[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5911-H5937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 164 and rule 
XXIII the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1530.

                              {time}  1035


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday, 
June 13, 1995, the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] had been disposed of.
[[Page H5912]]

                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair takes this opportunity to remind all staff 
who now enjoy the privilege of the floor that they are to desist from 
audible conversations and are not to manifest any approval or 
disapproval of proceedings.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment printed in subpart (c) 
of part 1 of the report.


             Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Clinger

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4(a) of House 
Resolution 164, I offer an amendment in modified form.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
  The text of the amendment, as modified is as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Clinger:
       After the heading for title VIII (page 323, after line 15), 
     insert the following (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):
                        Subtitle A--Competition

     SEC. 801. IMPROVEMENT OF COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Section 2304 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2304. Contracts: competition requirements

       ``(a) Maximum Practicable Competition.--Except as provided 
     in subsections (b), (c), and (e) and except in the case of 
     procurement procedures otherwise expressly authorized by 
     statute, the head of an agency in conducting a procurement 
     for property or services--
       ``(1) shall obtain maximum practicable competition through 
     the use of competitive procedures consistent with the need to 
     efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements in 
     accordance with this chapter and the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation; and
       ``(2) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of 
     competitive procedures that is best suited under the 
     circumstances of the procurement.
       ``(b) Exclusion of Particular Source.--The head of an 
     agency may provide for the procurement of property or 
     services covered by this chapter using competitive procedures 
     but excluding a particular source in order to establish or 
     maintain an alternative source or sources of supply for that 
     property or service. The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     set forth the circumstances under which a particular source 
     may be excluded pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(c) Exclusion of Concerns Other than Small Business 
     Concerns and Certain Other Entities.--The head of an agency 
     may provide for the procurement of property or services 
     covered by this section using competitive procedures, but 
     excluding concerns other than small business concerns in 
     furtherance of sections 9 and 15 of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638, 644) and concerns other than small business 
     concerns, historically Black colleges and universities, and 
     minority institutions in furtherance of section 2323 of this 
     title.
       ``(d) Procedures Other Than Competitive Procedures.--
     Procedures other than competitive procedures may be used for 
     purchasing property and services only when the use of 
     competitive procedures is not feasible or appropriate. Each 
     procurement using procedures other than competitive 
     procedures (other than a procurement for commercial items or 
     a procurement in an amount not greater than the simplified 
     acquisition threshold) shall be justified in writing and 
     approved in accordance with the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       ``(e) Simplified Procedures.--(1) In order to promote 
     efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid 
     unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall provide for special simplified 
     procedures for purchases of property and services for amounts 
     not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(2) A proposed purchase or contract for an amount above 
     the simplified acquisition threshold may not be divided into 
     several purchases or contracts for lesser amounts in order to 
     use the simplified procedures required by paragraph (1).
       ``(3) In using simplified procedures, the head of an agency 
     shall ensure that competition is obtained to the extent 
     practicable consistent with the particular Government 
     requirement.
       ``(f) Certain Contracts.--For the purposes of the following 
     laws, purchases or contracts awarded after using procedures 
     other than sealed-bid procedures shall be treated as if they 
     were made with sealed-bid procedures:
       ``(1) The Walsh-Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35-45).
       ``(2) The Act entitled ``An Act relating to the rate of 
     wages for laborers and mechanics employed on public buildings 
     of the United States and the District of Columbia by 
     contractors and subcontractors, and for other purposes'', 
     approved March 3, 1931 (commonly referred to as the ``Davis-
     Bacon Act'') (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5).''.
       (2) Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting before section 2305 a new section--
       (A) the designation and heading for which is as follows:

     ``Sec. 2304f. Merit-based selection''; and

       (B) the text of which consists of subsection (j) of section 
     2304 of such title, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, modified--
       (i) by striking out the subsection designation and the 
     subsection heading;
       (ii) in paragraphs (2)(A), (3), and (4), by striking out 
     ``subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section'' each 
     place it appears;
       (iii) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking out ``paragraph 
     (1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)'';
       (iv) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and
       (v) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting before the item relating section 2305 
     the following new item:

``2304f. Merit-based selection.''.

       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Section 303 of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 303. CONTRACTS: COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Maximum Practicable Competition.--Except as provided 
     in subsections (b), (c), and (e) and except in the case of 
     procurement procedures otherwise expressly authorized by 
     statute, an executive agency in conducting a procurement for 
     property or services--
       ``(1) shall obtain maximum practicable competition through 
     the use of competitive procedures consistent with the need to 
     efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements in 
     accordance with this chapter and the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation; and
       ``(2) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of 
     competitive procedures that is best suited under the 
     circumstances of the procurement.
       ``(b) Exclusion of Particular Source.--An executive agency 
     may provide for the procurement of property or services 
     covered by this chapter using competitive procedures but 
     excluding a particular source in order to establish or 
     maintain an alternative source or sources of supply for that 
     property or service. The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     set forth the circumstances under which a particular source 
     may be excluded pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(c) Exclusion of Concerns Other than Small Business 
     Concerns and Certain Other Entities.--An executive agency may 
     provide for the procurement of property or services covered 
     by this section using competitive procedures, but excluding 
     concerns other than small business concerns in furtherance of 
     sections 9 and 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638, 
     644) and concerns other than small business concerns, 
     historically Black colleges and universities, and minority 
     institutions in furtherance of section 7102 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 644 note).
       ``(d) Procedures Other Than Competitive Procedures.--
     Procedures other than competitive procedures may be used for 
     purchasing property and services only when the use of 
     competitive procedures is not feasible or appropriate. Each 
     procurement using procedures other than competitive 
     procedures (other than a procurement for commercial items or 
     a procurement in an amount not greater than the simplified 
     acquisition threshold) shall be justified in writing and 
     approved in accordance with the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       ``(e) Simplified Procedures.--(1) In order to promote 
     efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid 
     unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall provide for special simplified 
     procedures for purchases of property and services for amounts 
     not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(2)(A) The Administrator of General Services shall 
     prescribe regulations that provide special simplified 
     procedures for acquisitions of leasehold interests in real 
     property at rental rates that do not exceed the simplified 
     acquisition threshold.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the rental rate or 
     rates under a multiyear lease do not exceed the simplified 
     acquisition threshold if the average annual amount of the 
     rent payable for the period of the lease does not exceed the 
     simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(3) A proposed purchase or contract or for an amount 
     above the simplified acquisition threshold may not be divided 
     into several purchases or contracts for lesser amounts in 
     order to use the simplified procedures required by paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(4) In using simplified procedures, an executive agency 
     shall ensure that competition is obtained to the extent 
     practicable consistent with the particular Government 
     requirement.''.
       (2) Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 303L a new section--
       (A) the designation and heading for which is as follows:

     ``SEC. 303M. MERIT-BASED SELECTION.''; and

       (B) the text of which consists of subsection (h) of section 
     303 of such Act, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, modified--
       (i) by striking out the subsection designation and the 
     subsection heading;
       (ii) in paragraphs (2)(A), (3), and (4), by striking out 
     ``subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section'' each 
     place it appears; [[Page H5913]] 
       (iii) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking out ``paragraph 
     (1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)'';
       (iv) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and
       (v) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (3) The table of contents for the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (contained in section 
     1(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking out the item relating to section 303 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``Sec. 303. Contracts: competition requirements.''; and

       (B) by inserting after the item relating to section 303L 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 303M. Merit-based selection.''.

       (c) Revisions to Procurement Notice Provisions.--Section 18 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     416) is amended in subsection (b)(4)--
       (1) by striking out ``all''; and
       (2) by striking out ``(as appropriate) which shall be 
     considered by the agency''.
       (d) Repeal of Duplicative Provisions.--Section 8 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) is amended--
       (1) by striking out subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and 
     (i); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (e).
       (e) Executive Agency Responsibilities.--(1) Section 16 of 
     the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking out ``achieve'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``promote''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) to implement maximum practicable competition in the 
     procurement of property or services by the executive agency 
     by establishing policies, procedures, and practices that are 
     consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the 
     Government's requirements;''.
       (2) Section 20 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 418) is amended in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) by striking out ``serving in a position 
     authorized for such executive agency on the date of enactment 
     of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984''.

     SEC. 802. DEFINITION RELATING TO COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definition.--Paragraph (6) of section 4 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(6) The term `maximum practicable competition', when used 
     with respect to a procurement, means that the maximum number 
     of responsible or verified sources, consistent with the 
     particular Government requirement, are permitted to submit 
     sealed bids or competitive proposals on the procurement.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Office of federal procurement policy act.--The Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act is further amended--
       (A) in section 4(5), by striking out ``full and open'' and 
     inserting ``maximum practicable''; and
       (B) in section 20, by striking out ``full and open'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``maximum practicable'' each place 
     it appears in subsection (b)(1), subsection (b)(3)(A), 
     subsection (b)(4)(C), and subsection (c);
       (2) Title 10.--Title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 2302(2), by striking out ``pursuant to full 
     and open competition'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``using 
     maximum practicable competition'';
       (B) in section 2323(e)(3), by striking out ``less than full 
     and open'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``procedures other 
     than''; and
       (C) in each of the following sections, by striking out 
     ``full and open'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``maximum 
     practicable'':
       (i) Section 2302(3).
       (ii) Section 2305(a)(1)(A)(i).
       (iii) Section 2305(a)(1)(A)(iii).
       (iv) Section 2323(i)(3)(A).
       (3) Federal property and administrative services act.--
     Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 309(b), by striking out ``pursuant to full 
     and open competition'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``using 
     maximum practicable competition''; and
       (B) in each of the following sections, by striking out 
     ``full and open'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``maximum 
     practicable'':
       (i) Section 303A(a)(1)(A).
       (ii) Section 303A(a)(1)(C).
       (iii) Section 304B(a)(2)(B).
       (iv) Section 309(c)(4).
       (4) Other laws.--(A) Section 7102 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 3367; 15 
     U.S.C. 644 note) is amended in subsection (a)(1)(A) by 
     striking out ``less than full and open competition'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``procedures other than competitive 
     procedures''.
       (B) Section 15(l) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     644(l)) is amended in paragraph (1) and in paragraph (2)(A) 
     by striking out ``full and open'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``maximum practicable'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 803. CONTRACT SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2305 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking out subparagraph (B); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B) 
     and in that subparagraph by striking out ``subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraph (A)''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b)(4)(A)(i), by striking out ``all'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Section 303A of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253a) is amended--
       (A) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2) and in 
     that paragraph by striking out ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and 
     inserting in lieu there of ``paragraph (1)''.
       (2) Section 303B(d)(1)(A) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253b) is 
     amended by striking out ``all'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the''.

     SEC. 804. PREAWARD DEBRIEFINGS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2305(b) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out subparagraph (F) of paragraph (5);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(6)(A) When the contracting officer excludes an offeror 
     submitting a competitive proposal from the competitive range 
     (or otherwise excludes such an offeror from further 
     consideration prior to the final source selection decision), 
     the excluded offeror may request in writing, within three 
     days after the date on which the excluded offeror receives 
     notice of its exclusion, a debriefing prior to award. The 
     contracting officer shall make every effort to debrief the 
     unsuccessful offeror as soon as practicable and may refuse 
     the request for a debriefing if it is not in the best 
     interests of the Government to conduct a debriefing at that 
     time.
       ``(B) The contracting officer is required to debrief an 
     excluded offeror in accordance with paragraph (5) of this 
     section only if that offeror requested and was refused a 
     preaward debriefing under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
       ``(C) The debriefing conducted under this subsection shall 
     include--
       ``(i) the executive agency's evaluation of the significant 
     elements in the offeror's offer;
       ``(ii) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's 
     exclusion; and
       ``(iii) reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by 
     the debriefed offeror as to whether source selection 
     procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable 
     regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed 
     by the executive agency.
       ``(D) The debriefing conducted pursuant to this subsection 
     may not disclose the number or identity of other offerors and 
     shall not disclose information about the content, ranking, or 
     evaluation of other offerors' proposals.
       ``(7) The contracting officer shall include a summary of 
     any debriefing conducted under paragraph (5) or (6) in the 
     contract file.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 303B of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253b) is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (6) of subsection (e);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (h), (i), (j), and (k), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(f)(1) When the contracting officer excludes an offeror 
     submitting a competitive proposal from the competitive range 
     (or otherwise excludes such an offeror from further 
     consideration prior to the final source selection decision), 
     the excluded offeror may request in writing, within 3 days 
     after the date on which the excluded offeror receives notice 
     of its exclusion, a debriefing prior to award. The 
     contracting officer shall make every effort to debrief the 
     unsuccessful offeror as soon as practicable and may refuse 
     the request for a debriefing if it is not in the best 
     interests of the Government to conduct a debriefing at that 
     time.
       ``(2) The contracting officer is required to debrief an 
     excluded offeror in accordance with subsection (e) of this 
     section only if that offeror requested and was refused a 
     preaward debriefing under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
       ``(3) The debriefing conducted under this subsection shall 
     include--
       ``(A) the executive agency's evaluation of the significant 
     elements in the offeror's offer;
       ``(B) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's 
     exclusion; and
       ``(C) reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by 
     the debriefed offeror as to whether source selection 
     procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable 
     regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed 
     by the executive agency.
       ``(4) The debriefing conducted pursuant to this subsection 
     may not disclose the number or identity of other offerors and 
     shall not disclose information about the content, ranking, or 
     evaluation of other offerors' proposals.
       ``(g) The contracting officer shall include a summary of 
     the any debriefing conducted under subsection (e) or (f) in 
     the contract file.''.
     [[Page H5914]]
     
     SEC. 805. CONTRACT TYPES.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Section 2306 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting before the period at the end of subsection 
     (a) the following: ``, based on market conditions, 
     established commercial practice (if any) for the product or 
     service being acquired, and sound business judgment'';
       (B) by striking out subsections (b), (d), (e), (f), and 
     (h); and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (b).
       (2) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 2306. Contract types''.

       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Section 304 of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 254) is amended--
       (A) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence of subsection (a) the following: ``, based on market 
     conditions, established commercial practice (if any) for the 
     product or service being acquired, and sound business 
     judgment''; and
       (B) by striking out ``Every contract award'' in the second 
     sentence of subsection (a) and all that follows through the 
     end of the section.
       (2) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 304. CONTRACT TYPES.''.

       (c) Conforming Repeals.--(1) Sections 4540, 7212, and 9540 
     of title 10, United States Code, are repealed.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 433 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 4540.
       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 631 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 7212.
       (4) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 933 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 9540.
       (d) Civil Works Authority.--(1) Chapter 137 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 2332. Contracts for architectural and engineering 
       services and construction design

       ``The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the 
     military departments may enter into contracts for 
     architectural and engineering services in connection with a 
     military construction or family housing project or for other 
     Department of Defense or military department purposes. Such 
     contracts shall be awarded in accordance with the Brooks 
     Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 
     of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``2332. Contracts for architectural and engineering services and 
              construction design.''.

       (3) Section 2855 of such title is repealed. The table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 169 of such title is 
     amended by striking out the item relating to such section.

