Panel, by authorizing the GSBCA 
     to dismiss a protest that is frivolous, brought in bad faith, 
     or does not state on its face a valid basis for protest. In 
     addition, as recommended by the NPR, it authorizes the GSBCA 
     to invoke procedural sanctions where a person brings a 
     frivolous or bad faith protest, or willfully abuses the 
     board's process.
       Generally, the agreement also would adopt a number of other 
     changes to provisions regarding bid protests to the 
     Comptroller General and the GSBCA.
       Specifically, the agreement would: (1) clarify the GSA's 
     authority to revoke a delegation of authority after the award 
     or a contract, where there is a finding of a violation of law 
     or regulation in connection with the contract award; (2) 
     clarify the GSBCA's authority to review contracting decisions 
     that are alleged to have violated a statute, regulation, or 
     the conditions of any delegation of procurement authority; 
     (3) provide for the public disclosure of any settlement 
     agreement that provides for the dismissal of a protest and 
     involves a direct or indirect expenditure of appropriated 
     funds; and (4) provide for administrative protective orders 
     to be issued by the GAO in protest cases.
       Amends the Comptroller General's authority to provide that 
     the Comptroller General may recommend the payment of 
     attorneys' fees in bid protest cases, rather than directing 
     agencies to pay such fees. The agreement would address 
     questions that have been raised about the constitutionality 
     of existing law.

                    Other changes in the agreement:

       The agreement would adopt an Administration recommendation 
     to authorize agencies to continue the procurement process up 
     to the point of award of a contract, notwithstanding the 
     filing of a pre-award protest, unless the GSBCA determines 
     that the action is not in the best interests of the United 
     States.
       The data collection and reporting requirements also have 
     been included.


                         acquisition management

       The agreement contains the following provisions, based upon 
     modification of the Roth-Cohen proposals:
       States a congressional policy that agencies should achieve 
     90% of cost and schedule goals without reducing product 
     performance or capability; require the establishment and 
     evaluation of cost and schedule goals for DOD and civilian 
     agencies; require the identification and review of programs 
     that are significantly behind schedule, over budget, or out 
     of compliance with performance or capability requirements; 
     require annual reports (based on data from existing 
     management systems) on progress made in implementing the 
     congressional policy; require the executive branch to 
     establish a system of incentives for performance in the 
     acquisition workforce; require DOD to define in regulations a 
     simplified acquisition program cycle that is results-
     oriented; and provide for exceptional performance awards, as 
     recommended by the Administration.


                             pilot programs

                           OFPP Test Program

       Authorizes Administrator of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy to conduct a test of alternative and 
     innovative procurement procedures.
       Provides for six test programs, with a maximum of one per 
     agency selected to participate in the test.
       To be eligible for the test, a program must have a total 
     life-cycle cost of less than $100 million.
       Each contract under a test program may not exceed $5 
     million, with the exception of one program that would not be 
     subject to the $5 million per contract limitation.
       The test program could include innovative procedures by 
     waiving 15 specified laws concerning matters such as timing 
     and content of notice of contracting opportunities and 
     prescreening of eligible sources.
       Participation in the OFPP Test Program could be undertaken 
     by any agency that is capable of using the full FACNET 
     electronic commerce procedures established by this bill 
     (e.g., notice of contracting opportunities, submission of 
     bids and proposals, response to questions about 
     solicitations, and acquisition data collection).

                     DOD Acquisition Pilot Programs

       Authorizes DOD to test innovative acquisition procedures 
     under DOD's statutory pilot program authority for five 
     programs.
       These programs, which were authorized for pilot program 
     status under the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1995, include: (1) fire support combined arms 
     tactical trainer; (2) joint direct attack munition; (3) 
     commercial derivative aircraft; (4) commercial-derivative 
     engine; and (5) joint primary aircraft training system.
       For each of the pilot programs, DOD could apply any of the 
     acquisition reforms made by the bill prior to the effective 
     date that would otherwise apply in the bill.
       DOD also could test through these programs the application 
     to noncommercial products of any of the commercial product 
     reforms made by the bill.

                NASA Mid-Range Procurement Test Program

       Authorizes the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to conduct a test of alternative procedures 
     for notice and publication of contracting opportunities by 
     waiving specified provisions of law.
       Acquisitions eligible for the test must be limited to a 
     total annual obligation of $500,000 or less.
       The total life estimated life cycle cost of acquisitions 
     under the test may not exceed $100 million.

                     FAA Acquisition Pilot Program

       Authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to test 
     innovative acquisition procedures for one of the 
     modernization programs under the Airway Capital Investment 
     Plan.
       The FAA could apply any of the acquisition reforms made by 
     the bill prior to the effective date that would otherwise 
     apply in the bill.
       The FAA also could test the application to noncommercial 
     products of any of the commercial product reforms made by the 
     bill.


               establishing a uniform procurement system

       Amends the procurement laws to promote the uniform 
     treatment of Department of Defense and civilian agency 
     procurements. These changes are, to a great extent, in accord 
     with similar recommendations made by both the NPR and the 
     Advisory Panel.
       Amends the Federal Property Act to establish contract cost 
     principles for civilian agencies. Contrast cost principles 
     provide that certain types of costs--such as entertainment 
     costs, lobbying expenses, advertising costs, and so-called 
     ``golden parachute'' payments--should not be paid by the 
     taxpayers and are not ``allowable'' on federal contracts.
       Establishes cost certification procedures and penalties 
     identical to those that have long been applicable in 
     Department of Defense procurements. The Advisory Panel 
     recommended replacement of the statutory contract cost 
     principles with regulatory cost principles without 
     substantive change. This provision would retain the statutory 
     provisions, and ensure uniform treatment of Department of 
     Defense and civilian agency contracts.
       Amends 10 USC 2410, which establishes Department of 
     Defense-unique requirements for the certification of contract 
     claims. The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 establishes 
     government-wide requirements for the certification of claims. 
     These requirements would remain in effect and would be 
     amended to clarify that they govern all claims, including 
     those at the Department of Defense.


enhanced threshold for requirement to prepublish notice of contracting 
                             opportunities

       Provides that when there is government-wide implementation 
     of electronic commerce procedures, the current requirement to 
     publish notice in the Commerce Business Daily of any 
     procurement 15 days before a solicitation is issued would not 
     apply to any purchase at or below $250,000.


        transitional period for reports on individual contracts

       Continues current requirement for procuring activities to 
     provide reports on individual contracts over $25,000 for a 
     five year period after the bill is enacted. After that time, 
     reports on individual contracts will be required for 
     purchases over the $100,000 simplified acquisition threshold.


