[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    PASSAGE OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE PROCUREMENT REFORM BILL

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last month, the Senate passed the 
procurement reform conference report. I am pleased that the conferees 
agreed to my request to change section 605(c)(4) of the Contracts 
Dispute Act. I am particularly grateful to the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Glenn, and the chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Brooks, for working with me to 
develop language that resolved the problem. This change in law is 
significant.
  The current law provides that a contractor with a claim before a 
contracting officer may request an agency board of contract appeals to 
set a deadline for a contracting officer's decision if that contracting 
officer has not rendered a decision in a timely manner. However, 
current law does not authorize the Court of Federal Claims to issue 
such orders. Thus, although the Contract Disputes Act generally allows 
a contractor to choose whether to appeal a contracting officer's 
decision to an agency board or to the Court of Federal Claims, the only 
avenue to request that a timely decision be made by the contracting 
officer is at the agency board level.
  In certain cases, the contractor is already before the Court of 
Federal Claims on a related case and the logical place to take such a 
request for a decision deadline is the Court of Federal Claims. 
However, at this point, the Court of Federal Claims has no such 
authority.
  The change in section 605(c)(4) will permit the Court of Federal 
Claims as well as the agency board to determine that the contracting 
officer is unduly delaying the decision and issue an order that a 
decision be rendered within a time certain.
  I know of instances involving appeals from my State in which the 
contractor has appealed one claim to U.S. Court of Federal Claims and 
will have another related claim before a contracting officer. If for 
some reason the contracting officer delays that decision, the 
contractor would logically take this issue of delay to the Court of 
Federal Claims except that, without this amendment, the court may have 
no jurisdiction to order a decision in a time certain. Undue delay 
might be found in a case in which a contract has been terminated for 
contractor breach and the contractor has submitted a claim for damages 
based on government breach. Such undue delay would occur if the 
contracting officer does not render a decision on the damages claim in 
a short enough time period for the contractor to pursue a single action 
before either tribunal.
  This amendment will fix this situation. This is also in keeping with 
the recent 1992 amendment to the Contract Disputes Act which acted to 
make the jurisdiction the same for the alternative tribunals available 
for contractor appeal.

                          ____________________