     SEC. 806. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

       (a) Requirement for System.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 35. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

       ``(a) Verification Authorized.--The Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall provide a contractor verification system for 
     the procurement of particular property or services that are 
     procured by executive agencies on a repetitive basis. Under 
     the system, the head of an executive agency--
       ``(1) shall use competitive procedures to verify 
     contractors as eligible for contracts to furnish such 
     property or services; and
       ``(2) shall award verifications on the basis of the 
     relative efficiency and effectiveness of the business 
     practices, level of quality, and demonstrated contract 
     performance of the responding contractors with regard to the 
     particular property or services.
       ``(b) Procurement From Verified Contractors.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall provide procedures under which 
     the head of an executive agency may enter into a contract for 
     a procurement of property or services referred to in 
     subsection (a) on the basis of a competition among 
     contractors verified with respect to such property or 
     services pursuant to that subsection.
       ``(c) Termination of Verification.--The Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall provide procedures under which the head of 
     an executive agency--
       ``(1) may provide for the termination of a verification 
     awarded a contractor under this section upon the expiration 
     of a period specified by the head of an executive agency; and
       ``(2) may revoke a verification awarded a contractor under 
     this section upon a determination that the quality of 
     performance of the contractor does not meet standards applied 
     by the head of the executive agency as of the time of the 
     revocation decision.''.
       (b) Repeals.--Section 2319 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is repealed. Section 303C of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253c) is 
     repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The table of contents for the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (contained in 
     section 1(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 35. Contractor performance.''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     the item relating to section 2319.
       (3) The table of contents for the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (contained in section 
     1(b)) is amended by striking out the item relating to section 
     303C.
                      Subtitle B--Commercial Items

     SEC. 811. COMMERCIAL ITEM EXCEPTION TO REQUIREMENT FOR COST 
                   OR PRICING DATA AND INFORMATION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Subsections (b), (c), 
     and (d) of section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Submission of cost or pricing data shall 
     not be required under subsection (a) in the case of a 
     contract, a subcontract, or modification of a contract or 
     subcontract--
       ``(A) for which the price agreed upon is based on--
       ``(i) adequate price competition; or
       ``(ii) prices set by law or regulation;
       ``(B) for the acquisition of a commercial item; or
       ``(C) in an exceptional case when the head of the procuring 
     activity, without delegation, determines that the 
     requirements of this section may be waived and justifies in 
     writing the reasons for such determination.
       ``(2) Modifications of contracts and subcontracts for 
     commercial items.--In the case of a modification of a 
     contract or subcontract for a commercial item that is not 
     covered by the exception on the submission of cost or pricing 
     data in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B), submission of cost or 
     pricing data shall not be required under subsection (a) if--
       ``(A) the contract or subcontract being modified is a 
     contract or subcontract for which submission of cost or 
     pricing data may not be required by reason of paragraph 
     (1)(A) or (1)(B); and
       ``(B) the modification would not change the contract or 
     subcontract, as the case may be, from a contract or 
     subcontract for the acquisition of a commercial item to a 
     contract or subcontract for the acquisition of an item other 
     than a commercial item.
       ``(c) Authority To Require Cost or Pricing Data on Below-
     Threshold Contracts.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), when 
     certified cost or pricing data are not required to be 
     submitted by subsection (a) for a contract, subcontract, or 
     modification of a contract or subcontract, such data may 
     nevertheless be required to be submitted by the head of the 
     procuring activity, but only if the head of the procuring 
     activity determines that such data are necessary for the 
     evaluation by the agency of the reasonableness of the price 
     of the contract, subcontract, or modification of a contract 
     or subcontract. In any case in which the head of the 
     procuring activity requires such data to be submitted under 
     this subsection, the head of the procuring activity shall 
     justify in writing the reason for such requirement.
       ``(2) The head of the procuring activity may not require 
     certified cost or pricing data to be submitted under this 
     paragraph for any contract or subcontract, or modification of 
     a contract or subcontract, covered by the exceptions in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) The head of a procuring activity may not delegate 
     functions under this paragraph.
       ``(d) Limitations on Other Information.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall include the following:
       ``(1) Provisions concerning the types of information that 
     contracting officers may consider in determining whether the 
     price of a procurement to the Government is fair and 
     reasonable when certified cost or pricing data are not 
     required to be submitted under this section, including 
     appropriate information on the prices at which the same item 
     or similar items have previously been sold that is adequate 
     for evaluating the reasonableness of the price of the 
     proposed contract or subcontract for the procurement.
       ``(2) Reasonable limitations on requests for sales data 
     relating to commercial items.
       ``(3) A requirement that a contracting officer shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, limit the scope of any 
     request for information relating to commercial items from an 
     offeror to only that information that is in the form 
     regularly maintained by the offeror in commercial operations.
       ``(4) A statement that any information received relating to 
     commercial items that is exempt from disclosure under section 
     552(b) of title 5 shall not be disclosed by the Federal 
     Government.''.
       (2) Section 2306a of such title is further amended--
       (A) by striking out subsection (h); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).
       (3) Section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out subsection (c).
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Subsections (b), (c) 
     and (d) of section 304A of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254b) are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Submission of cost or pricing data shall 
     not be required under subsection (a) in the case of a 
     contract, a subcontract, or a modification of a contract or 
     subcontract--
       ``(A) for which the price agreed upon is based on-- 
     [[Page H5915]] 
       ``(i) adequate price competition; or
       ``(ii) prices set by law or regulation;
       ``(B) for the acquisition of a commercial item; or
       ``(C) in an exceptional case when the head of the procuring 
     activity, without delegation, determines that the 
     requirements of this section may be waived and justifies in 
     writing the reasons for such determination.
       ``(2) Modifications of contracts and subcontracts for 
     commercial items.--In the case of a modification of a 
     contract or subcontract for a commercial item that is not 
     covered by the exception on the submission of cost or pricing 
     data in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B), submission of cost or 
     pricing data shall not be required under subsection (a) if--
       ``(A) the contract or subcontract being modified is a 
     contract or subcontract for which submission of cost or 
     pricing data may not be required by reason of paragraph 
     (1)(A) or (1)(B); and
       ``(B) the modification would not change the contract or 
     subcontract, as the case may be, from a contract or 
     subcontract for the acquisition of a commercial item to a 
     contract or subcontract for the acquisition of an item other 
     than a commercial item.
       ``(c) Authority To Require Cost or Pricing Data on Below-
     Threshold Contracts.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), when 
     certified cost or pricing data are not required to be 
     submitted by subsection (a) for a contract, subcontract, or 
     modification of a contract or subcontract, such data may 
     nevertheless be required to be submitted by the head of the 
     procuring activity, but only if the head of the procuring 
     activity determines that such data are necessary for the 
     evaluation by the agency of the reasonableness of the price 
     of the contract, subcontract, or modification of a contract 
     or subcontract. In any case in which the head of the 
     procuring activity requires such data to be submitted under 
     this subsection, the head of the procuring activity shall 
     justify in writing the reason for such requirement.
       ``(2) The head of the procuring activity may not require 
     certified cost or pricing data to be submitted under this 
     paragraph for any contract or subcontract, or modification of 
     a contract or subcontract, covered by the exceptions in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) The head of a procuring activity may not delegate the 
     functions under this paragraph.
       ``(d) Limitations on Other Information.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall include the following:
       ``(1) Provisions concerning the types of information that 
     contracting officers may consider in determining whether the 
     price of a procurement to the Government is fair and 
     reasonable when certified cost or pricing data are not 
     required to be submitted under this section, including 
     appropriate information on the prices at which the same item 
     or similar items have previously been sold that is adequate 
     for evaluating the reasonableness of the price of the 
     proposed contract or subcontract for the procurement.
       ``(2) Reasonable limitations on requests for sales data 
     relating to commercial items.
       ``(3) A requirement that a contracting officer shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, limit the scope of any 
     request for information relating to commercial items from an 
     offeror to only that information that is in the form 
     regularly maintained by the offeror in commercial operations.
       ``(4) A statement that any information received relating to 
     commercial items that is exempt from disclosure under section 
     552(b) of title 5 shall not be disclosed by the Federal 
     Government.''.
       (2) Section 304A of such Act is further amended--
       (A) by striking out subsection (h); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).

     SEC. 812. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO COMMERCIAL 
                   ITEMS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2304(e) of title 
     10, United States Code, as added by section 801(a), is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``special 
     simplified procedures'' the following: ``for purchases of 
     commercial items and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide 
     that, in the case of a purchase of commercial items in an 
     amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, the 
     head of an agency may not conduct the purchase on a sole 
     source basis unless the need to do so is justified in writing 
     and approved in accordance with the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 303(e) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253), as added by section 801(b), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``special 
     simplified procedures'' the following: ``for purchases of 
     commercial items and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide 
     that, in the case of a purchase of commercial items in an 
     amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, an 
     executive agency may not conduct the purchase on a sole 
     source basis unless the need to do so is justified in writing 
     and approved in accordance with the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.''.
       (c) Simplified Notice.--Section 18 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) is amended in 
     subsection (a)(5) (as redesignated by section 801(d))--
       (1) by striking out ``limited''; and
       (2) by inserting before ``submission'' the following: 
     ``issuance of solicitations and the''.

     SEC. 813. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

       Section 4(12)(F) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(12)(F)) is amended by striking out 
     ``catalog''.

     SEC. 814. INAPPLICABILITY OF COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS TO 
                   CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL 
                   ITEMS.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 26(f)(2) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(f)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out clause (i) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(i) Contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of 
     commercial items.''; and
       (2) by striking out clause (iii).
                Subtitle C--Additional Reform Provisions
       Redesignate sections 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, and 
     808 as sections 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, and 828, 
     respectively (and conform the table of contents accordingly).
       Add at the end of title VIII (page 329, after line 13) the 
     following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
     SEC. 829. GOVERNMENT RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       (a) Government Reliance on the Private Sector.--The Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 16 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 17. GOVERNMENT RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       ``It is the policy of the Federal Government to rely on the 
     private sector to supply the products and services the 
     Federal Government needs.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (contained in 
     section 1(b)) is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 16 the following new item:

``Sec. 17. Government reliance on the private sector.''.
     SEC. 830. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Certain Statutory Certification 
     Requirements.--(1)(A) Section 2410 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (i) in the heading, by striking out ``: certification''; 
     and
       (ii) in subsection (a)--
       (I) in the heading, by striking out ``Certification'';
       (II) by striking out ``unless'' and all that follows 
     through ``that--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``unless--
     ''; and
       (III) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``to the best of 
     that person's knowledge and belief''.
       (B) The item relating to section 2410 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 141 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2410. Requests for equitable adjustment or other relief.''.
       (2) Section 2410b of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended in paragraph (2) by striking out ``certification 
     and''.
       (3) Section 1352(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking out subparagraph (C); and
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A).
       (4) Section 5152 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 
     U.S.C. 701) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``has certified 
     to the contracting agency that it will'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``agrees to'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``contract 
     includes a certification by the individual'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``individual agrees''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) by striking out subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (A) 
     and in that subparagraph by striking out ``such certification 
     by failing to carry out''; and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph 
     (B).
       (b) Elimination of Certain Regulatory Certification 
     Requirements.--
       (1) Current certification requirements.--Not later than 210 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
     certification required of contractors or offerors by the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation or an executive agency 
     procurement regulation that is not specifically imposed by 
     statute shall be removed by the Administrator for Federal 
     Procurement Policy from the Federal Acquisition Regulation or 
     such agency regulation unless--
       (A) written justification for such certification is 
     provided to the Administrator (i) by the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council (in the case of a certification in the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation), or (ii) by the head of an 
     executive agency (in the case of a certification in an 
     executive agency procurement regulation); and
       (B) the Administrator approves in writing the retention of 
     such certification.
       (2) Future certification requirements.--(A) Section 29 of 
     the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 425) 
     is amended--
       (i) by amending the heading to read as follows:
     [[Page H5916]]
     
     ``SEC. 22. CONTRACT CLAUSES AND CERTIFICATIONS.'';

       (ii) by inserting ``(a) Nonstandard Contract Clauses.--'' 
     before ``The Federal Acquisition''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Prohibition on Certification Requirements.--A 
     requirement for a certification by a contractor or offeror 
     may not be included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation or 
     an executive agency procurement regulation unless--
       ``(1) the certification is specifically imposed by statute; 
     or
       ``(2) written justification for such certification is 
     provided to the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy 
     (A) by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (in the 
     case of a certification in the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation), or (B) the head of an executive agency (in the 
     case of a certification in an executive agency procurement 
     regulation), and the Administrator approves in writing the 
     inclusion of such certification.''.
       (B) The item relating to section 29 in the table of 
     contents for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (contained in section 1(b)) (41 U.S.C. 401 note) is amended 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 29. Contract clauses and certifications.''.

     SEC. 831. AMENDMENT TO COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRATION OF 
                   AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT CERTAIN TESTS OF 
                   PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES.

       Subsection (j) of section 5061 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act of 1994 (41 U.S.C. 413 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Commencement and Expiration of Authority.--The 
     authority to conduct a test under subsection (a) in an agency 
     and to award contracts under such a test shall take effect on 
     August 1, 1995, and shall expire on August 1, 2000. Contracts 
     entered into before such authority expires in an agency 
     pursuant to a test shall remain in effect, notwithstanding 
     the expiration of the authority to conduct the test under 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 832. PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY.

       (a) Amendment of Procurement Integrity Provision.--Section 
     27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     423) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 27. RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSING AND OBTAINING 
                   CONTRACTOR BID OR PROPOSAL INFORMATION OR 
                   SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Prohibition on Disclosing Procurement Information.--
     (1) A person described in paragraph (2) shall not, other than 
     as provided by law, knowingly disclose contractor bid or 
     proposal information or source selection information before 
     the award of a Federal agency procurement contract to which 
     the information relates.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any person who--
       ``(A) is a present or former officer or employee of the 
     United States, or a person who is acting or has acted for or 
     on behalf of, or who is advising or has advised the United 
     States with respect to, a Federal agency procurement; and
       ``(B) by virtue of that office, employment, or relationship 
     has or had access to contractor bid or proposal information 
     or source selection information.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Obtaining Procurement Information.--A 
     person shall not, other than as provided by law, knowingly 
     obtain contractor bid or proposal information or source 
     selection information before the award of a Federal agency 
     procurement contract to which the information relates.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Disclosing or Obtaining Procurement 
     Information in Connection With a Protest.--(1) A person shall 
     not, other than as provided by law, knowingly violate the 
     terms of a protective order described in paragraph (2) by 
     disclosing or obtaining contractor bid or proposal 
     information or source selection information related to the 
     procurement contract concerned.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any protective order issued 
     by the the United States Board of Contract Appeals in 
     connection with a protest against the award or proposed award 
     of a Federal agency procurement contract.
       ``(d) Penalties and Administrative Actions.--
       ``(1) Criminal penalties.--
       ``(A) Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense 
     under subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be imprisoned for not 
     more than one year or fined as provided under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both.
       ``(B) Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense 
     under subsection (a), (b), or (c) for the purpose of either--
       ``(i) exchanging the information covered by such subsection 
     for anything of value, or
       ``(ii) obtaining or giving anyone a competitive advantage 
     in the award of a Federal agency procurement contract,