                     other recommendations adopted

       Adopts several dozen other recommendations of the Advisory 
     Panel to streamline and improve the acquisition laws. Some 
     significant examples include:
       Providing flexibility for agencies in approving the use of 
     non-competitive procedures when there is a valid 
     justification.
       Raising the threshold for application of the contract cost 
     principles to $500,000.
       Repealing the requirement for contractor employees to 
     travel at government airfares (which are rarely available to 
     contractors).
       Providing consolidated audit provisions for both the 
     Department of Defense and civilian agencies.
       Repealing the mandatory use of competitive prototyping in 
     major programs.
       Repealing the mandatory use of dual sourcing in major 
     programs.
       Repealing and consolidating obsolete and redundant 
     Department of Defense-unique laws.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the 
Armed Services, Governmental Affairs, and Small Business Committees in 
supporting the conference report on S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994.
  The current process of procuring equipment and services for our 
military and civilian agencies takes too long, costs too much, and 
suffers under a crushing burden of wasteful overhead. Secretary of 
Defense Bill Perry has articulated a vision of an acquisition system 
that manages rather than avoids risk, that obtains management data 
without undue administrative burdens, that eliminates the paralyzing 
effect of excessive coordination requirements, and that performs 
oversight functions in a manner that adds value to the process rather 
than serving as an end unto itself.
  The conference agreement represents a bipartisan effort to provide 
Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and other Cabinet officials with the 
tools they need to reinvest the Federal acquisition system. This bill 
gives them the opportunity to transform an outmoded system of 
regulating defense-dependent industries into a new system that will 
enable the Government to buy goods and services cheaper and faster, 
facilitate commercial-military integration, and encourage development 
of dual-use technologies to meet the defense industrial and technology 
base requirements of the future.
  This bill repeals or substantially modifies over 225 provisions of 
law to reduce paperwork burdens, facilitate the acquisition of 
commercial products, enhance the use of simplified procedures for small 
purchases, strengthen the industrial base that supports national 
security objectives, and improve the efficiency of the laws governing 
the procurement of goods and services.
  Key features of the conference agreement include:
  Transforming the acquisition system from a cumbersome process driven 
by paperwork to computer-based system readily accessible to Government 
and private sector users, including small businesses.
  Establishing a simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000 to 
streamline the process of making small purchases and to reduce the 
amount of staff time needed for such purchases, resulting in 
substantial savings for the Government.
  Facilitating the acquisition of commercial products, which will 
reduce the need for research and development, minimize acquisition lead 
time, and reduce the need for detailed design specifications and 
expensive testing.
  Authorizing pilot programs to test innovative and alternative 
procurement techniques that go beyond the reforms authorized by the 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a detailed summary of the conference 
agreement be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NUNN. When we began this effort, there was a great deal of 
skepticism about the ability of the Congress to enact serious 
acquisition reform. There were many who thought that this effort could 
not overcome the problems of past efforts, including jurisdictional 
disputes among congressional committees, distrust between the 
legislative and executive branches, and the challenge presented by the 
daunting array of complex acquisition laws.
  Madam President, this effort succeeded because many individuals of 
good will recognized that the system was broken, and were willing to 
put aside their narrow personal or bureaucratic interests to work for 
the common good.
  I want to commend the bipartisan leadership of each of the 
cooperating committees and subcommittees, and their staffs, for the 
diligent attention that they have brought to this subject. The core 
group consisted of Senators John Glenn, Carl Levin, Bill Roth, and Bill 
Cohen of the Governmental Affairs Committee, assisted by Tom Sisti, 
John Brosnan, Peter Levine, Peter Wade, Paul Brubaker, Mark Foreman, 
and Walt Koscinski. From the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Thurmond, and I were jointed by Senators Jeff Bingaman and Bob Smith, 
and we were assisted by Andy Effron, Jon Etherton, and Don Deline. The 
Small Business Committee was represented by Senators Dale Bumpers, and 
Larry Pressler, who were assisted by Bill Montalto.
  The House conferees, led by Representatives John Conyers, Ron 
Dellums, Bill Clinger, and Floyd Spence, and their staffs, approached 
this bill in a most cooperative and constructive manner.
  From the executive branch, we had excellent support from Secretary of 
Defense Bill Perry, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
Reform Colleen Preston, and the Administrator for Federal Procurement 
Policy, Steven Kelman, and their staffs.
  I would like to pay particular tribute to several individuals. If 
there is any one person responsible for the success of this effort, it 
is Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense 
Technology, Acquisition and the Industrial Base of the Committee on 
Armed Services. Long before acquisition streamlining became 
fashionable, he had the vision to initiate legislation--which was 
enacted as section 800 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1991--which required DOD to establish a government-industry 
panel to propose comprehensive reform. He had the tenacity to insist 
that a distinguished panel be appointed after DOD initially ignored the 
law, and he has played a leading role fashioning the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act. Ed McGaffigan and Mike Hammon of his 
staff have been an integral part of our efforts.
  I would also like to pay tribute to our former colleague, Vice 
President Al Gore. The Vice President's National Performance Review not 
only provided many important concepts for the bill, he also made 
enactment of this legislation a personnel priority. At every difficult 
turn, he has been there to keep the legislation on course, and we are 
grateful for his efforts.
  Madam President, two of the unsung heroes of this effort are Greg 
Scott, of the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, and Sherry Chriss, 
of the House Office of Legislative Counsel. Both Greg and Sherry are 
part of the team that work with us regularly on the annual National 
Defense Authorization Act. On Friday night, August 12, we filed this 
year's defense bill, after a grueling conference, in which the 
legislative counsel staff worked endless hours, 7 days a week, for over 
5 straight weeks. That Friday evening, with hardly a pause to 
celebrate, Greg and Sherry immediately turned to the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act, and they have remained on task since 
then. Their skills and dedication represent an extraordinary commitment 
to public service. Madam President, I also want to single out Andy 
Effron the Armed Services Committee's general counsel for special 
recognition. No one has worked harder or done more to insure this 
successful outcome.
  Finally, I would like to express special appreciation for the 
outstanding effort by the members and staff of the advisory panel on 
streamlining and codifying the acquisition laws, which was established 
as a result of Senator Bingaman's initiative. The members of the panel 
from the private sector took time out from their jobs to take on the 
daunting task of reviewing the entire body of the acquisition laws. The 
Government members of the panel took this on as an extra duty. I am 
sure that many of these individuals had their doubts as to whether 
their report would lead to meaningful reform. Today, they can see the 
fruits of their effort in this bill, which is largely based on their 
report. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the members of the panel 
and their staff be included in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  Madam President, this bill is just the beginning, not the end, of the 
reform effort. We have given considerable discretion to the executive 
branch to reinvent the acquisition process from the ground up. I urge 
Bill Perry, Steve Kelman, and Colleen Preston--and their colleagues--to 
make sound implementation of this legislation their highest priority 
for the coming year.

                               Exhibit I


                             panel members

       Pete Bryan, Director, Contract Policy and Administration, 
     Office of the Secretary of Defense.
       Allen Burman, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.
       Anthony Gamboa, Deputy General Counsel, Department of the 
     Army.
       Jack Harding, Vice President, Contracts, Raytheon 
     Corporation.
       LeRoy Haugh, Vice President, Procurement and Finance, 
     Aerospace Industries Association.
       Thomas J. Madden, Partner, Venable, Baetjer, Howard and 
     Civiletti.
       Ralph Nash, Jr., Professor of Law, George Washington 
     University.
       F. Whitten Peters, Partner, Williams and Connolly.
       Gary Quigley, Deputy General Counsel, Defense Logistics 
     Agency.
       Major General John D. Slinkard, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 
     for Contracting, Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command.
       Rear Admiral W. L. Vincent, USN, Commandant, Defense 
     Systems Management College.
       Robert D. Wallick, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson.
       Harvey Wilcox, Deputy General Counsel (Logistics), 
     Department of the Navy.