     shall be imprisoned for not more than 15 years or fined as 
     provided under title 18, United States Code, or both.
       ``(2) Civil penalties.--The Attorney General may bring a 
     civil action in the appropriate United States district court 
     against any person who engages in conduct constituting an 
     offense under subsection (a), (b), or (c). Upon proof of such 
     conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, the person is 
     subject to a civil penalty. An individual who engages in such 
     conduct is subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $50,000 for each violation plus twice the amount of 
     compensation which the individual received or offered for the 
     prohibited conduct. An organization that engages in such 
     conduct is subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $500,000 for each violation plus twice the amount of 
     compensation which the organization received or offered for 
     the prohibited conduct.
       ``(3) Administrative actions.--(A) If a Federal agency 
     receives information that a contractor or a person has 
     engaged in conduct constituting an offense under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c), the Federal agency shall consider taking 
     one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
       ``(i) Cancellation of the Federal agency procurement, if a 
     contract has not yet been awarded.
       ``(ii) Rescission of a contract with respect to which--
       ``(I) the contractor or someone acting for the contractor 
     has been convicted for an offense under subsection (a), (b), 
     or (c), or
       ``(II) the head of the agency that awarded the contract has 
     determined, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that 
     the contractor or someone acting for the contractor has 
     engaged in conduct constituting such an offense.
       ``(iii) Initiation of suspension or debarment proceedings 
     for the protection of the Government in accordance with 
     procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(iv) Initiation of adverse personnel action, pursuant to 
     the procedures in chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
     or other applicable law or regulation.
       ``(B) If a Federal agency rescinds a contract pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), the United States is entitled to 
     recover, in addition to any penalty prescribed by law, the 
     amount expended under the contract.
       ``(C) For purposes of any suspension or debarment 
     proceedings initiated pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii), 
     engaging in conduct constituting an offense under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c) affects the present responsibility of a 
     Government contractor or subcontractor.
       ``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `contractor bid or proposal information' 
     means any of the following information submitted to a Federal 
     agency as part of or in connection with a bid or proposal to 
     enter into a Federal agency procurement contract, if that 
     information has not been previously made available to the 
     public or disclosed publicly:
       ``(A) Cost or pricing data (as defined by section 2306a(h) 
     of title 10, United States Code, with respect to procurements 
     subject to that section, and section 304A(h) of Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     254b(h), with respect to procurements subject to that 
     section).
       ``(B) Indirect costs and direct labor rates.
       ``(C) Proprietary information about manufacturing 
     processes, operations, or techniques marked by the contractor 
     in accordance with applicable law or regulation.
       ``(D) Information marked by the contractor as `contractor 
     bid or proposal information', in accordance with applicable 
     law or regulation.
       ``(2) The term `source selection information' means any of 
     the following information prepared for use by a Federal 
     agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to 
     enter into a Federal agency procurement contract, if that 
     information has not been previously made available to the 
     public or disclosed publicly:
       ``(A) Bid prices submitted in response to a Federal agency 
     solicitation for sealed bids, or lists of those bid prices 
     before public bid opening.
       ``(B) Proposed costs or prices submitted in response to a 
     Federal agency solicitation, or lists of those proposed costs 
     or prices.
       ``(C) Source selection plans.
       ``(D) Technical evaluation plans.
       ``(E) Technical evaluations of proposals.
       ``(F) Cost or price evaluations of proposals.
       ``(G) Competitive range determinations that identify 
     proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for 
     award of a contract.
       ``(H) Rankings of bids, proposals, or competitors.
       ``(I) The reports and evaluations of source selection 
     panels, boards, or advisory councils.
       ``(J) Other information marked as `source selection 
     information' based on a case-by-case determination by the 
     head of the agency, his designee, or the contracting officer 
     that its disclosure would jeopardize the integrity or 
     successful completion of the Federal agency procurement to 
     which the information relates.
       ``(3) The term `Federal agency' has the meaning provided 
     such term in section 3 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472).
       ``(4) The term `Federal agency procurement' means the 
     acquisition (by using competitive procedures and awarding a 
     contract) of goods or services (including construction) from 
     non-Federal sources by a Federal agency using appropriated 
     funds.
       ``(5) The term `contracting officer' means a person who, by 
     appointment in accordance with applicable regulations, has 
     the authority to enter into a Federal agency procurement 
     contract on behalf of the Government and to make 
     determinations and findings with respect to such a contract.
       ``(6) The term `protest' means a written objection by an 
     interested party to the award or proposed award of a Federal 
     agency procurement contract, pursuant to title IV of the 
     Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995. [[Page H5917]] 
       ``(f) Limitation on Protests.--No person may file a protest 
     against the award or proposed award of a Federal agency 
     procurement contract alleging an offense under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c), of this section, nor may the United States 
     Board of Contract Appeals consider such an allegation in 
     deciding a protest, unless that person reported to the 
     Federal agency responsible for the procurement information 
     that the person believed constituted evidence of the offense 
     no later than 14 days after the person first discovered the 
     possible offense.
       ``(g) Savings Provisions.--This section does not--
       ``(1) restrict the disclosure of information to, or its 
     receipt by, any person or class of persons authorized, in 
     accordance with applicable agency regulations or procedures, 
     to receive that information;
       ``(2) restrict a contractor from disclosing its own bid or 
     proposal information or the recipient from receiving that 
     information;
       ``(3) restrict the disclosure or receipt of information 
     relating to a Federal agency procurement after it has been 
     canceled by the Federal agency before contract award unless 
     the Federal agency plans to resume the procurement;
       ``(4) prohibit individual meetings between a Federal agency 
     employee and an offeror or potential offeror for, or a 
     recipient of, a contract or subcontract under a Federal 
     agency procurement, provided that unauthorized disclosure or 
     receipt of contractor bid or proposal information or source 
     selection information does not occur;
       ``(5) authorize the withholding of information from, nor 
     restrict its receipt by, Congress, a committee or 
     subcommittee of Congress, the Comptroller General, a Federal 
     agency, or an inspector general of a Federal agency;
       ``(6) authorize the withholding of information from, nor 
     restrict its receipt by, any board of contract appeals of a 
     Federal agency or the Comptroller General in the course of a 
     protest against the award or proposed award of a Federal 
     agency procurement contract; or
       ``(7) limit the applicability of any requirements, 
     sanctions, contract penalties, and remedies established under 
     any other law or regulation.''.
       (b) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) Sections 2397, 2397a, 2397b, and 2397c of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Section 33 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 789).
       (3) Section 281 of title 18, United States Code.
       (4) Subsection (c) of section 32 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428).
       (5) The first section 19 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy 
     Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5918).
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 141 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     the items relating to sections 2397, 2397a, 2397b, and 2397c.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out the 
     item relating to section 281.
       (3) Section 32 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 428) is amended by redesignating subsections 
     (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 833. FURTHER ACQUISITION STREAMLINING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Purpose of Office of Federal Procurement Policy.--(1) 
     Section 5(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 404) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) To promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in 
     the procurement of property and services by the executive 
     branch of the Federal Government, there shall be an Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy (hereinafter referred to as the 
     `Office') in the Office of Management and Budget to provide 
     overall direction of Government-wide procurement policies, 
     regulations, procedures, and forms for executive agencies.''.
       (2) Sections 2 and 3 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 401 and 402) 
     are repealed.
       (b) Repeal of Report Requirement.--Section 8 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 407) is 
     repealed.
       (c) Repeal of Obsolete Provisions.--(1) Sections 10 and 11 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     409 and 410) are repealed.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents for the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (contained in 
     section 1(b)) is amended by striking out the items relating 
     to sections 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11.
     SEC. 834. JUSTIFICATION OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 
                   NOT MEETING GOALS.
       Section 2220(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``In addition, the 
     Secretary shall include in such annual report a justification 
     for the continuation of any program that--
       ``(1) is more than 50 percent over the cost goal 
     established for the development, procurement, or operational 
     phase of the program;
       ``(2) fails to achieve at least 50 percent of the 
     performance capability goals established for the development, 
     procurement, or operational phase of the program; or
       ``(3) is more than 50 percent behind schedule, as 
     determined in accordance with the schedule goal established 
     for the development, procurement, or operational phase of the 
     program.''.
     SEC. 835. ENHANCED PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES FOR ACQUISITION 
                   WORKFORCE.
       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Subsection (b) of section 
     5001 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-355; 108 Stat. 3350; 10 U.S.C. 2220 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (2);
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b) Enhanced System of 
     Performance Incentives.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall include in the enhanced system of 
     incentives the following:
       ``(A) Pay bands.
       ``(B) Significant and material pay and promotion incentives 
     to be awarded, and significant and material unfavorable 
     personnel actions to be imposed, under the system 
     exclusively, or primarily, on the basis of the contributions 
     of personnel to the performance of the acquisition program in 
     relation to cost goals, performance goals, and schedule 
     goals.
       ``(C) Provisions for pay incentives and promotion 
     incentives to be awarded under the system.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 5051 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-355; 108 Stat. 3351; 41 U.S.C. 263 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 
     (2) as clauses (i) and (ii); respectively;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c) Enhanced System of 
     Performance Incentives.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Deputy Director shall include in the enhanced 
     system of incentives under paragraph (1)(B) the following:
       ``(A) Pay bands.
       ``(B) Significant and material pay and promotion incentives 
     to be awarded, and significant and material unfavorable 
     personnel actions to be imposed, under the system 
     exclusively, or primarily, on the basis of the contributions 
     of personnel to the performance of the acquisition program in 
     relation to cost goals, performance goals, and schedule 
     goals.
       ``(C) Provisions for pay incentives and promotion 
     incentives to be awarded under the system.''.
     SEC. 836. RESULTS ORIENTED ACQUISITION PROGRAM CYCLE.
       Section 5002(a) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
     of 1994 (Public Law 103-355; 108 Stat. 3350) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``to ensure''; and
       (2) by striking out the period at the end and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following: ``; (2) to ensure that the 
     regulations compress the time periods associated with 
     developing, procuring, and making operational new systems; 
     and (3) to ensure that Department of Defense directives 
     relating to development and procurement of information 
     systems (numbered in the 8000 series) and the Department of 
     Defense directives numbered in the 5000 series are 
     consolidated into one series of directives that is consistent 
     with such compressed time periods.''.
     SEC. 837. RAPID CONTRACTING GOAL.
       (a) Goal.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:
     ``SEC. 35. RAPID CONTRACTING GOAL.
       The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall 
     establish a goal of reducing by 50 percent the time necessary 
     for executive agencies to acquire an item for the user of 
     that item.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
     Act, contained in section 1(b), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 35. Rapid contracting goal.''.
     SEC. 838. ENCOURAGEMENT OF MULTIYEAR CONTRACTING.
       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2306b(a) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) by striking out ``may'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``shall, to the maximum extent possible,''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 304B(a) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 254c(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1) by striking out ``may'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``shall, to the maximum extent possible,''.
     SEC. 839. CONTRACTOR SHARE OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM COST, 
                   SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE.
       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Chapter 137 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2306b the following new section:
     ``Sec. 2306c. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, 
       schedule, and performance experience
       ``The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall contain 
     provisions to ensure that, for any cost-type contract or 
     incentive-type contract, the contractor may be rewarded for 
     contract performance exceeding the contract cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the benefit of the United States 
     and may be penalized for failing to adhere to cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the detriment of the United 
     States.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after
      [[Page H5918]] the item relating to section 2306b the 
     following new item:

``2306c. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, schedule, and 
              performance experience.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Title III of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     304C the following new section:

     ``SEC. 304D. CONTRACTOR SHARE OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM COST, 
                   SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE.

       ``The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall contain 
     provisions to ensure that, for any cost-type contract or 
     incentive-type contract, the contractor may be rewarded for 
     contract performance exceeding the contract cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the benefit of the United States 
     and may be penalized for failing to adhere to cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the detriment of the United 
     States.''.
       (2) The table of contents for such Act, contained in 
     section 1(b), is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 304C the following new item:

``Sec. 304D. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, schedule, 
              and performance experience.''.
     SEC. 840. PHASE FUNDING OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       Chapter 131 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2221. Funding for results oriented acquisition program 
       cycle

       ``Before initial funding is made available for the 
     development, procurement, or operational phase of an 
     acquisition program for which an authorization of 
     appropriations is required by section 114 of this title, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress information 
     about the objectives and plans for the conduct of that phase 
     and the funding requirements for the entire phase. The 
     information shall identify the intended user of the system to 
     be acquired under the program and shall include objective, 
     quantifiable criteria for assessing the extent to which the 
     objectives and goals determined pursuant to section 2435 of 
     this title are achieved.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2221. Funding for results oriented acquisition program cycle.''.
     SEC. 841. IMPROVED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACT PAYMENT 
                   PROCEDURES.

       (a) Review and Improvement of Procedures.--The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall review commercial 
     practices regarding accounts payable and, considering the 
     results of the review, develop standards for the Secretary of 
     Defense to consider using for improving the contract payment 
     procedures and financial management systems of the Department 
     of Defense.
       (b) GAO Report.--Not later than September 30, 1996, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing the following matters:
       (1) The weaknesses in the financial management processes of 
     the Department of Defense.
       (2) Deviations of the Department of Defense payment 
     procedures and financial management systems from the 
     standards developed pursuant to subsection (a), expressed 
     quantitatively.
       (3) The officials of the Department of Defense who are 
     responsible for resolving the deviations.

     SEC. 842. CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE IN ASSIGNMENT TO 
                   ACQUISITION POSITIONS.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 1701(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The policies and procedures shall provide that education 
     and training in acquisition matters, and past performance of 
     acquisition responsibilities, are major factors in the 
     selection of personnel for assignment to acquisition 
     positions in the Department of Defense.''.
       (b) Performance Requirements for Assignment.--(1) Section 
     1723(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``, including requirements relating to demonstrated 
     past performance of acquisition duties,'' in the first 
     sentence after ``experience requirements''.
       (2) Section 1724(a)(2) of such title is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: 
     ``and have demonstrated proficiency in the performance of 
     acquisition duties in the contracting position or positions 
     previously held''.
       (3) Section 1735 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (ii) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) must have demonstrated proficiency in the performance 
     of acquisition duties.'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (ii) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) must have demonstrated proficiency in the performance 
     of acquisition duties.'';
       (C) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and have demonstrated proficiency 
     in the performance of acquisition duties''; and
       (D) in subsection (e), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and have demonstrated proficiency 
     in the performance of acquisition duties''.
     SEC. 843. VALUE ENGINEERING FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Use of Value Engineering.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 837, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 37. VALUE ENGINEERING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each executive agency shall establish 
     and maintain effective value engineering procedures and 
     processes.
       ``(b) Threshold.--The procedures and processes established 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be applied to those 
     programs, projects, systems, and products of an executive 
     agency that, in a ranking of all programs, projects, systems, 
     and products of the agency according to greatest dollar 
     value, are within the highest 20th percentile.
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `value 
     engineering' means a team effort, performed by qualified 
     agency or contractor personnel, directed at analyzing the 
     functions of a program, project, system, product, item of 
     equipment, building, facility, service, or supply for the 
     purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest 
     life-cycle cost that is consistent with required or improved 
     performance, reliability, quality, and safety.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
     Act, contained in section 1(b), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 37. Value engineering.''.
     SEC. 844. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.

       (a) Acquisition Workforce.--(1) The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 843, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 38. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.

       ``(a) Applicability.--This section does not apply to an 
     executive agency that is subject to chapter 87 of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       ``(b) Management Policies.--
       ``(1) Policies and procedures.--The head of each executive 
     agency, after consultation with the Administrator for Federal 
     Procurement Policy, shall establish policies and procedures 
     for the effective management (including accession, education, 
     training, career development, and performance incentives) of 
     the acquisition workforce of the agency. The development of 
     acquisition workforce policies under this section shall be 
     carried out consistent with the merit system principles set 
     forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 2301(b) of title 
     5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Uniform implementation.--The head of each executive 
     agency shall ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     acquisition workforce policies and procedures established are 
     uniform in their implementation throughout the agency.
       ``(3) Governmentwide policies and evaluation.--The 
     Administrator shall issue policies to promote uniform 
     implementation of this section by executive agencies, with 
     due regard for differences in program requirements among 
     agencies that may be appropriate and warranted in view of the 
     agency mission. The Administrator shall coordinate with the 
     Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management 
     and Budget to ensure that such policies are consistent with 
     the policies and procedures established and enhanced system 
     of incentives provided pursuant to section 5051(c) of the 
     Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (41 U.S.C. 263 
     note). The Administrator shall evaluate the implementation of 
     the provisions of this section by executive agencies.
       ``(c) Senior Procurement Executive Authorities and 
     Responsibilities.--Subject to the authority, direction, and 
     control of the head of an executive agency, the senior 
     procurement executive of the agency shall carry out all 
     powers, functions, and duties of the head of the agency with 
     respect to implementation of this section. The senior 
     procurement executive shall ensure that the policies of the 
     head of the executive agency established in accordance with 
     this section are implemented throughout the agency.
       ``(d) Management Information Systems.--The Administrator 
     shall ensure that the heads of executive agencies collect and 
     maintain standardized information on the acquisition 
     workforce related to implementation of this section. To the 
     maximum extent practicable, such data requirements shall 
     conform to standards established by the Office of Personnel 
     Management for the Central Personnel Data File.
       ``(e) Acquisition Workforce.--The programs established by 
     this section shall apply to all employees in the General 
     Schedule Contracting series (GS-1102) and the General 
     Schedule Purchasing series (GS-1105), and to any employees 
     regardless of series who have been appointed as contracting 
     officers whose authority exceeds the micro-purchase 
     threshold, as that term is defined in section 32(g). The head 
     of each executive agency may include employees in other 
     series who perform acquisition or acquisition-related 
     functions.
       ``(f) Career Development.--
       ``(1) Career paths.--The head of each executive agency 
     shall ensure that appropriate [[Page H5919]] career paths for 
     personnel who desire to pursue careers in acquisition are 
     identified in terms of the education, training, experience, 
     and assignments necessary for career progression to the most 
     senior acquisition positions. The head of each executive 
     agency shall make information available on such career paths.
       ``(2) Critical duties and tasks.--For each career path, the 
     head of each executive agency shall identify the critical 
     acquisition-related duties and tasks in which, at minimum, 
     employees of the agency in the career path shall be competent 
     to perform at full performance grade levels. For this 
     purpose, the head of the executive agency shall provide 
     appropriate coverage of the critical duties and tasks 
     identified by the Director of the Federal Acquisition 
     Institute.
       ``(3) Mandatory training and education.--For each career 
     path, the head of each executive agency shall establish 
     requirements for the completion of course work and related 
     on-the-job training in the critical acquisition-related 
     duties and tasks of the career path. The head of each 
     executive agency shall also encourage employees to maintain 
     the currency of their acquisition knowledge and generally 
     enhance their knowledge of related acquisition management 
     disciplines through academic programs and other self-
     developmental activities.
       ``(4) Performance incentives.--The head of each executive 
     agency, acting through the senior procurement executive for 
     the agency, shall provide for an enhanced system of 
     incentives for the encouragement of excellence in the 
     acquisition workforce which rewards performance of employees 
     that contribute to achieving the agency's performance goals. 
     The system of incentives shall include provisions that--
       ``(A) relate pay to performance;
       ``(B) provide for consideration, in personnel evaluations 
     and promotion decisions, of the extent to which the 
     performance of personnel contributed to achieving the 
     agency's performance goals; and
       ``(C) provide pay and promotion incentives to be awarded, 
     and unfavorable personnel actions to be imposed, under the 
     system on the basis of the contributions of personnel to 
     achieving the agency's performance goals.
       ``(g) Qualification Requirements.--
       ``(1) General schedule contracting series (gs-1102).--
       ``(A) Entry level qualifications.--The Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall require that, after 
     October 1, 1996, a person may not be appointed to a position 
     in the GS-1102 occupational series unless the person--
       ``(i) has received a baccalaureate degree from an 
     accredited educational institution authorized to grant 
     baccalaureate degrees,
       ``(ii) has completed at least 24 semester credit hours (or 
     the equivalent) of study from an accredited institution of 
     higher education in any of the following disciplines: 
     accounting, business finance, law, contracts, purchasing, 
     economics, industrial management, marketing, quantitative 
     methods, or organization and management, or
       ``(iii) has passed a written test determined by the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, to demonstrate the judgmental skills necessary 
     for positions in this series.
       ``(B) Qualifications for senior contracting positions.--The 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall require 
     that, after October 1, 1996, persons may be appointed to 
     positions at and above full performance grade levels in the 
     GS-1102 occupational series only if those persons--
       ``(i) have satisfied the educational requirement either of 
     subsection (g)(1)(A)(i) or subsection (g)(1)(A)(ii),
       ``(ii) have successfully completed all training required 
     for the position under subsection (f)(3), and
       ``(iii) have satisfied experience and other requirements 
     established by the Director for such positions.