                               task force

       Executive Secretary: Donald M. Freedman (DSMC).
       Task Force Directors: C. Kenneth Allard, LTC(P), USA 
     (DSMC), Thomas J. Dolan, Jr. (ONR), Susan P. McNeill, Col, 
     USAF.
       Task Force Members: JoAnne L. Barreca (DLA), Benjamin B. C. 
     Capshaw, LCDR, USNR (DSMC), James Cohen, Lt Col, USAF, Stuart 
     A. Hazlett (SAF-AQC), Barry Kline (AMC).
       C. Jean Kopala, Maj, USAF (DSMC), William E. Mounts 
     (Contract Counsel), Karen O'Brien, CPT, USA (DSMC), Michael 
     J. Renner, Lt Col, USAF, Diane M. Sidebottom (DLA), James 
     Wayne Skinner (NAVSUP).
       Jack L. Soesbe, MAJ, USA (DSMC), Theresa M. Squillacote 
     (DSMC), Jerry Stahl (AMC), Donald J. Suda (DLA), Bruce N. 
     Warner (DSMC).
       Administrative Staff: Wilma J. Frey (DSMC), Laura J. Neal 
     (DSMC), Linda L. Snellings (DSMC), Megan A. Weaver (DSMC).


 s. 1587, the federal acquisition streamlining act of 1994, highlights 
                      of the conference agreement

                     Electronic commerce procedures

       Requires the Federal Government to transform the 
     acquisition system from a cumbersome process driven by 
     paperwork to an expedited process based upon electronic data 
     interchange.
       Requires establishment of a Federal Acquisition Network 
     (FACNET), a computer-based source of information readily 
     accessible to government and private sector users, including 
     small businesses.
       FACNET would: Inform the public about a broad array of 
     contracting opportunities; set forth the details of 
     government solicitations; permit electronic submission of 
     bids and proposals; facilitate responses to questions about 
     solicitations; and enhance the quality of data available 
     about the acquisition process.
       The system could be used by anyone with access to a 
     personal computer and a modem.
       Provides for implementation of electronic commerce 
     procedures in two phases.
       The first, or ``interim'' phase, involves developing the 
     capability to: (1) provide notice of contracting 
     opportunities; and (2) receive bids and proposals through 
     electronic commerce procedures. Efforts already underway by 
     the Administration will provide this capability for many 
     agencies and procuring activities soon after the bill is 
     enacted.
       The second, or ``full'' phase, involves developing the 
     capability to use electronic commerce procedures for 
     processing certain orders, responding to questions about 
     solicitations, and compiling data about the acquisition 
     process. The bill would require that this phase be 
     achieved within 5 years.

                    Simplified acquisition threshold

       Establishes a ``simplified acquisition threshold'' of 
     $100,000 to streamline the process of making small purchases 
     and to reduce the amount of staff time needed for such 
     purchases, resulting in substantial savings for the 
     government.
       Simplified acquisition threshold--waiver of certification 
     and recordkeeping requirements:
       Replaces current law, which applies numerous statutory 
     certifications and limitations to small purchases. Many of 
     these statutes have thresholds of $25,000 or below.
       Exempts purchases at or below the $100,000 simplified 
     acquisition threshold from the paperwork and recordkeeping 
     requirements of over 15 statutes.
       Simplified acquisition threshold--simplified notice of 
     contracting opportunities:
       Permits agencies (Or procuring activities) to adopt 
     streamlined procedures for providing notice of contracting 
     opportunities for purchases at or below the $100,000 
     simplified acquisition threshold.
       Under the conference agreement, as soon as an agency (or 
     procuring activity within an agency) achieves the capability 
     of providing notice of solicitations and receiving responses 
     via electronic commerce procedures (i.e., ``interim FACNET'' 
     capability), it can issue solicitations without 
     prepublication in the Commerce Business Daily.
       The requirement for publication in the Commerce Business 
     Daily 15 days prior to solicitation would remain in effect 
     for : (1) purchases over $100,000; (2) purchases at agencies 
     that do not have the electronic notice and response 
     capability; and (3) purchases below the threshold in which 
     the solicitation is not made available through electronic 
     commerce procedures.
       Simplified acquisition threshold--simplified response 
     procedures:
       Requires government solicitations to specify the time 
     frame for contractors to respond to government 
     solicitations for purchases at or below the $100,000 
     simplified acquisition threshold.
       Requires minimum time frames to be specified in the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation. Replaces current law, under which 
     solicitations must remain open for at least 30 days.
       For purchases over the $100,000 threshold, the 30 day 
     requirement will remain in effect.
       Simplified acquisition threshold--other simplified 
     procedures:
       Replaces the current ``small purchase threshold'' of 
     $25,000 with the new $100,000 simplified acquisition 
     threshold.
       At present, purchases under the current $25,000 threshold 
     may use simplified procedures established by regulation in 
     lieu of the detailed ``full and open competition'' procedures 
     established by statute. Simplified procedures require less 
     administrative processing, lower approval levels, and less 
     documentation.
       Clarifies that simplified procedures must provide for 
     consideration of all timely offers, and must promote 
     competition to the maximum extent practicable.
       Provides for implementation of a higher threshold for these 
     other simplified procedures in two phases:
       Upon enactment, the threshold for other simplified 
     procedures would be raised immediately to $50,000 for all 
     agencies.
       As soon as an agency (or a procuring activity within an 
     agency) is capable of providing notice of contracting 
     opportunities and receiving bids and proposals via electronic 
     commerce procedures (i.e., the ``interim FACNET'' 
     capability), the agency could raise its threshold for these 
     other simplified procedures to $100,000. If an agency does 
     not implement the ``full FACNET'' electronic commerce 
     procedures within 5 years after the bill is enacted, the 
     agency's threshold for use of these ``other simplified 
     procedures'' would revert to $50,000 until the agency 
     implemented the full FACNET electronic commerce procedures. 
     This provision would not affect any other aspect of the 
     simplified acquisition threshold, which would remain at 
     $100,000.
       Simplified acquisition threshold--small business 
     reservation:
       Reserves contracts, above $2,500 but under the $100,000 
     simplified acquisition threshold for small business, and 
     specifically authorizes continued set-asides of all contracts 
     under the threshold for minority small businesses.
       Under current law, the small business reservation applies 
     only to contracts at or below a $25,000 threshold.
       Simplified acquisition threshold--micropurchases:
       Excludes purchases of less than $2,500 from the small 
     business reservation and most other paperwork requirements 
     applicable to other purchases below the $100,000 threshold.

Enhanced threshold for requirement to prepublish notice of contracting 
                             opportunities

       Provides that when there is government-wide implementation 
     of electronic commerce procedures, the current requirement to 
     publish notice in the Commerce Business Daily of any 
     procurement 15 days before a solicitation is issued would not 
     apply to any purchase at or below $250,000.

        Transitional period for reports on individual contracts

       Continues current requirement for procuring activities to 
     provide reports on individual contracts over $25,000 for a 
     five year period after the bill is enacted. After that time, 
     reports on individual contracts will be required for 
     purchases over the $100,000 simplified acquisition threshold.