     However, this requirement shall apply to persons employed on 
     October 1, 1996, in GS-1102 positions at those grade levels 
     only as a prerequisite for promotion to a GS-1102 position at 
     a higher grade.
       ``(2) General schedule purchasing series (gs-1105).--The 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall require 
     that, after October 1, 1996, a person may not be appointed to 
     a position in the GS-1105 occupational series unless the 
     person--
       ``(A) has successfully completed 2 years of course work 
     from an accredited educational institution authorized to 
     grant degrees, or
       ``(B) has passed a written test determined by the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, to demonstrate the judgmental skills necessary 
     for positions in this series.
       ``(3) Contracting officers.--The head of each executive 
     agency shall require that, beginning after October 1, 1996, a 
     person may be appointed as a contracting officer with 
     authority to award or administer contracts for amounts above 
     the micro-purchase threshold, as that term is defined in 
     section 32(g), only if the person--
       ``(A) has successfully completed all mandatory training 
     required of an employee in an equivalent GS-1102 or 1105 
     position under subsection (f)(3); and
       ``(B) meets experience and other requirements established 
     by the head of the agency, based on the dollar value and 
     complexity of the contracts that the employee will be 
     authorized to award or administer under the appointment as a 
     contracting officer.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--(A) The requirements set forth in 
     subsection (g)(1) and (2), as applicable, shall not apply to 
     any person employed in the GS-1101 or GS-1105 series on 
     October 1, 1996.
       ``(B) Employees of an executive agency who do not satisfy 
     the full qualification requirements for appointment as a 
     contracting officer under subsection (g)(3) may be appointed 
     as a contracting officer for a temporary period of time under 
     procedures established by the agency head. The procedures 
     shall--
       ``(i) require that the person have completed a significant 
     portion of the required training,
       ``(ii) require a plan be established for the balance of the 
     required training,
       ``(iii) specify a period of time for completion of the 
     training, and
       ``(iv) include provisions for withdrawing or terminating 
     the appointment prior to the scheduled expiration date, where 
     appropriate.
       ``(5) Waiver.--The senior procurement executive for an 
     executive agency may waive any or all of the qualification 
     requirements of subsections (g)(1) and (2) for a person if 
     the person possesses significant potential for advancement to 
     levels of greater responsibility and authority, based on 
     demonstrated job performance and qualifying experience. This 
     authority may not be redelegated by the senior procurement 
     executive. With respect to each waiver granted under this 
     subsection, the senior procurement executive shall set forth 
     in writing the rationale for the decision to waive such 
     requirements.
       ``(h) Program Establishment and Implementation.--
       ``(1) Funding levels.--(A) The head of an executive agency 
     shall request in the budget for a fiscal year for the 
     agency--
       ``(i) for education and training under this section, an 
     amount equal to no less than 2.5 percent of the base 
     aggregate salary cost of the acquisition workforce subject to 
     this section for that fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) for salaries of the acquisition workforce, an amount 
     equal to no more than 97.5 percent of such base aggregate 
     salary cost.
       ``(B) The head of the executive agency shall set forth 
     separately the funding levels requested in the budget 
     justification documents submitted in support of the 
     President's budget submitted to Congress under section 1105 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(C) Funds appropriated for education and training under 
     this section may not be obligated or used for any other 
     purpose.
       ``(2) Interagency agreements.--The head of an executive 
     agency may enter into a written agreement with another agency 
     to participate in programs established under this section on 
     a reimbursable basis.
       ``(3) Tuition assistance.--Notwithstanding the prohibition 
     in section 4107(b) of title 5, United States Code, the head 
     of each executive agency may provide for tuition 
     reimbursement and education (including a full-time course of 
     study leading to a degree) for acquisition personnel in the 
     agency related to the purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Intern programs.--The head of each executive agency 
     may establish intern programs in order to recruit highly 
     qualified and talented individuals and provide them with 
     opportunities for accelerated promotions, career broadening 
     assignments, and specified training for advancement to senior 
     acquisition positions. For such programs, the head of an 
     executive agency, without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, may appoint individuals to competitive 
     GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9 positions in the General Schedule 
     Contracting series (GS-1102) who have graduated from 
     baccalaureate or master's programs in purchasing or 
     contracting from accredited educational institutions 
     authorized to grant baccalaureate and master's degrees.
       ``(5) Cooperative education program.--The head of each 
     executive agency may establish an agencywide cooperative 
     education credit program for acquisition positions. Under the 
     program, the head of the executive agency may enter into 
     cooperative arrangements with one or more accredited 
     institutions of higher education which provide for such 
     institutions to grant undergraduate credit for work performed 
     in such position.
       ``(6) Scholarship program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Where deemed appropriate, the head of 
     each executive agency may establish a scholarship program for 
     the purpose of qualifying individuals for acquisition 
     positions in the agency.
       ``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in a 
     scholarship program established under this paragraph by an 
     executive agency, an individual must--
       ``(i) be accepted for enrollment or be currently enrolled 
     as a full-time student at an accredited educational 
     institution authorized to grant baccalaureate or graduate 
     degrees (as appropriate);
       ``(ii) be pursuing a course of education that leads toward 
     completion of a bachelor's, master's, or doctor's degree (as 
     appropriate) in a qualifying field of study, as determined by 
     the head of the agency;
       ``(iii) sign an agreement described in subparagraph (C) 
     under which the participant agrees to serve a period of 
     obligated service in the agency in an acquisition position in 
     return for payment of educational assistance as provided in 
     the agreement; and [[Page H5920]] 
       ``(iv) meet such other requirements as the head of the 
     agency prescribes.
       ``(C) Agreement.--An agreement between the head of an 
     executive agency and a participant in a scholarship program 
     established under this paragraph shall be in writing, shall 
     be signed by the participant, and shall include the following 
     provisions:
       ``(i) The agreement of the head of the agency to provide 
     the participant with educational assistance for a specified 
     number of school years, not to exceed 4, during which the 
     participant is pursuing a course of education in a qualifying 
     field of study. The assistance may include payment of 
     tuition, fees, books, laboratory expenses, and a stipend.
       ``(ii) The participant's agreement--

       ``(I) to accept such educational assistance,
       ``(II) to maintain enrollment and attendance in the course 
     of education until completed,
       ``(III) while enrolled in such course, to maintain an 
     acceptable level of academic standing (as prescribed by the 
     head of the agency), and
       ``(IV) after completion of the course of education, to 
     serve as a full-time employee in an acquisition position in 
     the agency for a period of time of one calendar year for each 
     school year or part thereof for which the participant was 
     provided a scholarship under the program.

       ``(D) Repayment.--(i) Any person participating in a program 
     established under this paragraph shall agree to pay to the 
     United States the total amount of educational assistance 
     provided to the person under the program if the person is 
     voluntarily separated from the agency or involuntarily 
     separated for cause from the agency before the end of the 
     period for which the person has agreed to continue in the 
     service of the agency in an acquisition position.
       ``(ii) If an employee fails to fulfill the agreement to pay 
     to the Government the total amount of educational assistance 
     provided to the person under the program, a sum equal to the 
     amount of the educational assistance may be recovered by the 
     Government from the employee (or the estate of the employee) 
     by setoff against accrued pay, compensation, amount of 
     retirement credit, or other amount due the employee from the 
     Government; and by such other method as is provided by law 
     for the recovery of amounts owing to the Government.
       ``(iii) The head of an executive agency may waive in whole 
     or in part a repayment required under this paragraph if the 
     head of the agency determines the recovery would be against 
     equity and good conscience or would be contrary to the best 
     interests of the United States.
       ``(E) Termination of agreement.--There shall be no 
     requirement that a position be offered to a person after such 
     person successfully completes a course of education required 
     by an agreement under this paragraph. If no position is 
     offered, the agreement shall be considered terminated.''.
       (2) The table of contents for such Act, contained in 
     section 1(b), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 38. Acquisition workforce.''.
       (b) Federal Acquisition Institute.--Section 6 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) by amending paragraph (5) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) providing for and directing the activities of the 
     Federal Acquisition Institute (including recommending to the 
     Administrator of General Services a sufficient budget for 
     such activities), which shall be located in the General 
     Services Administration;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) The Federal Acquisition Institute shall--
       ``(1) recommend policies, procedures, and guidelines to the 
     Administrator, for--
       ``(A) fostering and promoting the development of a 
     professional acquisition workforce governmentwide, and
       ``(B) administering the provisions of section 35;
       ``(2) collect data and analyze acquisition workforce data 
     from the Office of Personnel Management, the heads of 
     executive agencies, and, through periodic surveys, from 
     individual employees;
       ``(3) periodically analyze acquisition career fields to 
     identify critical competencies, duties, tasks, and related 
     academic prerequisites, skills, and knowledge;
       ``(4) coordinate and assist agencies in identifying and 
     recruiting highly qualified candidates for acquisition 
     fields;
       ``(5) develop instructional materials for acquisition 
     personnel in coordination with private and public acquisition 
     colleges and training facilities;
       ``(6) evaluate the effectiveness of training and career 
     development programs for acquisition personnel;
       ``(7) promote the establishment and utilization of academic 
     programs by colleges and universities in acquisition fields;
       ``(8) promote, coordinate, or conduct governmentwide 
     research and studies to improve the acquisition process and 
     the laws, policies, methods, regulations, procedures, and 
     forms relating to acquisition by the executive agencies;
       ``(9) facilitate, to the extent requested by agencies, 
     interagency intern and training programs; and
       ``(10) perform other career management or research 
     functions as directed by the Administrator.''.
       (c) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Section 502 of the 
     Small Business and Federal Procurement Competition 
     Enhancement Act of 1984 (41 U.S.C. 414a) is repealed.
             Subtitle D--Streamlining of Dispute Resolution

                       PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 850. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``Board'' means the United States Board of 
     Contract Appeals.
       (2) The term ``Board judge'' means a member of the United 
     States Board of Contract Appeals.
       (3) The term ``Chairman'' means the Chairman of the United 
     States Board of Contract Appeals.
       (4) The term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given by 
     section 2(2) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     601(2)).
       (5) The term ``alternative means of dispute resolution'' 
     has the meaning given by section 571(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (6) The term ``protest'' means a written objection by an 
     interested party to any of the following:
       (A) A solicitation or other request by an executive agency 
     for offers for a contract for the procurement of property or 
     services.
       (B) The cancellation of such a solicitation or other 
     request.
       (C) An award or proposed award of such a contract.
       (D) A termination or cancellation of an award of such a 
     contract, if the written objection contains an allegation 
     that the termination or cancellation is based in whole or in 
     part on improprieties concerning the award of the contract.
       (7) The term ``interested party'', with respect to a 
     contract or a solicitation or other request for offers, means 
     an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct 
     economic interest would be affected by the award of the 
     contract or by failure to award the contract.
       (8) The term ``prevailing party'', with respect to a 
     determination of the Board under section 864(b) that a 
     decision of a contracting officer violates a statute or 
     regulation, means a party that demonstrated such violation.

 PART II--ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

     SEC. 851. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established in the executive branch of the 
     Government an independent establishment to be known as the 
     United States Board of Contract Appeals.

     SEC. 852. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Appointment.--(1) The Board shall consist of Board 
     judges appointed by the Chairman, without regard to political 
     affiliation and solely on the basis of the professional 
     qualifications required to perform the duties and 
     responsibilities of a Board judge, from a register of 
     applicants maintained by the Board.
       (2) The members of the Board shall be selected and 
     appointed to serve in the same manner as administrative law 
     judges appointed pursuant to section 3105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, with an additional requirement that such members 
     shall have had not fewer than five years' experience in 
     public contract law.
       (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) and subject to subsection 
     (b), the following persons shall serve as Board judges:
       (A) Any full-time member of an agency board of contract 
     appeals serving as such on the day before the effective date 
     of this subtitle.
       (B) Any person serving on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in a position at a level of assistant 
     general counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Removal.--Members of the Board shall be subject to 
     removal in the same manner as administrative law judges, as 
     provided in section 7521 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Compensation.--Compensation for the Chairman and all 
     other members of the Board shall be determined under section 
     5273a of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 853. CHAIRMAN.

       (a) Designation.--(1) The Chairman shall be designated by 
     the President to serve for a term of five years. The 
     President shall select the Chairman from among sitting Board 
     judges each of whom has had at least five years of service--
       (A) as a member of an agency board of contract appeals; or
       (B) in a position at a level of assistant general counsel 
     or higher with authority delegated from the Comptroller 
     General to decide bid protests under subchapter V of chapter 
     35 of title 31, United States Code (as in effect on the day 
     before the effective date of this subtitle).
       (2) A Chairman may continue to serve after the expiration 
     of the Chairman's term until a successor has taken office. A 
     Chairman may be reappointed any number of times.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The Chairman shall be responsible on 
     behalf of the Board for the executive and administrative 
     operation of the Board, including functions of the Board with 
     respect to the following:
       (1) The selection, appointment, and fixing of the 
     compensation of such personnel, pursuant to part III of title 
     5, United States Code, as the Chairman considers necessary or 
     appropriate, including a Clerk of the Board, a General 
     Counsel, and clerical and legal assistance for Board 
     judges. [[Page H5921]] 
       (2) The supervision of personnel employed by or assigned to 
     the Board, and the distribution of work among such personnel.
       (3) The response to any request that may be made by 
     Congress or the Office of Management and Budget.
       (4) The allocation of funds among the various functions of 
     the Board.
       (5) The entering into and performance of such contracts, 
     leases, cooperative agreements, or other similar transactions 
     with public agencies and private organizations and persons, 
     and the making of such payments, as the Chairman considers 
     necessary or appropriate to carry out functions vested in the 
     Board.
       (6) The operation of an Office of the Clerk of the Board, 
     including the receipt of all filings made with the Board, the 
     assignment of cases, and the maintenance of all records of 
     the Board.
       (7) The acquisition, operation, and maintenance of such 
     automatic data processing resources as may be needed by the 
     Board.
       (8) The prescription of such rules and regulations as the 
     Chairman considers necessary or appropriate for the 
     administration and management of the Board.
       (c) Vice Chairmen.--The Chairman may designate up to four 
     other Board judges as Vice Chairmen. The Chairman may divide 
     the Board into two or more divisions, and, if such division 
     is made, shall assign a Vice Chairman to head each division. 
     The Vice Chairmen, in the order designated by the Chairman, 
     shall act in the place and stead of the Chairman during the 
     absence of the Chairman.

     SEC. 854. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--The Board may establish--
       (1) such procedural rules and regulations as are necessary 
     to the exercise of its functions, including internal rules 
     for the assignment of cases; and
       (2) statements of policy of general applicability with 
     respect to its functions.
       (b) Prohibition on Review by Other Agency or Person.--Rules 
     and regulations established by the Board (including forms 
     which are a part thereof) shall not be subject to review by 
     any other agency or person (including the Administrator of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs, pursuant to chapter 35 of 
     title 44, United States Code) in advance of publication.

     SEC. 855. LITIGATION AUTHORITY.

       Except as provided in section 518 of title 28, United 
     States Code, relating to litigation before the Supreme Court, 
     attorneys designated by the Chairman may appear for, and 
     represent the Board in, any civil action brought in 
     connection with any function carried out by the Board.

     SEC. 856. SEAL OF BOARD.

       The Chairman shall cause a seal of office to be made for 
     the Board of such design as the Board shall approve. Judicial 
     notice shall be taken of such seal.

     SEC. 857. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     1997 and each succeeding fiscal year such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this subtitle and to 
     enable the Board to perform its functions. Funds appropriate 
     pursuant to this section shall remain available until 
     expended.

     PART III--FUNCTIONS OF UNITED STATES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

     SEC. 861. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES.

       (a) Requirement To Provide Services Upon Request.--The 
     Board shall provide alternative means of dispute resolution 
     for any disagreement regarding a contract or prospective 
     contract of an executive agency upon the request of all 
     parties to the disagreement.
       (b) Personnel Qualified To Act.--Each Board judge and each 
     attorney employed by the Board shall be considered to be 
     qualified to act for the purpose of conducting alternative 
     means of dispute resolution under this section.
       (c) Services To Be Provided Without Charge.--Any services 
     provided by the Board or any Board judge or employee pursuant 
     to this section shall be provided without charge.
       (d) Recusal of Certain Personnel Upon Request.--In the 
     event that a matter which is presented to the Board for 
     alternative means of dispute resolution, pursuant to this 
     section, later becomes the subject of formal proceedings 
     before the Board, any Board judge or employee who was 
     involved in the alternative means shall, if requested by any 
     party to the formal proceeding, take no part in that 
     proceeding.

     SEC. 862. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND 
                   PROTESTS SUBMITTED TO BOARD.

       With reasonable promptness after the submission to the 
     Board of a contract dispute under section 863 or a bid 
     protest under section 864, a Board judge to whom the contract 
     dispute or protest is assigned shall request the parties to 
     meet with a Board judge, or an attorney employed by the 
     Board, for the purpose of attempting to resolve the dispute 
     or protest through alternative means of dispute resolution. 
     Formal proceedings in the appeal shall then be suspended 
     until such time as any party or a Board judge to whom the 
     dispute or protest is assigned determines that alternative 
     means of dispute resolution are not appropriate for 
     resolution of the dispute or protest.

     SEC. 863. CONTRACT DISPUTES.

       The Board shall have jurisdiction as provided by section 
     8(a) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601-
     613).
     SEC. 864. PROTESTS.

       (a) Review Required Upon Request.--Upon request of an 
     interested party in connection with any procurement conducted 
     by any executive agency, the Board shall review, as provided 
     in this section, any decision by a contracting officer 
     alleged to violate a statute or regulation. The authority of 
     the Board to conduct such review shall include the authority 
     to review regulations to determine their consistency with 
     applicable statutes. A decision or order of the Board 
     pursuant to this section shall not be subject to 
     interlocutory appeal or review.
       (b) Standard of Review.--In deciding a protest, the Board 
     may consider all evidence that is relevant to the decision 
     under protest. It shall accord a presumption of correctness 
     to all facts found and determinations made by the contracting 
     officer whose decision is being protested. The protester may 
     rebut this presumption by showing, by a preponderance of the 
     evidence, that a finding or determination was incorrect. The 
     Board may find that a decision by a contracting officer 
     violates a statute or regulation for any of the reasons 
     stated in section 706(2) of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Determination of Whether to Suspend Authority To 
     Conduct Procurement in Protest Filed Before Contract Award.--
     (1) When a protest under this section is filed before the 
     award of a contract in a protested procurement, the Board, at 
     the request of an interested party and within 10 days after 
     the submission of the protest, shall hold a hearing to 
     determine whether the Board should suspend the authority of 
     the executive agency involved (or its head) to conduct such 
     procurement until the Board can decide the protest.
       (2) The Board shall suspend the authority of the executive 
     agency (or its head) unless the agency concerned establishes 
     that--
       (A) absent action by the Board, contract award is likely to 
     occur within 30 days after the hearing; and
       (B) urgent and compelling circumstances which significantly 
     affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting 
     for the decision of the Board.
       (3) A suspension under paragraph (2) shall not preclude the 
     executive agency concerned from continuing the procurement 
     process up to but not including award of the contract unless 
     the Board determines such action is not in the best interests 
     of the United States.
       (d) Determination of Whether to Suspend Authority To 
     Conduct Procurement in Protest Filed After Contract Award.--
     (1) If, with respect to an award of a contract, the Board 
     receives notice of a protest under this section within the 
     period described in paragraph (2), the Board shall, at the 
     request of an interested party, hold a hearing to determine 
     whether the Board should suspend the authority of the 
     executive agency involved (or its head) to conduct such 
     procurement until the Board can decide the protest.
       (2) The period referred to in paragraph (1) is the period 
     beginning on the date on which the contract is awarded and 
     ending at the end of the later of--
       (A) the tenth day after the date of contract award; or
       (B) the fifth day after the debriefing date offered to an 
     unsuccessful offeror for any debriefing that is requested 
     and, when requested, is required.
       (3) The Board shall hold the requested hearing within 5 
     days after the date of the filing of the protest or, in the 
     case of a request for debriefing, within 5 days after the 
     later of the date of the filing of the protest or the date of 
     the debriefing.
       (4) The Board shall suspend the procurement authority of 
     the executive agency involved (or its head) to acquire any 
     goods or services under the contract which are not previously 
     delivered and accepted unless such agency establishes that 
     urgent and compelling circumstances which significantly 
     affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting 
     for the decision of the Board.
       (e) Procedures.--
       (1) Proceedings and discovery.--The Board shall conduct 
     proceedings and allow such discovery as may be required for 
     the expeditious, fair, and reasonable resolution of the 
     protest. The Board shall limit discovery to material which is 
     relevant to the grounds of protest or to such affirmative 
     defenses as the executive agency involved, or any intervenor 
     supporting the agency, may raise.
       (2) Priority.--The Board shall give priority to protests 
     filed under this section over contract disputes and 
     alternative dispute services. Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), the Board shall issue its final decision within 65 days 
     after the date of the filing of the protest, unless the 
     Chairman determines that the specific and unique 
     circumstances of the protest require a longer period, in 
     which case the Board shall issue such decision within the 
     longer period determined by the Chairman. An amendment that 
     adds a new ground of protest should be resolved, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, within the time limits 
     established for resolution of the initial protest.
       (3) Threshold.--Any protest in which the anticipated value 
     of the contract award that will result from the protested 
     procurement, as estimated by the executive agency involved, 
     is less than $1,000,000 shall be considered under simplified 
     rules of procedure. These rules shall provide that discovery 
     in [[Page H5922]] such protests shall be in writing only. 
     Such protests shall be decided by a single Board judge, whose 
     decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be set 
     aside except in cases of fraud. The Board shall issue its 
     final decision in each such protest within 35 days after the 
     date of the filing of the protest.
       (4) Calculation of time for adr.--In calculating time for 
     purposes of paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection, any days 
     during which proceedings are suspended for the purpose of 
     attempting to resolve the protest by alternative means of 
     dispute resolution, up to a maximum of 20 days, shall not be 
     counted.
       (5) Dismissal of frivolous protests.--The Board may dismiss 
     a protest that the Board determines is frivolous or which, on 
     its face, does not state a valid basis for protest.
       (6) Payment of costs for frivolous protests.--(A) If the 
     Board expressly finds that a protest or a portion of a 
     protest is frivolous or does not state on its face a valid 
     basis for protest, the Board shall declare that the protester 
     or other interested party who joins the protest is liable to 
     the United States for payment of the costs described in 
     subparagraph (B) unless--
       (i) special circumstances would make such payment unjust; 
     or
       (ii) the protester obtains documents or other information 
     after the protest is filed with the Board that establishes 
     that the protest or a portion of the protest is frivolous or 
     does not state on its face a valid basis for protest, and the 
     protester then promptly withdraws the protest or portion of 
     the protest.
       (B) The costs referred to in subparagraph (A) are all of 
     the costs incurred by the United States of reviewing the 
     protest, or of reviewing that portion of the protest for 
     which the finding is made, including the fees and other 
     expenses (as defined in section 2412(d)(2)(A) of title 28, 
     United States Code) incurred by the United States in 
     defending the protest.
       (f) Decisions and Corrective Actions on Protests.--(1) In 
     making a decision on protests filed under this section, the 
     Board shall accord due weight to the goals of economic and 
     efficient procurement, and shall take due account of the rule 
     of prejudicial error.
       (2) If the Board determines that a decision of a 
     contracting officer violates a statute or regulation, the 
     Board may order the agency (or its head) to take such 
     corrective action as the Board considers appropriate. 
     Corrective action includes requiring that the Federal 
     agency--
       (A) refrain from exercising any of its options under the 
     contract;
       (B) recompete the contract immediately;
       (C) issue a new solicitation;
       (D) terminate the contract;
       (E) award a contract consistent with the requirements of 
     such statute and regulation;
       (F) implement any combination of requirements under 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E); or
       (G) implement such other actions as the Board determines 
     necessary.
       (3) If the Board orders corrective action after the 
     contract award, the affected contract shall be presumed valid 
     as to all goods or services delivered and accepted under the 
     contract before the corrective action was ordered.
       (4) Any agreement that provides for the dismissal of a 
     protest and involves a direct or indirect expenditure of 
     appropriated funds shall be submitted to the Board and shall 
     be made a part of the public record (subject to any 
     protective order considered appropriate by the Board) before 
     dismissal of the protest.
       (g) Authority To Declare Entitlement to Costs.--(1)(A) 
     Whenever the Board determines that a decision of a 
     contracting officer violates a statute or regulation, it may, 
     in accordance with section 1304 of title 31, United States 
     Code, further declare an appropriate prevailing party to be 
     entitled to the costs of--
       (i) filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable 
     attorneys' fees and consultant and expert witness fees, and
       (ii) bid and proposal preparation.
       (B) No party (other than a small business concern (within 
     the meaning of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act)) may 
     be declared entitled under this paragraph to costs for--
       (i) consultants and expert witness fees that exceed the 
     highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the 
     Federal Government, or
       (ii) attorneys' fees that exceed $150 per hour unless the 
     Board, on a case by case basis, determines that an increase 
     in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the 
     limited availability of qualified attorneys for the 
     proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.
       (2) Payment of amounts due from an agency under paragraph 
     (1) or under the terms of a settlement agreement under 
     subsection (e)(4) shall be made from the appropriation made 
     by section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, for the 
     payment of judgments. The executive agency concerned shall 
     reimburse that appropriation account out of funds available 
     for the procurement.
       (h) Appeals.--Except as provided in subsection (e)(3), a 
     final decision of the Board may be appealed as set forth in 
     section 8(d)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 by the 
     head of the executive agency concerned and by any interested 
     party, including interested parties who intervene in any 
     protest filed under this section.
       (i) Additional Relief.--Nothing contained in this section 
     shall affect the power of the Board to order any additional 
     relief which it is authorized to provide under any statute or 
     regulation.
       (j) Nonexclusivity of Remedies.--Nothing contained in this 
     section shall affect the right of any interested party to 
     file a protest with the contracting agency or to file an 
     action in the United States Court of Federal Claims or in a 
     United States district court.

     SEC. 865. APPLICABILITY TO CONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

       Notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 430), the authority 
     conferred on the Board by this subtitle is applicable to 
     contracts for the procurement of commercial items.

 PART IV--REPEAL OF OTHER STATUTES AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE PROTESTS

     SEC. 871. REPEALS.

       (a) GSBCA Provisions.--Subsection (f) of the Brooks 
     Automatic Data Processing Act (section 111 of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; 40 U.S.C. 
     759) is repealed.
       (b) GAO Provisions.--Subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 
     31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 3551-3556) is repealed.

 PART V--TRANSFERS AND TRANSITIONAL, SAVINGS, AND CONFORMING PROVISIONS

     SEC. 881. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) Transfer.--The personnel employed in connection with, 
     and the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, 
     and unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations, 
     allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising 
     from, available to, or to be made available in connection 
     with the functions vested by law in the Comptroller General 
     pursuant to subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, United 
     States Code, and in the boards of contract appeals 
     established pursuant to section 8 of the Contract Disputes 
     Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) (as in effect on the day before 
     the effective date of this Act), shall be transferred to the 
     Board for appropriate allocation by the Chairman.
       (b) Effect on Personnel.--Personnel transferred pursuant to 
     this subtitle shall not be separated or reduced in 
     compensation for one year after such transfer, except for 
     cause.
       (c) Regulations.--(1) The Board shall prescribe regulations 
     for the release of competing employees in a reduction in 
     force that gives due effect to--
       (A) efficiency or performance ratings;
       (B) military preference; and
       (C) tenure of employment.
       (2) In prescribing the regulations, the Board shall provide 
     for military preference in the same manner as set forth in 
     subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 882. TERMINATIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Termination of Boards of Contract Appeals.--On the 
     effective date of this subtitle, the boards of contract 
     appeals established pursuant to section 8 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) (as in effect on the day 
     before the effective date of this Act) shall terminate.
       (b) Savings Provision for Contract Dispute Matters Pending 
     Before Boards.--The provisions of this subtitle shall not 
     affect any proceedings (other than bid protests pending 
     before the board of contract appeals of the General Services 
     Administration) pending on the effective date of this Act 
     before any board of contract appeals described in subsection 
     (a). Such proceedings shall be continued by the Board, and 
     orders which were issued in any such proceeding by any board 
     of contract appeals shall continue in effect until modified, 
     terminated, superseded, or revoked by the Board, by a court 
     of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (c) Bid Protest Transition Provisions.--(1) No protest may 
     be submitted to the Comptroller General pursuant to section 
     3553(a) of title 31, United States Code, or to the board of 
     contract appeals for the General Services Administration 
     pursuant to the Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act (40 
     U.S.C. 759) on or after the effective date of this Act.
       (2) The provisions repealed by section 871 shall continue 
     to apply to proceedings pending on the effective date of this 
     subtitle before the board of contract appeals of the General 
     Services Administration and the Comptroller General pursuant 
     to those provisions, until the board or the Comptroller 
     General determines such proceedings have been completed.

     SEC. 883. CONTRACT DISPUTE AUTHORITY OF BOARD.