                            Commercial items

       In general: Encourages the acquisition of commercial end-
     items and components--including the acquisition of commercial 
     products that are modified to meet government needs.
       The purchase of proven products, such as commercial and 
     non-developmental items, can eliminate the need for research 
     and development, minimize acquisition lead time, and reduce 
     the need for detailed design specifications and expensive 
     testing.
       Exempts commercial items from government-unique 
     certifications and accounting requirements that serve as a 
     disincentive for commercial companies to participate in 
     government acquisitions, and which add to the costs when they 
     choose to participate.
       Definition of commercial items:
       Enhances the government's access to items from the 
     commercial sector by expanding the scope of products and 
     services that qualify for treatment as commercial items.
       Replaces the current definition of commercial items, which 
     is largely limited to products that are sold to the public in 
     substantial quantities at established catalogue or market 
     prices.
       Expands the definition of commercial items to include:
       Products of a type customarily used by the general public 
     that have been offered for sale in the commercial 
     marketplace.
       Products that have evolved from existing commercial 
     products through advances in technology or performance, even 
     if not yet available in the commercial marketplace, if the 
     product will be available in the commercial marketplace in 
     time to satisfy the Federal government's delivery 
     requirements.
       Commercial products with minor modifications to meet 
     Federal Government requirements.
       Commercial products with modifications of a type 
     customarily available in the commercial marketplace.
       Installation, maintenance, repair, and training services if 
     procured in support of a commercial product under terms and 
     conditions available to the general public.
       Commercial services offered and sold competitively, in 
     substantially quantities, in the commercial marketplace, 
     based on established catalog prices for specific tasks 
     performed under standard commercial terms and conditions.
       Nondevelopmental items (that is, items previously developed 
     for government rather than commercial use) if: (1) the 
     product was developed exclusively at private expense; and (2) 
     the product has been sold in substantial quantities, on a 
     competitive basis, to multiple state and local governments.
       The definition includes leased items and intracompany 
     transfers. It does not include real property.
       Preference for commercial items:
       Establishes a statutory preference for commercial items.
       Requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, contract 
     requirements and market research should facilitate the use of 
     commercial items.
       Provides a preference for other nondevelopmental items when 
     commercial items are not available.
       Requires elimination of contractual requirements that 
     impede acquisition of commercial items.
       Commercial item exemptions:
       Reduces impediments to the purchase of commercial items by 
     exempting such purchases from the paperwork, recordkeeping, 
     and certification requirements of over 30 statutes that are 
     unique to government purchases, and have no counterpart in 
     the commercial sector.
       Provides that any future enacted provision of law that does 
     not explicitly refer to commercial items would not apply to 
     the acquisition of commercial items if placed on the list of 
     exemptions by the Federal Acquisitional Regulatory Council.
       Provides that any statute which does not expressly require 
     a prime contractor to ``flow down'' requirements to a 
     subcontractor would not apply to a subcontractor for 
     commercial items, with very limited exceptions, if placed on 
     the list of exemptions by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 
     Council.
       Truth in Negotiations Act:
       Revises the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) to address the 
     paperwork burdens that serve as a deterrent to the sale of 
     commercial products to the government.
       The Truth in Negotiations Act requires contractors to 
     certify that the cost or pricing data that they provide in 
     connection with negotiated contracts is current, accurate and 
     complete. This involves a very burdensome and time-consuming 
     process of retention, analysis, and production of large 
     amounts of documentation.
       Because TINA has no parallel in the commercial marketplace, 
     it has been cited as a major deterrent to the willingness of 
     commercial producers to sell their products to the 
     government. It has also led government contractors to 
     establish costly and duplicative parallel operations for 
     their commercial divisions so that their private sector 
     operations and sales will not be burdened with TINA 
     requirements.
       Replaces the current $100,000 TINA threshold for civilian 
     agencies, and the temporary $500,000 threshold at DOD, with a 
     permanent $500,000 threshold applicable to all agencies.
       Contracts below the threshold (including contracts for 
     noncommercial items) are exempt from TINA's certification and 
     document production requirements.
       Precludes agencies from requiring certified cost or pricing 
     data when a purchase is exempt from TINA (e.g., when there is 
     adequate price competition). A contracting officer may 
     request a contractor to provide the minimum information 
     necessary to determine price reasonableness, but cannot 
     request certified data or the full range of cost and pricing 
     data that would apply above the $500,000 threshold.
       Replaces the current TINA exemption for commercial items--
     which is largely limited to items purchased in substantial 
     quantities at established catalogue or market prices--with a 
     new commercial items exemption.
       Applies the bill's expanded definition of commercial items 
     to TINA.
       Provides that when a commercial item is purchased on the 
     basis of adequate price competition, the purchase would be 
     exempt from TINA's cost or pricing data submission 
     requirements.
       Requires contracting officers to seek uncertified price 
     information, rather than detailed cost or pricing data, in 
     circumstances where commercial items are obtained through an 
     exception to full and open competition. If the pricing 
     information is adequate to demonstrate price reasonableness, 
     the procurement is exempt from the requirement to submit the 
     full range of certified cost and pricing data under 
     TINA. Contracting officers would be required to limit 
     requests, to the maximum extent practicable, to data 
     regularly maintained by the contractor in commercial 
     operations, and would not involve new data collection 
     requirements. The information would be subject to audit 
     for a two year period after contract award.

                             Pilot programs

       OFPP Test Program:
       Authorizes Administrator of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy to conduct a test of alternative and 
     innovative procurement procedures.
       Provides for six test programs, with a maximum of one per 
     agency selected to participate in the test.
       To be eligible for the test, a program must have a total 
     life-cycle cost of less than $100 million.
       Each contract under a test program may not exceed $5 
     million, with the exception of one program that would not be 
     subject to the $5 million per contract limitation.
       The test program could include innovative procedures by 
     waiving 15 specified laws concerning matters such as timing 
     and content of notice of contracting opportunities and 
     prescreening of eligible sources.
       Participation in the OFPP Test Program could be undertaken 
     by any agency that is capable of using the full FACNET 
     electronic commerce procedures established by this bill 
     (e.g., notice of contracting opportunities, submission of 
     bids and proposal, response to questions about solicitations, 
     and acquisition data collection).
       DOD Acquisition Pilot Programs:
       Authorizes DoD to test innovative acquisition procedures 
     under DOD's statutory pilot program authority for five 
     programs.
       These programs, which were authorized for pilot program 
     status under the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1995, include: (1) fire support combined arms 
     tactical trainer; (2) joint direct attack munition; (3) 
     commercial derivative aircraft; (4) commercial-derivative 
     engine; and (5) joint primary aircraft training system.
       For each of the pilot programs, DOD could apply any of the 
     acquisition reforms made by the bill prior to the effective 
     date that would otherwise apply in the bill.
       DOD also could test through these programs the application 
     to noncommercial products of any of the commercial product 
     reforms made by the bill.
       NASA Mid-Range Procurement Test Program:
       Authorizes the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to conduct a test of alternative procedures 
     for notice and publication of contracting opportunities by 
     waiving specified provisions of law.
       Acquisitions eligible for the test must be limited to a 
     total annual obligation of $500,000 or less. The total 
     estimated life cycle cost of all acquisitions under the test 
     may not exceed $100 million.
       FAA Acquisition Pilot Program:
       Authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to test 
     innovative acquisition procedures for one of the 
     modernization programs under the Airway Capital Investment 
     Plan.
       The FAA could apply any of the acquisition reforms made by 
     the bill prior to the effective date that would otherwise 
     apply in the bill.
       The FAA also could test the application to noncommercial 
     products of any of the commercial product reforms made by the 
     bill.

                         Acquisition management

       Establishes performance based management concept for major 
     acquisition programs.
       Requires agencies to establish cost, performance, and 
     schedule goals for all major programs.
       Requires agencies to take corrective action, including 
     program termination where appropriate, when agencies do not 
     achieve, on average, 90 percent of their cost, performance 
     and schedule goals.
       Requires agencies to use existing personnel incentives and 
     personnel evaluation systems to enhance the relationship 
     between personnel policies and achievement of cost, 
     schedule, and performance goals in the acquisition 
     process.

           Contract goals for small disadvantaged businesses

       Establishes for civilian agencies program to achieve a 5% 
     goal for participation of small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     persons, with procedures similar to ``section 1207'' program.

       Contract goals for small business concerns owned by women

       Establishes a 5% goal for participation by small business 
     concerns owned and controlled by women in each agency's 
     contract and subcontract awards.