       (a) Section 2 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 601) is amended by striking out paragraph (6) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(6) the term `Board' means the United States Board of 
     Contract Appeals; and''.
       (b) Section 6(c) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 605(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking out ``the agency board of contract 
     appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the United States 
     Board of Contract Appeals''; and
       (B) by striking out ``the board'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the Board''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking out ``an agency board of contract appeals'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``the United States Board of 
     Contract Appeals''; and [[Page H5923]] 
       (B) by striking out ``agency board'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the Board''.
       (c) Section 7 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 606) is amended by striking out ``an agency board of 
     contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the United 
     States Board of Contract Appeals''.
       (d) Section 8 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 607) is amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:


              ``united states board of contract appeals'';

       (2) by striking out subsections (a), (b), and (c);
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking out the first sentence and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     ``The United States Board of Contract Appeals shall have 
     jurisdiction to decide any appeal from a decision of a 
     contracting officer of any executive agency relative to a 
     contract made by that agency.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking out ``the agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking out ``An agency board'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``The United States Board of 
     Contract Appeals'';
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking out ``each agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the United States 
     Board of Contract Appeals'';
       (6) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking out 
     ``an agency board of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the United States Board of Contract Appeals'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
       (7) by striking out subsections (h) and (i); and
       (8) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) (as 
     amended) as subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
       (e) Section 9 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 608) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``each agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the United States 
     Board of Contract Appeals''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking out ``the agency board'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board''.
       (f) Section 10 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 609) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking out ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     and in'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``In''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``an agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the United States Board of Contract Appeals'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2), and in 
     that paragraph, by striking out ``or (2)'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking out ``any agency board'' 
     and ``the agency board'' and inserting in lieu of each ``the 
     Board'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking out ``an agency board'' 
     and ``the agency board'' and inserting in lieu of each ``the 
     Board''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking out ``one or more agency 
     boards'' and ``or among the agency boards involved'' and 
     inserting in lieu of each ``the Board''.
       (g) Section 11 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 610) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``an agency 
     board of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the United States Board of Contract Appeals''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking out ``the agency 
     board through the Attorney General; or upon application by 
     the board of contract appeals of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board''.
       (h) Section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 612) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking out ``an agency board of 
     contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the United 
     States Board of Contract Appeals''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking out ``by the board of 
     contract appeals for'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by the 
     Board from''.

     SEC. 884. REFERENCES TO AGENCY BOARDS OF CONTRACT APPEALS.

       Any reference to an agency board of contract appeals in any 
     provision of law or in any rule, regulation, or other paper 
     of the United States shall be treated as referring to the 
     United States Board of Contract Appeals.

     SEC. 885. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Title 5.--Section 5372a of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``an agency board 
     of contract appeals appointed under section 8 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     United States Board of Contract Appeals'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``an agency board 
     of contract appeals established pursuant to section 8 of the 
     Contract Disputes Act of 1978'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the United States Board of Contract Appeals''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking out ``an appeals board'' 
     each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     appeals board''.
       (b) Title 10.--(1) Section 2305(e) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subchapter V of 
     chapter 35 of title 31'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``title IV of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995''; 
     and
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 2305(f) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 
     31'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 424(f)(2) of the 
     Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (1) of 
     section 3554(c) of title 31'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 424(g)(1)(A) of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act 
     of 1995''.
       (c) Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949.--(1) Section 303B(h) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b(h)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subchapter V of 
     chapter 35 of title 31'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``title IV of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995''; 
     and
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 303B(i) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253b(i)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 
     31'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 424(f)(2) of the 
     Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (1) of 
     section 3554(c) of title 31'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 424(g)(1)(A) of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act 
     of 1995''.

         PART VI--EFFECTIVE DATE; INTERIM APPOINTMENT AND RULES

     SEC. 891. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle shall take effect on October 1, 1996.

     SEC. 892. INTERIM APPOINTMENT.

       The Board judge serving as chairman of the board of 
     contract appeals of the General Services Administration on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act shall serve as Chairman 
     during the two-year period beginning on the effective date of 
     this subtitle, unless such individual resigns such position 
     or the position otherwise becomes vacant before the 
     expiration of such period. The authority vested in the 
     President by section 853 shall take effect upon the 
     expiration of such two-year period or on the date such 
     position is vacated, whichever occurs earlier.

     SEC. 893. INTERIM RULES.

       (a) Rules of Procedure.--Until such date as the Board 
     promulgates rules of procedure, the rules of procedure of the 
     board of contract appeals of the General Services 
     Administration, as in effect on the effective date of this 
     Act, shall be the rules of procedure of the Board.
       (b) Rules Regarding Board Judges.--Until such date as the 
     Board promulgates rules governing the establishment and 
     maintenance of a register of eligible applicants and the 
     selection of Board judges, the rules of the Armed Services 
     Board of Contract Appeals governing the establishment and 
     maintenance of a register of eligible applicants and the 
     selection of board members shall be the rules of the Board 
     governing the establishment and maintenance of a register of 
     eligible applicants and the selection of Board judges, except 
     that any provisions of the rules of the Armed Services Board 
     of Contract Appeals that authorize any individual other than 
     the chairman of such board to select a Board judge shall have 
     no effect.
             Subtitle E--Effective Dates and Implementation

     SEC. 895. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, this title and the amendments made by this title shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Applicability of Amendments.--(1) An amendment made by 
     this title shall apply, in the manner prescribed in the final 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to section 896 to implement 
     such amendment, with respect to any solicitation that is 
     issued, any unsolicited proposal that is received, and any 
     contract entered into pursuant to such a solicitation or 
     proposal, on or after the date described in paragraph (3).
       (2) An amendment made by this title shall also apply, to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed in the final 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to section 896 to implement 
     such amendment, with respect to any matter related to--
       (A) a contract that is in effect on the date described in 
     paragraph (3);
       (B) an offer under consideration on the date described in 
     paragraph (3); or
       (C) any other proceeding or action that is ongoing on the 
     date described in paragraph (3).
       (3) The date referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) is the 
     date specified in such final regulations. The date so 
     specified shall be October 1, 1996, or any earlier date that 
     is not within 30 days after the date on which such final 
     regulations are published.

     SEC. 896. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       (a) Proposed Revisions.--Proposed revisions to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation and such other proposed regulations 
     (or revisions to existing regulations) as may be necessary to 
     implement this title shall be published in the Federal 
     Register not later than 210 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Public Comment.--The proposed regulations described in 
     subsection (a) shall be made available for public comment for 
     a period of not less than 60 days.
       (c) Final Regulations.--Final regulations shall be 
     published in the Federal Register not later than 330 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act. [[Page H5924]] 
       (d) Modifications.--Final regulations promulgated pursuant 
     to this section to implement an amendment made by this title 
     may provide for modification of an existing contract without 
     consideration upon the request of the contractor.
       (e) Savings Provisions.--(1) Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to affect the validity of any action taken or any 
     contract entered into before the date specified in the 
     regulations pursuant to section 895(b)(3) except to the 
     extent and in the manner prescribed in such regulations.
       (2) Except as specifically provided in this title, nothing 
     in this title shall be construed to require the renegotiation 
     or modification of contracts in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Except as otherwise provided in this title, a law 
     amended by this title shall continue to be applied according 
     to the provisions thereof as such law was in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act until--
       (A) the date specified in final regulations implementing 
     the amendment of that law (as promulgated pursuant to this 
     section); or
       (B) if no such date is specified in regulations, October 1, 
     1996.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 20 
minutes. Is the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the Clinger-Spence-Kasich acquisition 
reform amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1996. This amendment would modernize and streamline the 
procurement procedures of the Department of Defense and the civilian 
agencies. It builds upon legislation enacted last year and represents a 
significant shift in the operation of our Federal procurement system to 
meet the needs of the American taxpayer.
  This amendment has been developed from H.R. 1670, the Federal 
Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, a bill Mr. Spence and I, along with 
other members of our committees, have introduced. You have heard and 
may hear again that we are rushing through legislation that has had no 
hearings. This is simply not true. We held a hearing in February to 
solicit proposals for simplifying and streamlining the Federal 
procurement process. This was a followup to last year's Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 [FASA], the bipartisan effort to 
reform the complex Federal procurement system.
  During this hearing we were exposed to various proposals for reform--
ranging from minor technical corrections to a complete overhaul of the 
system. During the last few months, Chairman Spence and I, in 
conjunction with other committee members, have poured over and 
carefully considered this wealth of ideas. This effort culminated in 
the introduction of H.R. 1670, which is a synthesis of all of those 
ideas, which I think distills those ideas and takes the best and in 
corporates it into this bill. Subsequent to the introduction of H.R. 
1670, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the 
Committee of National Security held an unprecedented joint hearing to 
solicit comments specifically on this legislation from many senior 
industry executives and government officials.
  Further, I have been working with my ranking minority member, Mrs. 
Collins, to refine the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment to include, for 
the most part, five of the six amendments she and Mrs. Maloney offered 
at the Rules Committee. I think these have substantially improved the 
bill. The amendment which we are offering today includes that language 
which came about as a result of those discussions and negotiations.
  While we will continue to pursue H.R. 1670 through the traditional 
course, and I want to emphasize that we will continue to pursue this 
bill through the traditional course, and along those lines we have 
scheduled a markup in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee for 
June 21, next week, we are similarly committed however to pursuing this 
matter as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1996.
  This approach is not intended to short circuit the process or to 
preclude anybody from having their input into the ultimate process but 
it is intended simply to maximize our opportunities for enactment of a 
significant piece of Government reform by the end of this year. And I 
might say that the administration is supportive of these efforts to 
enhance and improve the procurement reforms we made last year.

                              {time}  1040

  Each year, our Government spends about $200 billion on goods and 
services, and that is a substantial amount of money, ranging from 
weapons systems to computer systems to everyday commodities. The 
current system costs too much, involves way too much redtape, and ill-
serves both the taxpayer and industry.
  In December 1994, a report prepared for the Secretary of Defense 
found that, on average, the Government pays an additional 18 percent on 
what it buys solely because of the requirements it imposes on its 
contractors. We have the most unbelievably heavy burden on our 
contractors. This confirmed the average estimate by major contractors 
surveyed by GAO that the additional costs incurred in selling to the 
Government are about 19 percent. While some of the Government's unique 
requirements certainly are needed, we do not dispute that we clearly 
are paying an enormous premium for them--billions of dollars annually, 
that we need not be spending.
  And this is only part of the Government's inflated cost of doing 
business--for it includes only what is paid to contractors, not the 
cost of the Government's own administrative system. The Government's 
contracting officials are confronted with numerous mandates of their 
own, often amounting to step-by-step prescriptions that increase staff 
and equipment needs, and leave little room for the exercise of business 
judgment, initiative, and creativity. The Clinger-Spence-Kasich 
acquisition reform amendment focuses on these restrictions which 
hamstring the Government buyer and ultimately increase costs to the 
taxpayer.
  In addition, as a complement to the work we started last year with 
FASA, our amendment moves the Federal procurement system closer to a 
commercial-type process.
  Why should the Government be doing procurement in a wildly different 
way than happens in the private sector?
  As 10 senior industry executives stated in a letter to Chairman 
Spence and me, our approach ``will significantly lower the costs to the 
government--and industry--by replacing bureaucratic procedures that 
long ago outlived their usefulness with the type of streamlined 
approaches that continue to work so well in the commercial sector.''
  In fashioning our amendment, we were guided by a number of 
considerations: How to provide meaningful competition, obtain quality 
goods at reasonable prices, and ensure accountability of public 
officials for public transactions. At the same time, we are under 
enormous budgetary constraints that drive us to look at ways to meet 
our goals, yet do so in a way that is affordable and uses common sense.
  The Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment would:
  Maximize competition by permitting the Government to provide for 
meaningful competition--not competition for competition's sake--which 
would allow firms to concentrate their energies and resources on 
Government business that they can realistically meet;
  Provide a preference for expanded use of commercial products and 
services through simplified procedures, and the elimination of costly, 
time-consuming regulations designed primarily for the noncommercial 
environment;
  Create a single, understandable reasonable approach to procurement 
ethics and also eliminate a cumbersome certification process that has 
had little value and contributed significant costs to both Government 
and industry;
  Establish a results-oriented acquisition system which provides 
performance incentives--both positive and negative--for Government 
buyers and industry tied to cost and performance goals; and
  This amendment would eliminate the guesswork from the current bid 
protest and dispute resolution maze by creating a single administrative 
entity to handle such matters with a single set of efficient 
procedures.
  Some may say, in fact, have said, we should rest on our laurels, and 
let the [[Page H5925]] system absorb the changes made last year by 
FASA. But we must continue to push for reforms which will make the 
Federal procurement system work better and cost less. The Clinger/
Spence/Kasich amendment provides the fundamental changes necessary to 
promote affordable and commonsense approaches to meet our budgetary 
goals and move the Federal procurement system into the 21st century.
  If there has been one hallmark of this Congress, it has been to take 
away the regulatory overkill that we have imposed both on our 
Government procurement officials and also on the private sector. This 
amendment moves us dramatically in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Clinger-Spence-
Kasich amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, while I have been working cooperatively with Chairman 
Clinger over the past several days on his Governmentwide procurement 
amendment, I have serious concerns about the process that brings us 
here today. In the first place, a Governmentwide procurement bill 
should not be considered on the national defense authorization bill. 
Second, this amendment is being considered on the floor without benefit 
of debate within the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
  In previous Congresses, Republicans vigorously opposed nongermane 
amendments. Such amendments clearly undermine the integrity of our 
committee process. They deprive the majority and minority Members of 
the House, with the most expertise on a given subject, of the 
opportunity to carefully consider and fully debate complicated and 
difficult issues before House consideration. It also takes up valuable 
floor time on issues which might have been and should have been 
resolved by the committee.
  However, the rule has made Chairman Clinger's amendment in order, so 
I, along with the ranking Democratic member of the Government 
Information and Technology Subcommittee, Representative Maloney, have 
attempted to work with the chairman to improve his amendment. As a 
result, the modified Clinger amendment is a substantial improvement 
over the original amendment.
  With one important exception, Chairman Clinger has incorporated all 
of the proposed amendments which we offered to the Rules Committee. 
That one exception regards the Clinger amendment's elimination of full 
and open competition, which I believe will cripple the ability of small 
businesses to compete for Federal contracts. I will offer an amendment 
shortly to retain the current practice allowing all businesses to 
compete for Government contracts under full and open competition.
  In brief, our amendments represent significant reform and enhancement 
of Federal procurement policy. They allow for the increasing 
decentralization of procurement authority, and elicit greater cost-
effectiveness for the Federal Government and the taxpayer. Chairman 
Clinger and I share the same goals of modernizing and streamlining 
Federal acquisition procedures, and I applaud his recent efforts to 
reach a consensus with Democratic members of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee on procurement reform legislation.
  Let me briefly describe portions of my bill, H.R. 1795, that will be 
essentially incorporated into Chairman Clinger's modified amendment.
  First, the modified Clinger amendment now includes my amendment to 
improve Government procurement management practices by requiring 
Federal agencies to make more effective use of the cost-management 
tools and procedures known generally as value engineering.
  Value engineering is a long-standing and widely accepted technique in 
both the public and private sectors that, despite its proven 
capabilities, remains underutilized in the Federal acquisition process.
  Numerous GAO and IG reports, independent studies, and even the 
Presidentially appointed Grace Commission have demonstrated that 
Federal agencies' underutilization of value engineering has resulted in 
billions of dollars in lost opportunities to reduce costs to the 
Federal Government.
  This provision will ensure better implementation of value engineering 
procedures, and will thereby reduce capital and operation costs, and 
improve and maintain optimum quality of construction, administrative, 
program, acquisition, and grant projects.
  Second, Chairman Clinger has accepted my amendment to retain the 
knowing standard for criminal violations of our procurement integrity 
laws, and increase the maximum criminal penalty from 5 to 15 years. 
This change will facilitate the Justice Department's ability to 
prosecute criminal and civil procurement fraud cases.
  Third, Chairman Clinger has accepted our amendment to limit sole-
source contracting for commercial products. While I believe that the 
complete elimination of the simplified acquisition threshold contained 
in the Clinger amendment will raise problems, our amendment will place 
limits on its use and will help to ensure that an adequate level of 
competition is maintained with the expanded use of commercial items.
  Finally, Chairman Clinger has accepted an amendment by Representative 
Maloney that improves the performance capability of the frontline 
contracting personnel. The amendment requires civilian agency heads to 
adopt education, training, and incentive features that raise the level 
of excellence and professionalism of the acquisition work force.
  Mr. Chairman, the inclusion of these provisions in the Clinger 
amendment substantially improve the amendment. I commend the chairman 
for approaching this matter in the bipartisan spirit with which any 
acquisition reform effort should be undertaken.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the coauthor of this 
amendment and the chairman of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clinger-
Spence-Kasich amendment.
  This legislation represents an important leap forward in reforming 
today's antiquated and inefficient Federal procurement system.
  Last year, Congress enacted comprehensive acquisition reform 
legislation that is just now beginning to work itself through the 
regulatory process. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act was a good 
start in making needed incremental changes to the system.
  I realize that some may wonder why we are launching another round of 
acquisition reform while the last one is still going through the 
implementation process. The answer is simple--we cannot afford to wait 
for last year's modest reforms to go into effect before fixing the 
fundamental problems ailing the current system.
  Mr. Chairman, what is required today is fundamental reform, not 
incremental reform. The American taxpayer pays too much for the goods 
and services bought by the Federal Government. The current system 
results in products that are too costly, many times outdated, and of 
questionable quality.
  This issue is of critical importance because, how the Federal 
Government buys goods and services affects the budgets and programs 
under the jurisdiction of every single committee of the House. As we 
all contemplate the difficult fiscal reality of moving toward a 
balanced budget in 7 years, we must fix today's inefficient procurement 
system in order to maximize return on every single Federal tax dollar.
  As the Federal Government's largest single buyer, nowhere do these 
problems apply more than in the Department of Defense. While the bill 
before the House does increase spending relative to the President's 
budget request, even this spending level will not adequately cover the 
many critical military capability-, readiness-, and quality-of-life 
shortfalls facing the military in the years ahead.
  I supported this budget as it struck a prudent balance between 
halting
 the 10-year slide in defense spending and putting us on a track toward 
a balanced Federal budget. But I also realize that the shortfalls 
created by the drastic reductions in spending of the past few years 
will require that we aggressively find additional findings from within 
the defense program. [[Page H5926]] 