                       Contract formation issues

       Alternative sources of supply:
       Revises the authority to limit potential offerors when 
     necessary to maintain an alternative source of supply to:
       (1) ensure a continuous flow of supplies of services; (2) 
     satisfy a critical need for health, safety, or other 
     emergency supplies; or (3) satisfy projected needs resulting 
     from high demand.
       Task orders for advisory and assistance services:
       Regulates task order contracts for advisory and assistance 
     services (e.g., consultants).
       A task order contract is a contract that does not specify a 
     firm quantity of services.
       Such contracts serve a useful purpose, but must be 
     structured carefully to ensure that they are not abused to 
     avoid competition and funnel money to favored contractors.
       Establishes the following limitations:
       The duration of the contract may not exceed 5 years.
       If the contract is to exceed 3 years and the estimated 
     value is in excess of $10 million, the solicitation must 
     provide for multiple awards--i.e., two or more contractors 
     must have the opportunity, during the period of contract, to 
     compete for specific tasks under the contract.
       Clarifies the existing authority for agencies to enter into 
     task or delivery order contracts for other goods and services 
     (i.e., for matters other than advisory and assistance 
     services).
       These provisions do not apply to contracts regulated by 
     either the Brooks ADP Act or the Brooks A&E Act.
       Acquisition of expert services:
       Provides on a government-wide basis the authority that 
     several agencies have under current law to obtain expert 
     witnesses for use in litigation without the procedural 
     requirements for full and open competition.
       Source selection factors:
       Requires the government to disclose the factors and 
     subfactors used in evaluating bids and proposals.
       Multiyear contracts:
       Authorizes civilian agencies to enter into multiyear 
     contracts where there are sufficient appropriations available 
     under limitations similar to DOD's multiyear contracting 
     authority.
       Economy Act purchases:
       Limits the authority of a civilian agency to utilize the 
     contracting authority of another agency, similar to the 
     limitations applicable to the Department of Defense.
       Contractor past performance:
       Requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to 
     prescribe guidance regarding consideration of contractor past 
     performance as an evaluation factor in contract award 
     decisions.

                              Bid protests

       Notice of award and debriefing of offerors:
       Debriefings should reduce the number of protests that are 
     filed simply to seek information to determine whether the 
     award process was fair.
       Establishes an accelerated notice, debriefing, and protest 
     schedule.
       Notice must be given to all offerors within 3 days after 
     the contract is awarded.
       Requests by offerors for debriefings must be made within 3 
     days after notice of the award.
       The debriefing, to the maximum extent practicable, must 
     take place within 5 days of receipt of a request, and must 
     contain basic information about the award decision.
       Protest adjudication: Authorizes the payment of consultant 
     and expert witness fees (in addition to attorney's fees) in 
     protests to the GAO and the GSA Board of Contract Appeals 
     (GSCBA).
       Sets a ceiling on such fees at $150 per hour. The ceiling 
     does not apply with respect to protests filed by small 
     businesses.
       Authorizes GSBCA to dismiss a protest that is frivolous, 
     brought in bad faith, or does not state on its face a valid 
     basis for protest.
       Authorizes GSBCA to invoke procedural sanctions where a 
     person brings a frivolous or bad faith protest, or willfully 
     abuses the board's process.
       Clarifies GSA's authority to revoke a delegation of ADP 
     procurement authority after the award of a contract where 
     there is a finding of a violation of law or regulation in 
     connection with the contract award.
       Clarifies GSBCA's authority to review contracting decisions 
     that are alleged to have violated a statute, regulation, or 
     the conditions of any delegation of procurement authority.
       Requires public disclosure of any settlement agreement that 
     provides for the dismissal of a protest and involves a direct 
     or indirect expenditure of appropriate funds.
       Authorizes administrative protective orders to be issued by 
     the GAO in protest cases.
       Authorizes Comptroller General's to recommend the payment 
     of attorneys' fees in bid protest cases.
       This addresses the constitutional separation of powers 
     issue in current law, which authorizes the Comptroller 
     General--a legislative official--to direct executive branch 
     agencies to pay such fees.
       Authorizes agencies to continue the procurement process up 
     to the point of award of a contract, notwithstanding the 
     filing of a pre-award protest, if the agency head determines 
     that the action is not in the best interests of the United 
     States.

                        Contract administration

       Establishes government-wide payment protections for first-
     tier subcontractors and suppliers.
       Requires revision of the cost principles to make it clear 
     that costs that are unallowable under the entertainment cost 
     principle may not be reimbursed under any other cost 
     principle.
       Replaces the current 18-month time limitation for 
     shipbuilding claims with a provision that conforms the time 
     period for submission of shipbuilding claims to the general 
     six year period applicable to other contract claims.
       Extends the authority to use alternative dispute resolution 
     procedures under the Contract Disputes Act until October 1, 
     1999.
       Provides for expedited resolution of contract 
     administration issues by requiring contracting officers to 
     make reasonable efforts to respond within 30 days of any 
     written inquiry from a small business.
       Authorizes federal district courts to obtain advisory 
     opinions from the boards of contract appeals.
       Provides that agency suspension and debarment actions will 
     have government-wide effect, with limited exceptions.

                    Operational test and evaluation

       Clarifies the independence of the DOD Director of 
     Operational Test and Evaluation from the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Acquisition.
       Assigns responsibility of live fire testing to the DOD 
     Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
       Requires DOD to publish an unclassified version of the 
     annual report on operational test and evaluation.
       Authorizes DOD to modify survivability and lethality 
     testing if the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress 
     that full testing would be unreasonably expensive or 
     impractical.
       Provides limits on the number of articles that may be 
     procured under low-rate initial production within the 
     engineering and manufacturing phase of the acquisition cycle.

                  Uniformity in the procurement system

       Amends the procurement laws to promote the uniform 
     treatment of Department of Defense and civilian agency 
     procurements. These changes are, to a great extent, in accord 
     with similar recommendations made by both the National 
     Performance Review and the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and 
     Codifying the Acquisition Law.
       Amends the Federal Property Act to establish contract cost 
     principles for civilian agencies. Contract cost principles 
     provide that certain types of costs--such as entertainment 
     costs, lobbying expenses, advertising costs, and so-called 
     ``golden parachute'' payments--should not be paid by the 
     taxpayers and are not ``allowable'' on federal contracts.
       Establishes cost certification procedures and penalties 
     identical to those that have long been applicable in 
     Department of Defense procurements. The Advisory Panel 
     recommended replacement of the statutory contract cost 
     principles with regulatory cost principles without 
     substantive change. This provision would retain the statutory 
     provisions, and ensure uniform treatment of Department of 
     Defense and civilian agency contracts.
       Amends 10 USC 2410, which establishes Department of 
     Defense-unique requirements for the certification of contract 
     claims. The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 establishes 
     governmentwide requirements for the certification of claims. 
     These requirements would remain in effect and would be 
     amended to clarify that they govern all claims, including 
     those at the Department of Defense.

                   Streamlining the acquisition laws

       Repeals or substantially modifies over 225 provisions of 
     law that affect the acquisition system, consistent with the 
     recommendations of the Section 800 Panel and the National 
     Performance Review.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference 
report to S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. 
This legislation will serve as the foundation for a thorough reform of 
the manner in which the Federal Government purchases its goods and 
services. The bill should serve as the first step to change a system 
that consumes too much time, costs too much, and is insufficiently open 
to new business participation. It is my hope that it will be embraced 
by both the executive branch and those in the private sector who wish 
to sell to the Federal Government.
  This legislation, if vigorously applied, will result in the greater 
use of commercial products by the Government. This will save millions 
in development costs alone. The streamlined procedures we have 
authorized should allow for a significant reduction in the acquisition 
workforce and shall reduce the overhead of businesses who contract with 
the Government. We have also given the Department of Defense and the 
civilian agencies the authority to conduct pilot programs to test 
innovative procedures beyond those in this bill. Should these 
innovations be proven successful, we may expand them in future 
legislation.
  The House and Senate versions of the legislation were generally 
similar, but there were differences on key issues. We had to reconcile 
conflicts in areas such as the relationship between increasing the 
small purchase threshold above $25,000 and the implementation of an 
electronic commerce system to allow anyone with a personal computer and 
phone modem to conduct business with the Government. Some compromises 
between the Senate and House approaches were inevitable, but the 
integrity of the streamlining vision has been preserved. In fact, this 
conference bill is in many ways superior to either the original House 
or Senate version of the legislation.
  I want to commend those of my colleagues who served on the conference 
committee, especially Senator Glenn, the chairman of the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs and Senator Roth, the ranking Republican member; 
Chairman Nunn of the Armed Services Committee, and Chairman Bumpers and 
Senator Pressler of the Small Business Committee.
  The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 will soon reach the 
President's desk for his signature. It will then be up to the executive 
branch agencies to implement the legislation in a manner that leads to 
true reform of the acquisition process. We expect this effort to be 
accorded the very highest priority. Funds must be programmed to deploy 
a fully capable electronic commerce system in the near term. Programs 
to train Government employees in the use of streamlined commercial 
practices must be expanded to ensure that the Federal workforce can 
protect the interests of the taxpayers in the new, more flexible 
procurement environment. The heads of the agencies must communicate 
regularly with us on the progress of implementation and inform us of 
further areas in need of legislative reform.
  Congress has spoken in a broad and bipartisan manner in support of 
this major reform. We must now work to see that the vision of a more 
efficient, cost-effective, and responsive acquisition system becomes a 
reality.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I rise today as the ranking member on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to ask my colleagues to support the 
conference report on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. There is 
broad, bipartisan consensus on the need to fix the Federal buying 
system, and the conference report makes major inroads into many key 
problem areas. Yesterday I spoke of the major provisions in the 
conference agreement. Today, I want to focus on the need for this bill.
  Madam President, in fiscal year 1994, the Federal Government will buy 
about $450 billion of goods and services, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. With this much money at stake, Congress 
has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer's money is spent well. 
But Madam President, the Federal buying system is not working well. The 
GAO stated in its 1993 High Risk Reports that the Federal buying system 
itself perpetuates fraud, waste, and abuse. They also reported that 
cost increases on the order of 20 to 40 percent are common on major 
programs, with numerous programs experiencing much greater cost 
overruns.
  I asked the General Accounting Office to summarize its recent 
investigations of procurement horror stores. The GAO found it had 
produced more than 150 reports and testimonies over the last 5 years. 
For example, the GAO identified NASA contract management actions that 
caused a weather satellite to fall 3 years behind schedule while cost 
doubled to $1.7 billion.
  In the Defense Department, which accounts for about 70 percent of 
Federal spending on goods and services, the problems are most evident. 
While the system is able to produce good weapons, it is wasteful, 
inefficient, and takes too long to field needed technologies. Virtually 
every major weapon system currently being developed is experiencing 
cost and schedule problems. According to the most recent data, Army 
programs are over budget by as much as 167 percent, Navy programs by as 
much as 56 percent, and Air Force programs by as much as 169 percent, 
even after accounting for the effects of inflation and quantity 
changes. According to a 1991 Defense Sciences Board Task Force study, 
the time it takes to field a new weapon has increased 60 percent over 
the last four decades, while creating high technology commercial 
products takes a fraction of what it did in the 1960's.
  On average, it now takes over 16 years for a program manager to 
accomplish the 840 steps needed to field a new weapon. I understand 
that the flow chart of these 840 steps takes-up 158 feet of four foot 
wide paper. Most of these steps are the result of the Congress and the 
Pentagon Bureaucracy injecting their 2 cents worth. Unfortunately, 
since each step takes time and time is money, the 2 cents of input turn 
into millions or billions of dollars in cost overruns and delays in 
getting the weapon to the field. On the other hand, there is virtually 
no focus on utilizing new technologies to reduce the cost and time it 
takes to develop a weapon system, as the Packard Commission had 
recommended.

  The rest of the world is finding dozens of fast, cost-effective ways 
to adapt commercial technologies to weapons. We must be able to compete 
in transferring technologies into weapons if we are to protect our 
soldiers, sailors, and aviators in today's world. The Army's Fiber 
Optic Guided Missile is an example of the buying system's inability to 
perform. The Army had the technology available in the early seventies. 
By 1989, 40 prototype missiles had been successfully tested against 
both tanks and helicopters. In 1991, the program was canceled for cost 
and schedule overruns. The result of all of this is that the user does 
not have the technology and best estimates indicate that the system is 
still 10 years away. Meanwhile, according to the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, Japan and Europe will field a fiber-optic guided missile by 
1996 and that the Third World will have those missiles before 2000, 
long before our soldiers. It does not make sense that countries with 
less developed economies can field new technology in their weapons 
faster than the Pentagon.
  I have worked for more than a decade to reform the Government's 
buying system, and over the years my conclusion has not changed: 
without major cultural and structural reform, Americans will not get 
the results they deserve. First, agencies rely on a maze of regulations 
and bureaucratic organizations to prevent horror stories. That approach 
is expensive, prolonged, and, as the GAO reports illustrate, often 
ineffective.
  Second, the incentives are wrong. Program managers and contractors 
are rewarded for increasing the size of their program and their budget. 
For contractors, the higher the contract price, the bigger the profits. 
There are no incentives for a job well done, but there are penalties 
for taking risks that may save money. There simply is nothing in 
Government comparable to the effect of profit-sharing, gain-sharing, or 
other forms of pay-for-performance. This must change.
  If we can fix the buying systems, billions of dollars will be 
saved. The National Performance Review identified potential savings of 
$22.5 billion. Last Summer, the Defense Science Board identified $20 
billion in potential annual savings for just the Defense Department.