  H.R. 1530 begins this process by cutting nondefense spending, 
initiating a series of structural and organizational reforms and, 
through the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment, making important process 
reforms that will streamline acquisition procedures, reduce the costly 
overhead associated with Federal procurements and allow the Government 
to buy commercially more often.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that some in the House are concerned about 
moving governmentwide legislation of this importance on the defense 
bill. Let me briefly address this point. For the reasons I have 
mentioned, both Mr. Clinger and I are committed to having Congress pass 
comprehensive and fundamental acquisition reform legislation this year. 
To increase the likelihood of this objective, we have determined that a 
two-track process is in order. Putting this legislation on this bill 
represents one track. This approach provides the House with the option 
of pursuing acquisition reform legislation as part of the conference on 
the defense authorization bill.
  The second track--and the one that both Mr. Clinger and I prefer and 
are committed to vigorously pursue--is to move this legislation as a 
separate bill through the normal committee process. The Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee, which Mr. Clinger chairs, has already 
scheduled a markup on H.R. 1670 as the first step in a process designed 
to allow the House to work its will on this important topic through the 
normal deliberative process. Other committees, including the National 
Security Committee which I chair, will subsequently have an opportunity 
to consider and improve upon this legislation in the normal course of 
events.
  While the separate-bill track remains the approach of choice and I am 
confident that the House will allow such a separate bill to be brought 
to the House floor in an expeditious fashion, there is no assurance 
that the other body is similarly interested in quick action on this 
urgent priority. Therefore, we must retain all procedural options by 
having this second track. Regardless of which track ultimately gets 
used. Bill Clinger and I
 are committed to bringing to the conference and defending the 
substance of this legislation as it continues to be refined and 
improved through the normal legislative process.

  Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support and urge all my colleagues to 
support this amendment, it must also be said that it still requires 
further refinement in certain areas, particularly the provisions 
establishing a single bid protest forum. It is my intention to continue 
working this and other issues with Bill Clinger and other committees of 
interest and jurisdiction to improve upon the remaining problem areas.
  However, while we still have some fine points to work through, I am 
in full agreement with Bill Clinger and John Kasich that comprehensive, 
fundamental reform of the Federal acquisition system is needed as 
quickly as possible if we are to begin reducing the size and expense of 
the Federal Government. The Chinger-Spence-Kasich amendment is the 
proper vehicle to move us toward that objective.
  The gentlelady from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be offering a 
perfecting amendment that will walk back many of the important 
provisions of the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment. The Collins 
amendment, while well intentioned, would revert back to the same timid 
and ineffective reforms that we have engaged in for the past 10 years. 
What is needed is fundamental reform. Clinger-Spence-Kasich is that 
fundamental reform.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Collins amendment to 
water down the critical provisions of the Clinger-Spence-Kasich 
amendment and strongly support the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment as 
an important step toward a more efficient and cost-effective Federal 
acquisition system.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I share the chairman's commitment to 
modernize and streamline the procurement process, and I share his 
desire to dramatically improve the way the Federal Government spends 
more than $200 billion of the taxpayers' dollars in private contracts.
  But there are at least two fundamental problems with the substance of 
this amendment. First, it would weaken the requirement for full and 
open competition for Federal contracts, which has been Federal law 
since 1984. These requirements are the taxpayers' best protection 
against waste, fraud, and abuse.
  That the Clinger amendment weakens these taxpayer protections is 
extremely disturbing. The inspector general of the Department of 
Defense agrees with my objections and so stated in a letter to the 
chairman dated yesterday, and I am including that letter at this point 
in the Record, as follows:

                                                Inspector General,


                                        Department of Defense,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 13, 1995.
     Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Although we recently provided the 
     Department our views on H.R. 1670, ``Federal Acquisition 
     Reform Act of 1995,'' the enclosed comments on sections we 
     support or find troublesome are forwarded for your 
     consideration. We were especially troubled by proposals in 
     Sections 201 and 203 to reduce the number of contracts 
     subject to the Truth In Negotiations Act. The proposals 
     reduce the ability of contracting officers to ensure the 
     Government receives a fair price for items purchased on 
     noncompetitive contracts.
       I hope the information is helpful as the Congress continues 
     consideration of this important issue. If we can be of 
     further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John R. Crane, 
     Office of Congressional Liaison, at (703) 604-8324.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eleanor Hill,
                                                Inspector General.

   Inspector General, Department of Defense, Comments on H.R. 1670, 
                 Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995