  Over the last year, Senator Cohen and I introduced bills to fix the 
problems in the Federal buying system. I was pleased that the witnesses 
at all of the hearings on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
supported including our proposals in the Senate bill. Consequently, the 
Senate passed a procurement reform bill that would get rid of the web 
of unneeded regulation, while tying incentives to performance. The 
conference report contains most of our proposed reforms.
  In a nutshell, the conference report makes it easier for the 
Government to rely on the commercial marketplace to meet its needs. It 
allows broad use of commercial practices when the Government buys 
commercial items. It repeals or substantially modifies 225 statutes 
that provide little or no value. It establishes significantly 
streamlined procurement procedures for small dollar purchases and 
commercial items. For small purchases, it also will transform the 
paper-intensive procedures into a computer-based paperless system. It 
requires agencies to re-write procedures to focus on results when they 
choose to develop Government-unique items, rather than buy a proven 
commercial item. With respect to acquisition management, the agreement 
changes the incentive structure for the acquisition workforce, 
rewarding those who save time and money and improve quality, while 
penalizing those who perform poorly. It also ties contractor payments 
to their performance.
  I want to reiterate, Madam President, that there should be a 
reduction in the 20 layers of the buying bureaucracy. But, the bill 
before us today does not require such streamlining. I intend to pursue 
legislation in the future that will get rid of excess layers in the 
buying system.
  In summary, there is both a need and an opportunity for reforming 
Defense acquisition. The time has come for Congress to make some very 
difficult decisions which have far-reaching impact on the future of our 
country. The conference report is an important step forward, and I urge 
the Senate to support its enactment. But, Madam President, I must point 
out that bureaucracies are inherently unable to reform themselves. I 
intend to closely watch implementation of this bill to make sure 
appropriate action is taken. I congratulate my fellow conferees and 
their staffs for their hard work in crafting this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the conference report before us today--
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994--is the most 
significant procurement reform legislation to be considered by the 
Senate since the Competition in Contracting Act 10 years ago. This 
legislation will--
  Significantly advance the acquisition of commercial items by 
exempting them from unnecessarily burdensome government-unique 
certifications and accounting requirements;
  Dramatically simplify the requirements for purchases under $100,000 
by authorizing streamlined systems with minimal statutory requirements;
  Reduce paperwork burdens by adopting a computer-based procurement 
system readily accessible to government and private sector users, 
including small businesses; and
  Eliminate redundancy, provide consistency, and provide greater 
discretion to contracting officials.
  I am particularly proud of title VIII of the bill, which would make 
it easier for the Government to buy commercial products instead of 
requiring products to be designed to Government-unique specifications. 
As I explained when I introduced a bill containing similar provisions 
more than 5 years ago, it only makes sense that commercial items and 
other off-the-shelf products are less expensive and easier to purchase 
than new, Government-unique items. The acquisition of commercial 
products can lower initial purchase costs by reducing or eliminating 
the need for research and development. Acquisition leadtime can be 
reduced since commercial products are readily available and can be 
produced on existing production lines. Because the product is already 
developed and has been shown to work, the need for detailed design 
specifications and extensive testing is also reduced.
  I first became interested in the commercial products issue in the 
mid-1980's, when the Packard Commission reported that DOD was wasting 
billions of dollars by relying on excessively rigid military 
specification and developing custom-made items when readily available, 
off-the-shelf products could meet its needs at a fraction of the price. 
At that time, for example, the Packard Commission reported that the 
Pentagon was buying specially-designed microchips at prices 3 to 10 
times the market prices for similar, commercial products.
  In response to the Packard report, I insisted that DOD reduce 
paperwork requirements and rely more on commercially-available 
microchips--with savings to the taxpayer that have been estimated at 
$500 million a year. At the same time, I offered a successful amendment 
to the DOD authorization bill to implement the broader recommendations 
of the Packard report by creating a statutory preference for off-the-
shelf items and requiring the Pentagon to simplify its specifications 
and make it easier for commercial contractors to do business with the 
Government.
  Unfortunately, changing the procurement culture is never quite so 
easy. In 1989, my Governmental Affairs Subcommittee revisited the issue 
with 2 days of hearings on the progress that DOD had made in 
implementing my commercial products amendment. Most importantly, DOD 
made virtually no headway in the effort to tailor its tens of thousands 
of detailed military specifications to the commercial marketplace. In 
one case identified at our hearings, DOD reviewed a 37-page military 
specification for residential heat pumps--and managed to shorten it to 
36 pages. In fact, it was only this year--8 years after my original 
commercial products provision was enacted into law--that DOD finally 
got around to issuing a policy requiring the use of commercial product 
descriptions, rather than military-unique specifications, whenever 
possible.
  In our 1989 hearings, we also found that DOD was discouraging 
commercial companies from bidding on its contracts by including 
numerous burdensome and unnecessary contract clauses. In response to 
this problem, I introduced a successful amendment to the 1989 DOD 
Authorization Act, which required the Pentagon to simplify its 
specifications, eliminate unnecessary contract clauses, take advantage 
of commercial quality control systems and commercial warranties, reduce 
burdensome cost or pricing data requirements imposed on commercial 
contractors, and report to Congress on any additional steps that needed 
to be taken to remove impediments to the increased acquisition of 
commercial products.
  The savings from this initiative have been significant. For example, 
a 1991 study by the Logistics Management Institute found that a single 
Navy command had been able to save--
  Five million dollars by substituting commercial standards for 
Government-unique specifications for thermal insulation materials;
  Some $3.7 million by purchasing general purpose automobiles with 
standard commercial paint, instead of requiring that all vehicles be 
painted medium Navy gray;
  Five million dollars by purchasing commercially available fire and 
rescue trucks instead of custom-designed vehicles; and
  One million dollars by buying commercially available generators and 
floodlights, instead of specially designed, DOD-unique floodlights and 
generators.
  Much more remains to be done, however. Over the last two Congresses, 
for example, I have introduced bills to make these reforms 
Governmentwide. Each of the bills was approved by both the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, but in each case, the House action came 
in the final hours of the session, when it was too late to conference 
the measure.
  Madam President, the bill before us today takes the next step in 
enabling the Government to take advantage of the economies of the 
commercial marketplace. This bill, when enacted, will--
  Establish new, Governmentwide definitions of commercial items and 
other off-the-shelf products;
  Create a preference for the acquisition of such items;
  Require Federal agencies to use simplified procurement specifications 
to the maximum extent possible;
  Exempt purchases of commercial items from Government-unique 
certifications and accounting requirements that add unnecessary costs 
and discourage commercial companies from doing business with the 
Government;
  Revise the Truth in Negotiations Act to eliminate Government-unique 
requirements for cost data in the procurement of commercial items;
  Require agencies to conduct market research to determine whether 
their needs can be met by commercial and off-the-shelf products;
  Require the use of uniform, simplified contracts for the purchase of 
commercial items;
  Authorize the use of market acceptance criteria in commercial 
procurements;
  Encourage the consideration of contractors' past performance in 
decisions to award future contracts;
  Permit commercial contractors to use existing quality assurance 
systems instead of extensive government testing; and
  Require Federal agencies to take advantage of commercial warranties.
  Taken together, these changes should make it far easier for Federal 
agencies to take advantage of proven commercial products, instead of 
reinventing the wheel by paying to develop Government-unique products. 
I am convinced that the resulting savings will be billions of dollars.
  Madam President, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act is the 
product of many months of work by the majority and minority staffs of 
the Senate Governmental Affairs and Armed Services Committees and their 
counterparts on the House side. It could not have been brought to this 
point without the commitment of the three committee chairmen, Senators 
Glenn, Nunn, and Bumpers, who have whole-heartedly embraced the goal of 
acquisition streamlining and made the staffs of their respective 
Committees available to work on this project over a period of many 
months. It would not have been possible without the efforts of Senator 
Bingaman, who initiated the section 800 review of the defense 
acquisition laws and pushed us all to give the panel's report the 
attention it deserved. And it would not have been possible without the 
cooperation and support of the ranking Republican Members of the 
Governmental Affairs and Armed Services Committees and the 
subcommittees of jurisdiction--Senators Roth, Cohen, Thurmond, and 
Smith.
  I would also like to commend the unsung heroes of this effort--the 
Senate staffers who have put in the endless hours of work necessary to 
put this bill together. Those staffers include Peter Levine and Roger 
Martino of my staff; Tom Sisti, John Brosnan, Mark Foreman, Paul 
Brubaker and Peter Wade of the Governmental Affairs Committee staff; 
Andy Effron, Jon Etherton, and Don Deline of the Armed Services 
Committee staff; Bill Montalto of the Small Business Committee staff; 
and Mike Hammond of Senator Bingaman's staff. Without their efforts, 
there would be no acquisition streamlining bill at all.
  Of course, past experience has shown that passing laws is not enough 
to change the way the acquisition system works. The executive branch 
has to implement fully and effectively not only the letter, but also 
the spirit of the new law. When this bill passes the Senate and the 
House and is signed into law, as I expect it will, I sincerely hope 
that 2 or 3 years from now when we review its implementation, we will 
find that the bill has been implemented in the spirit in which it was 
written, and that real reform has occurred. That will be the true test 
of our success.
  The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act is an important part of 
efforts to reinvent Government. I hope our colleagues will join us in 
supporting this far-reaching measure.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I am pleased to report that the 
conference on S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
1994, has come to a successful conclusion. This legislation should be 
the basis for an ongoing overhaul of an acquisition system that is 
slow, cumbersome and very costly. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act is by no means the final word on procurement reform, but it is 
major first step that has only been possible in the current climate 
favoring fundamental change in government management.
  The conference report is the result of an arduous 4-year process 
begun with the establishment of the Defense Department Acquisition Law 
Advisory Panel in section 800 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for fiscal year 1991. At that time, the prospects for a comprehensive 
reform of the acquisition process envisioned were questionable. It was 
only through the persistence of Senator Jeff Bingaman, the author of 
the provision, and Senator Dan Coats, ranking Republican member of the 
Senate Armed Services Defense Industry and Technology Subcommittee, 
that the advisory panel was formed with a mandate for broad analysis.
  The so-called section 800 report issued by the advisory panel has 
served as the foundation of the bill we are considering today. We owe 
the panel members a great debt of gratitude for the amount of time they 
personally spent on the report. We would not have generated the support 
for legislative reform had it not been for the excellent quality of 
that report. I ask unanimous consent that the attached list of the 
advisory panel members and task force support staff be printed in the 
Record at the close of my statement.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SMITH. I want to commend my colleagues, Senators Glenn, Roth, 
Nunn, Thurmond, Bumpers, Pressler, and others for their hard work in 
bringing this bill through the legislative process. The spirit of 
bipartisanship and constructive engagement in that process stands as a 
model for the manner in which complex legislation should be considered. 
I also want to thank Jon Etherton of the Armed Services Committee staff 
for his tireless efforts to develop a meaningful acquisition reform 
package. Jon has been a tremendous asset throughout this process, and I 
want to take this opportunity to personally recognize his exemplary 
service.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report 
on S. 1587. This legislation will result in a more streamlined and a 
more open acquisition system. We have raised the threshold for the 
applicability of most socioeconomic laws to contracts over $100,000. We 
have established the elements of an electronic commerce system that 
will allow anyone, especially small business, to access and respond to 
contracting opportunities with the Federal Government. The legislation 
also enhances the ability of the Government to purchase commercial 
products and services resulting in millions in savings to the 
taxpayers. And we have granted the executive agencies the ability to 
test even more innovative procurement ideas within special pilot 
programs.
  To be sure, the reform process will have to continue for many years 
before the vision embodied in this legislation fully transforms the 
existing system. But, for now, let us lay the foundation by passing the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 with all deliberate speed.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                             panel members

       Pete Bryan, Director, Contract Policy & Administration, 
     Office of the Secretary of Defense. Allan Burman, 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy. Anthony Gamboa, 
     Deputy General Counsel, Department of the Army. Jack Harding, 
     Vice President, Contracts, Raytheon Corporation.
       LeRoy Haugh, Vice President, Procurement & Finance, 
     Aerospace Industries Association. Thomas J. Madden, Partner, 
     Venable, Baetjer, Howard and Civiletti. Ralph Nash, Jr., 
     Professor of Law, George Washington University. F. Whitten 
     Peters, Partner, Williams and Connolly. Gary Quigley, Deputy 
     General Counsel, Defense Logistics Agency.
       Major General John D. Slinkard, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 
     for Contracting, Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command. 
     Rear Admiral W.L. Vincent, USN, Commandant, Defense Systems 
     Management College. Robert D. Wallick, Partner, Steptoe & 
     Johnson. Harvey Wilcox, Deputy General Counsel, Department of 
     the Navy.


                               task force

       Executive Secretary: Donald M. Freedman (DSMC)
       Task Force Directors: \1\Kenneth Allard, LTC(P), USA 
     (DSMC), \1\Thomas J. Dolan, Jr. (ONR), \1\Susan P. McNeill, 
     Col, USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Denotes Task Force members who assisted in the production 
     of the Executive Summary. The Panel also recognizes the 
     following DSMC staff members for their contributions to this 
     effort: Robert W. Ball, Greg T. Caruth, and Francis N. 
     Scavotto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Task Force Members: JoAnne L. Barreca (DLA) \1\Benjamin B. 
     C. Capshaw, LCDR, USNR (DSMC), James Cohen, Lt Col, USAF, 
     \1\Stuart A. Hazlett (SAF-AQC), Barry Kline (AMC).
       C. Jean Kopala, Maj, USAF (DSMC), William E. Mounts 
     (Contract Counsel), Karen O'Brien, CPT, USA (DSMC), Michael 
     J. Renner, Lt Col, USAF, Michael Rose, Lt Col. USAFR, Diane 
     M. Sidebottom (DLA).
       James Wayne Skinner (NAVSUP), Jack L. Soesbe, MAJ, USA 
     (DSMC), Theresa M. Squillacote (DSMC), Jerry Stahl (AMC), 
     Donald J. Suda (DLA), \1\Bruce N. Warner (DSMC).
       Administrative Staff: Wilma J. Frey (DSMC), Laura J. Neal 
     (DSMC), Linda L. Snellings (DSMC), Megan A. Weaver (DSMC).
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
of 1994 is one of the most important pieces of legislation this 
Congress will consider. The Government procurement process through the 
slow accretion of rules and regulations over the years has become 
overly complex and cumbersome. This legislation will introduce badly 
needed reforms.
  In no area is this reform more urgent than with respect to the 
defense acquisition system. The drive to combat the mounting Federal 
deficit has placed extraordinary pressure on the defense budget. Since 
1985, the defense budget has been reduced by 35 percent. Yet despite 
this massive and ill-advised cut in defense spending, the Pentagon's 
budget continues to suffer attacks. The austere budget climate makes it 
absolutely imperative that we stretch every defense dollar as far as 
possible.
  The cumbersome Federal acquisition process discourages many companies 
from competing for Government contracts. This reduces participation, 
thus diminishing competition and raising Government procurement costs. 
Further, the current process places substantial restrictions and 
burdens on defense contractors which are unnecessary, the added cost of 
which lessens the buying power of our defense dollars. Finally, the 
process has fostered a separation of commercial and military production 
which impedes cross fertilization between these two sectors of the 
economy, hindering the full utilization of technological innovation.
  If enacted, the Federal Streamlining Act of 1994 would institute 
major reforms in three principal areas for both general Government and 
defense procurement. First, simplified acquisition procedures will be 
expanded to include a significantly larger group of contract actions. 
Second, the legislation would revamp the acquisition rules to encourage 
and facilitate procurement of commercially available items whenever 
feasible, allowing the Government to reap the benefits of low-cost, 
mass-produced commercial items, rather than commissioning expensive 
custom-made products. Finally, the legislation would streamline the 
entire process of contract formation, administration, and award 
protests.
  The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act is not the last word on 
procurement reform; it is but a first step. A continued commitment from 
the Congress is essential. Congress must closely monitor the 
implementation of this legislation to ensure that unintended and 
adverse consequences do not arise. All too often in the past the 
Congress has announced that it had fixed the Government acquisition 
process, and then cast a blind eye when the touted remedial legislation 
failed to solve problems or created new difficulties. We must actively 
review the progress of acquisition reform and make appropriate 
corrections as prudence and experience require. I am personally 
committed to addressing any unforeseeable, negative effects of this 
legislation, to ensure that national security and the public interest 
are zealously safeguarded.
  Further, in the future, the scope of reform must be expanded. This 
legislation will not reform the acquisition process for multimillion 
dollar contracts, that work must be taken up by the next Congress. 
Major acquisitions, particularly those involving defense systems, need 
to be reformed to enhance competition, cut costs, and best serve the 
public interest. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
next Congress to continue the process of procurement reform.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
conference report be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider and 
the motion to lay on the table be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________