       Section 101, Improvement of Competition Requirements. 
     Subsections (a) and (b) would amend 10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 
     U.S.C. 253, respectively, to establish a statutory preference 
     for the use of ``maximum practicable competition'' rather 
     than ``full and open competition.'' The proposed amendments 
     would eliminate the statutory exceptions to competition and 
     authorize DoD and civilian agencies to exclude a particular 
     source in order to establish or maintain an alternative 
     source of supply for a particular item or service. The 
     proposed amendments further provide that when noncompetitive 
     procedures are used to procure an item or service, the 
     procurement shall be justified in writing and approved in 
     accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. We 
     disagree with the proposed amendments. Contracting officers 
     have flexibility to exercise sound business judgment under 
     the current statute in determining the appropriate 
     acquisition strategy for a procurement. There is no 
     preference for sealed bids. Further, there are legitimate 
     reasons, which the current statutes identify, that preclude 
     the use of competition for some contracts. The exceptions 
     were included in the statutes because in some agencies, there 
     was an institutional bias against competition or a proclivity 
     for sole-source contracting. We believe that the exceptions 
     to competition should be retained in the statute to avoid 
     abuse of sole-source contracting.
       Subsection (c) would amend 41 U.S.C. 416 to eliminate 
     differences in requirements for publicizing procurements 
     between DoD and civilian agencies and the requirement that 
     contracting officers consider each responsive offer that is 
     received. We support amending the statute to establish 
     uniform procurement notice requirements for DoD and civilian 
     agencies. We do not support deleting the requirement that 
     contracting officers consider all responsive offers. The 
     purpose of the preaward notice is to open competition to all 
     offerers who can meet an agency's needs.
       Subsection (d) would amend 15 U.S.C. 637 to delete 
     provisions that duplicate 41 U.S.C. 416. We support the 
     amendment.
       Subsection (e) would amend 41 U.S.C. 414 to incorporate the 
     proposed statutory preference for ``maximum practicable 
     competition'' in the executive agency responsibilities. It 
     would also amend 41 U.S.C. 418 to delete the reference to the 
     date of enactment of the Competition in Contracting Act. We 
     do not support the amendment of 41 U.S.C. 414 for the reasons 
     discussed above in Subsections (a) and (b). Also, competition 
     is not a procurement procedure, but an objective that a 
     procedure is designed to attain. Therefore, the word 
     ``achieve'' is preferable to ``promote.'' We do not object to 
     the proposed amendment of 41 U.S.C. 418.
       As an alternative, we like the words in Section 1012 of S. 
     669, ``Federal Acquisition Improvement Act'' that amend 10 
     U.S.C. 2305(b) and allow the contracting officer to limit 
     competition to the top 3 contractors bids. The provision 
     allows all contractors to compete initially and then narrows 
     the field.
       Section 102, Definition Relating to Competition 
     Requirements. The section would amend 41 U.S.C. 403 to 
     replace the definition of ``full and open competition'' with 
     ``maximum practicable competiton'' and make 
     [[Page H5927]] similar substitutions in sections of Titles 10 
     and 41. We do not support the amendment. The current 
     statutory preference for ``full and open competition'' 
     requires contracting officers to use competitive procedures 
     to the maximum extent practical. Also, see previous comments 
     on Section 101.
       Section 103, Contract Solicitation Amendments. The section 
     would amend 10 U.S.C. 2305 to delete the provision stating 
     that specifications included in contracts shall permit full 
     and open competition and will include restrictive provisions 
     only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the 
     agency or as authorized by law. Specifications express agency 
     needs and serve as the baseline for the evaluation of offers. 
     The current language was included in the statute because 
     agencies used specifications to restrict competition by 
     unnecessarily defining their needs too narrowly. Thus, we do 
     not support the change.
       Section 104, Preaward Debriefings. We agree with the 
     proposed amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2305(b) to clarify the policy 
     for debriefing unsuccessful offerers prior to the award of a 
     contract. The change may also eliminate some needless 
     protests. The contracting officer should have discretion 
     whether a debriefing is required, particularly, for actions 
     that do not involve significant judgments about factors other 
     than price.
       Section 105, Contract Types. The section would amend 10 
     U.S.C. 2306 to delete the prohibition on payment of 
     contingency fees to obtain contracts; the 15 percent fee 
     limit on performing cost-plus-a-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract for 
     experimental, developmental, research work; the 10 percent 
     fee limit for any other CPFF contract; the 6 percent fee 
     limit for performing a CPFF contract for architectural or 
     engineering (A&E) services; the requirement under cost 
     reimbursable contracts for the prime contractor to provide 
     notice of certain subcontract awards; and references to Truth 
     In Negotiations Act (TINA) provisions and multiyear 
     contracting authority.
       We do not support deleting the prohibition on payment of 
     contingency fees or the elimination of the limits on fees on 
     CPFF and architectural or engineering contracts. As a matter 
     of public policy, contractors should not pay contingency fees 
     to someone for soliciting or brokering for them to obtain 
     Federal contracts.
       We disagree with deletion of the 6 percent fee limitation 
     for a CPFF contract for architectural or engineering 
     services. The statute serves its intended purpose because it 
     limits how much the DoD can spend designing projects and 
     prevents overspending on design efforts to the detriment of 
     actual construction. The statute also helps to limit the 
     Government's risk of investing in an expensive design for a 
     project. We have audited hundreds of military construction 
     projects and have never seen a lack of competition for the 
     design work or higher construction prices due to the fee 
     limits.
       We also disagree with the proposed elimination of the 15 
     percent and 10 percent fee limits. The fee limitations 
     provide a reasonable framework for the contracting officer to 
     use in negotiating CPFF contracts and still allow the 
     contracting officer flexibility to reward contractors 
     according to different risk situations. Contractors have less 
     financial risk on level-of-effort and completion type CPFF 
     contracts than any of the other contract types. Eliminating 
     the statutory limitations on fees for CPFF contracts would 
     likely result in varying interpretations by contracting 
     officers and higher fees on some CPFF contracts. Also, 
     contracting officers often apply the 10 and 15 percent 
     limitations to maximum fees on cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) 
     and cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts. In 1993, there were 
     $112 billion in contracts by the DoD and $47.7 billion (42 
     percent) were cost-type contracts, of which $16.6 billion (14 
     percent) were CPFF contracts. Thus, a lot of contracts will 
     be affected. The Section 800 Panel recommended eliminating 
     the 6 percent limitation for architectural and engineering 
     contracts but did not recommend eliminating the other fee 
     limitations.
       We have no objection to deleting the references to the TINA 
     provisions or multiyear contracting authority since the 
     provisions are in other statutes.
       Section 106, Contractor Performance. The section would add 
     a new Section 35 to 41 U.S.C. 401, et seq., that provides for 
     a contractor verification system for the procurement of 
     particular property or services that are procured by 
     executive agencies on a repetitive basis. Procedures for the 
     system would be defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     (FAR). The section would also repeal 10 U.S.C. 2319, which 
     provides policies on encouragement of new contractors and 
     qualification requirements. We do not support the proposed 
     change to eliminate the qualification requirements. Allowing 
     new contractors to qualify helps competition in contracting, 
     reduces costs, enhances industry responsiveness, and 
     maintains integrity in the expenditure of public funds by 
     ensuring that contracts are awarded on the basis of merit 
     rather than favoritism. Under the current statute, 
     contracting officers should also consider quality of product 
     and contractor performance in addition to price before 
     awarding a contract. This proposal goes away from trying to 
     add new vendors to DoD supplier lists and appears to limit 
     suppliers to the past DoD contractors.
       Section 201. Commercial Item Exception to Requirement for 
     Cost or Pricing Data and Information Limits. We disagree with 
     the proposed change to the TINA, 10 U.S.C. 2306a (b)(1)(A), 
     which deletes the section that allows the use of established 
     catalog or market prices of commercial items that are sold in 
     substantial quantities to the general public as an exception 
     to the requirement for cost or pricing data. The proposed 
     change allows the exception under (B), which is for 
     acquisition of a commercial item. Placing the exception under 
     commercial items allows the exception without first 
     determining whether enough information is available to 
     determine whether the item is actually commercial and the 
     fairness and reasonableness of the contractor's proposed 
     price for the exempted commercial item.
       Section 1204 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
     (FASA) recently amended 10 U.S.C. 2306a (d)(2)(B) to allow a 
     commercial item exemption when contracting officers are able 
     to obtain information on prices for which the same or similar 
     items were sold in the commercial marketplace to determine 
     price reasonableness. We disagree with the proposed rule that 
     would allow an exemption simply because the definition of 
     commercial item is met. Without restrictions to only allow 
     the exemption after the fairness of the proposed price has 
     been determined, there are no control mechanisms to prevent 
     the Government from being overcharged.
       The proposed change in this Bill to Section 2306(c) of 10 
     U.S.C. would eliminate the right of the head of the procuring 
     activity to request cost or pricing data because the item is 
     now called commercial. The proposed change to Section 
     2306a(d) of 10 U.S.C. would eliminate the right for 
     contracting officer to request limited data for commercial 
     items and for auditors to have 2 years after award of the 
     contract to audit the data. The proposed change also 
     eliminates 10 U.S.C. 2306a(h), which states the FAR will 
     contain provisions on the types of information a contracting 
     officer can request to be submitted to determine if a price 
     is reasonable when the procurement is under $500,000.
       We disagree with the changes, which create intolerable 
     loopholes to the TINA. The FASA changes enacted last year to 
     allow the current 10 U.S.C. 2306a exemption for commercial 
     items has not yet been implemented and its effect cannot be 
     judged. Also, the ability to request limited data for 
     commercial items and allow 2-year audit rights was placed in 
     the FASA as a compromise last year to allow for limited tests 
     or reviews, without penalties to contractors, to determine 
     whether fair prices were being received under the commercial 
     item exemption. Without this audit provision, there is no way 
     to evaluate properly the FASA change related to commercial 
     items. We believe that changing the provision of a law 
     designed to streamline the purchase of commercial items 
     before the law has been implemented is premature.
       The Defense Contract Audit Agency and this office 
     identified $2,017 million in FY 1994 in direct monetary 
     benefits related to the TINA. Those benefits were from 
     identified contract over-pricing that resulted in price 
     reductions or administrative and criminal collections for 
     overpricing. The Coopers and Lybrand/TASC study on contract 
     cost drivers stated that TINA adds about 1.3 percent to 
     contract costs. If this cost driver estimate is near 
     accurate, then TINA added about $660 million in costs to DoD 
     contracts in FY 1994, but there were $2 billion in benefits. 
     This is a benefit to cost ration of 3 to 1. However, the 
     greatest benefits from TINA are intangible, and we cannot 
     estimate the intangible but positive effect of the TINA on 
     keeping contract prices fair for the Government. Just the 
     fact that the law exists and there are audit and 
     investigative agencies creates an atmosphere of voluntary 
     contract compliance.
       Section 202. Application of Simplified Procedures to 
     Commercial Items. The proposed change to 10 U.S.C. 2304(e)(1) 
     would amend Sections 101 (a) and (b) of this Bill to specify 
     that simplified acquisition procedures may be used for 
     purchases of commercial items regardless of dollar value. The 
     section would also amend 41 U.S.C. 416, as amended by Section 
     101(c), to conform notice requirements for commercial items 
     to the use of simplified procedures. We strongly support the 
     concept of making the purchase of commercial items easier. 
     The Deputy Inspector General, DoD, testified last year that 
     because of the restrictive acquisition laws, the Department 
     purchased very limited quantities of common commercial items, 
     such as clothing and textiles, wood products, meat and 
     seafoods from the top 10 commercial producers. The Department 
     purchased these commercial items from smaller companies that 
     specialized in satisfying the Department's acquisition rules 
     and selling to the Department. To really reduce costs, you 
     need to exempt commercial item purchases from all Buy-
     American, small business and other socioeconomic statutes.
       Section 203. Amendment to Definition of Commercial Items. 
     We disagree with the proposed change. As written in Part (F) 
     of the FASA (41 U.S.C. 422(f)(2)), the procurement of 
     commercial services is limited to established catalog prices 
     for the services. At present, the statute Part (E) provides 
     for acquisition of installation, maintenance, repair and 
     training services as commercial services. The proposed change 
     in Part (F) allows a definition of commercial services as 
     services based on established prices. There is no definition 
     of ``established prices,'' and the terms are much broader 
     than the current terms ``established catalog prices.'' The 
     new [[Page H5928]] terms could result in almost any service 
     fitting that description and, thus, being considered a 
     commercial product. Established prices may merely represent 
     prices traditionally offered the Government and may not 
     reflect lower prices offered affiliates and commercial 
     customers for sales of like quantities under similar terms 
     and conditions.
      Unless the prices for the specific tasks are published in a 
     catalog, the Government would be unable to determine 
     whether standard commercial terms, conditions and prices 
     are offered.
       According to a March 1993 OMB report, service contract 
     costs were $103 billion for the Government and $61 billion in 
     the DoD for 1993. The proposed change would permit the 
     acquisition of all professional and technical services as a 
     commercial service and exempt $100 billion of service 
     contracts from contracting officer and auditor requests for a 
     contractor's catalog, pricing data or cost data to perform 
     pricing or cost analyses. Without any restrictions or 
     exclusions, the language is too broad and is very likely to 
     result in increased prices and a reduction in competition. 
     The DoD has not yet implemented the (D) and (F) provisions of 
     the FASA to judge their effect. We believe it is too early to 
     change a provision of law designed to streamline the purchase 
     of services before the law has been implemented.
       Section 204, Inapplicability of Cost Accounting Standards 
     to Contracts and Subcontracts for Commercial Items. We 
     disagree with excluding the requirement to comply with Cost 
     Accounting Standards (CAS) if the contract for commercial 
     items provides for Government financing through progress 
     payments or public vouchers. In order to receive financing, 
     the contractor must demonstrate that his accounting practices 
     adequately assign costs to contracts. Therefore, any contract 
     for commercial items that provides for Government financing 
     should include the provisions of the CAS.
       Section 301, Government Reliance on the Private Sector. The 
     section would add a Section 17 to the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act that states it is the policy of the 
     Government to rely on commercial sources to supply its needs. 
     We have no objection to the amendment. The policy is already 
     stated in Executive Order and administrative regulations 
     (Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76).
       Section 302, Elimination of Certain Certification 
     Requirements. We do not agree with the proposed amendment to 
     10 U.S.C. 2410 to delete the certification requirement for 
     contractor requests for equitable adjustment and relief under 
     Public Law 85-804. The claims are subject to audit and 
     inaccurate, incomplete or misleading data could be a basis 
     for denial of the claim and other sanctions. We also do not 
     agree with the proposed amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2410b to 
     delete the certification for contractor inventory accounting 
     systems. Contractor representations are one of the basis that 
     help DoD personnel decide whether to reduce the need for 
     systems audits to establish whether the systems meet 
     standards. We do not object to the amendment of 31 U.S.C. 
     1352(b)(2) to delete the certification requirement regarding 
     the prohibition on use of appropriated funds for lobbying 
     (Byrd Amendment) and 41 U.S.C. 701 to delete the 
     certification requirement from the Drug-Free Workplace Act. 
     We do not support the proposed requirement in subsection (b) 
     that not later than 210 days after the date of the enactment 
     of the Act, any certification required of contractors or 
     offerers by the FAR that is not specifically imposed by 
     statute would be removed from the FAR or such agency 
     regulation unless written justification for such 
     certification is provided to the Administrator, Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) by the FAR Council and the 
     Administrator approves in writing the retention of the 
     certification. Instead, we support a provision that would 
     vest agency heads with nondelegatable authority to decide 
     when agencies may impose such certifications. We believe 
     there is a need for certifications from contractors where 
     funds or safety are involved because they enhance the 
     efficiency and trust in the contracting process.
       Section 303, Amendment to Commencement and Expiration of 
     Authority to conduct Certain Tests of Procurement Procedures. 
     The change is to subsection (j) of Section 5061 of the FASA. 
     Section 5061 covers the OFPP Test Program for Executive 
     Agencies. The OFPP test programs were limited by the FASA to 
     under $100 million in procurements, allowed OFPP to test 
     innovative procurement polices, and waive any nonstatutory 
     rule in the FAR and 13 statutes. Subsection (j) does not 
     allow use of the test programs in any agency until the agency 
     certifies to Congress full Federal Acquisition computer 
     Network (FACNET) capability. We agree with the change because 
     it allows use of the test programs prior to full Facnet 
     capability. The DoD does not project obtaining full FACNET 
     capability until late 1997.
       Section 304, International Competitiveness. The proposed 
     change deletes the requirement for recoupment of a 
     proportionate amount of nonrecurring costs for research, 
     development and production of major defense equipment. The 
     premise is that doing so will facilitate the transfer of 
     technology between Government and commercial markets; aid 
     integration of contractor's Government and commercial 
     operations; increase U.S. competitiveness in worldwide 
     markets; and enhance national security by preserving the 
     industrial base. We disagree with the change and offer an 
     alternative. The current law and regulations allow the change 
     to be waived if the charge is an impediment to the sale. 
     Requests for waivers are invariably granted. Some personnel 
     refer to the charge as a tax when, in fact, it is a refund to 
     the U.S. Treasury of a proportionate amount of research and 
     development funds provided to the contractor to develop the 
     item. The nonrecurring cost collections added about $181 
     million to the U.S. Treasury in FY 1994 and the Defense 
     Security Assistance Agency projects that an additional $1 
     billion will be collected during FYs 1995 to 2000. If the 
     provision of noncollection applies to only new sales, then 
     $148 million ($25 million in 1998, $48 million in 1999 and 
     $70 million in 2000) of the $1 billion will not be collected 
     during these years. However, between 2001 and 2005, nothing 
     will be collected. If recoupments are stopped, another source 
     of revenue will be needed to offset the noncollection. It has 
     also been stated that repeal is needed to improve the 
     competitiveness of U.S. companies selling military
      hardware. Recent sales figures show that in 1993 the U.S. 
     accounted for 53 percent of all military hardware sold to 
     other nations. During the 1991 to 1993 period, the U.S. 
     supplied about $34 billion of military equipment to 
     foreign countries and all other nations combined provided 
     $34 billion. Since the U.S. sales of military hardware 
     exceed all other countries combined, there is no need for 
     additional across-the-aboard help when it can be done 
     through waivers, on a case-by-case basis, to help 
     competitiveness.
       Section 305, Procurement Integrity. We agree with the 
     proposed repeal of 10 U.S.C. 2397, Employees or former 
     employees of defense contractors: reports; 10 U.S.C. 2397a, 
     Requirements relating to private employment contacts between 
     certain Department of Defense procurement officials and 
     Defense contractors; 10 U.S.C. 2397b, certain former 
     Department of Defense procurement officials: limitations on 
     employment by contractors; 10 U.S.C. 2397c, Defense 
     contractors: requirements concerning former Department of 
     Defense officials; and 18 U.S.C. 281, Restrictions on retired 
     military officers regarding certain matters affecting the 
     Government. The provisions of Title 10 relate solely to the 
     Department of Defense and impose various post-employment 
     restrictions and reporting requirements. The provision of 
     Title 18 imposes criminal penalties for violations of post-
     employment restrictions by retired military officers. It is 
     currently suspended. The complexity of the current 
     restrictions have frustrated the ability of the contracting 
     work force--in Government and industry--to abide by them The 
     current statutory certification requirements are unlikely to 
     deter conduct to be proscribed. Moreover, the certifications 
     create considerable administrative burden.
       Section 306, Further Acquisition Streamlining Provisions. 
     We do not support amending 41 U.S.C. 404 to define the 
     purpose of the OFPP and repealing 41 U.S.C. 401 and 402, 
     which currently define the purpose and responsibilities of 
     the OFPP. The change replaces specific language with vague, 
     general language and we see no benefit to the change. We also 
     disagree with the repeal of the reporting requirement in 41 
     U.S.C. 407(a), which requires the Administrator of OFPP 
     submit an annual report to the Congress on the major 
     activities of his office. We believe this requirement should 
     be retained because it assists the Congress in carrying out 
     its oversight responsibilities. We agree with the repeal 41 
     U.S.C. 407(b), which requires the Administrator to transmit a 
     report to the Congress on proposed policies and regulations. 
     Repeal would reduce the administrative burden created by this 
     reporting requirement. We agree with repeal of the obsolete 
     provisions in 41 U.S.C. 409 and 410, which cover the 1983 
     appropriations and rules for the OFPP.
       Section 401-452, Establishment of the United States Board 
     of Contract Appeals. The new consolidated Board will be 
     established in the executive branch and be composed by judges 
     from all the Boards of Contract Appeal (BCAs) and assistant 
     general counsels from the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
     that now hear bid protests. The proposed change terminates 
     all of the existing BCAs in the different departments.
       Functions of the new Board include the following:
       1. Required to provide alternative disputes resolution 
     services for contract disputes.
       2. Adjudicate contract disputes under the Contract Disputes 
     Act (CDA).
       3. Resolve bid protests through use of the following 
     procedures: may consider all relevant evidence; preponderance 
     of the evidence standard; has authority to suspend 
     procurement pending protest; costs can be paid to U.S. on 
     frivolous protests; successful protestor can be awarded 
     costs; and nonexclusivity of remedies. A contractor can still 
     protest to an agency, a District Court or a Court of Federal 
     Claims. However, it repeals authority of the General Services 
     Administration Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) and the GAO 
     to hear protests.
       We have no opinion on these sections since it is unclear if 
     efficiency or costs savings will result from this proposed 
     legislation, and we have no basis to make such a 
     determination.

  Second, the Clinger amendment allows a simplified acquisition 
procedure for the purchase of these so-called commercial products no 
matter what the dollar value. Last year we passed a landmark bill with 
bipartisan support that raised the threshold for simplified 
[[Page H5929]] procedures to $100,000, thus allowing officials to 
purchase basic goods like salad dressing or paperclips without undue 
red tape.
  This amendment would eliminate the threshold altogether, and while I 
might, in fact, support raising the threshold, I cannot in good 
conscience support eliminating the threshold and thereby depriving the 
taxpayers of the assurance that when it buys a multimillion-dollar 
product the American people are still getting the best possible product 
at the best possible price.
  The Department of Defense's inspector general has strong reservations 
concerning the Clinger amendment's definitions of commercial items 
because there is no definition for established prices for commercial 
services afforded other customers, a determination of lower prices 
cannot be made and, therefore, may end up costing more for the 
Government. The IG's concern underscores mine that waiver of full and 
open competition is available for products and services within the 
broad spectrum of the term commercial items.
  The term simplified procedures only tells procurement agents that 
they need to have competition to the maximum extent practicable. This 
is a far cry from a requirement for full and open competition when 
buying a multimillion-dollar item. Waiving a requirement of full and 
open competition may be fine for small purchases, but I believe that 
allowing contracting officials to spend as much taxpayer money as they 
want with limited competition may lead to serious problems.
  Also of major importance is the process under which we are 
considering the Clinger amendment on the floor today without a markup 
or even a committee report explaining the provisions of this 
legislation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, when a bill of this magnitude and 
complexity is brought directly to the floor, it can only raise the 
suspicion in the minds of the public that we might be trying to push 
something through that cannot stand the scrutiny of public debate.
  I am certainly confident that everyone concerned has the best 
interests of the Nation at heart, but strange procedures like this will 
lead to questions however unjustified, when the subject is how $200 
billion will be spent.
  Let me be clear that there are many provisions of this amendment that 
I do support, including those that I drafted to improve the acquisition 
work force. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], and his staff for working closely with the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and myself and for accepting many of our 
amendments.
                              {time}  1100

  The acquisition work force, a major thrust, is needed because a major 
thrust of almost all recent procurement reform is placing more 
responsibility and decisionmaking power with the front-line procurement 
official, the contracting officer. But at the same time we are giving 
more responsibility to those officials, we are also witnessing a 
significant downsizing of the work force. Therefore, these reform 
initiatives will be successful only if we have a highly trained and 
motivated corps of professionals.
  Currently, there are no professional requirements for contracting 
officers; in fact, one need not have a college education even though 
they are making decisions about how to spend millions of taxpayer 
dollars. For the first time, we will have mandatory qualifications that 
include a requirement that contracting officers, at a minimum, possess 
a college degree. But while these changes will make this a better 
amendment than before, the fact that the Clinger amendment weakens full 
and open competition for Federal contracts makes it impossible for me 
to give my support.
  As I said earlier, the simple fact is that the best protection that 
the taxpayers have against the danger of waste and corruption in 
procurement is the requirement that contracts be awarded using 
competitive procedures. This ensures that the American people get the 
best product for the lowest price, but by removing the requirement for 
competition and replacing it with some nebulous definition of ``maximum 
extent practicable,'' we are only inviting lawsuits and other trouble 
for the American taxpayer.
  I will discuss some of these issues further in supporting the 
amendment which the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will offer 
to the Clinger amendment to remedy some of these flaws. Under different 
circumstances and with a few fundamental changes, the Clinger amendment 
could represent an excellent second step to follow the changes made 
last year by Congress and those made by Vice President Gore, but until 
those changes are made, I must oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff], a very valued member of the committee and 
supporter of this amendment.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to the 
defense authorization bill to cut redtape and simplify the Federal 
acquisition system. For too long, Federal procurement has meant costly, 
time-consuming regulations that waste millions of taxpayers' dollars. 
This amendment takes a much-needed giant step toward reinjecting both 
common and economic sense into the Federal acquisition process.
  I am proud to join as a cosponsor of this amendment with the 
distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight, National 
Security, and Budget Committees, respectively, as well as my 
distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Congressman Charlie Bass. 
Chairmen Clinger, Spence, and Kasich--and their staffs--deserve 
tremendous credit for forging this consensus amendment.
  It is important to note that this amendment has the support of the 
committee chairs charged with reforming and cutting the size of 
Government, with authorizing our military with the means to secure our 
Nation, and with cutting our Federal budget.
  In short, this amendment cuts Government waste, enhances national 
security, and makes financial sense. Clearly, the time is now to pass 
this amendment.
  When it comes to acquisition reform, we appropriately should focus on 
the Department of Defense. DOD spends nearly 80 percent of the roughly 
$200 billion per year spent by the Federal Government on good and 
services. That is nearly $160 billion a year.
  Under the current acquisition rules, DOD pays an additional 18 to 19 
percent in costs generated by existing redtape. That is an added $28 to 
$30 billion in unnecessary costs per year--that leaves a lot of room 
for improvement.
  This amendment goes a long way toward cutting those unnecessary costs 
by building on the reforms passed last year in the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act [FASA] of 1994.
  Chairman Bill Clinger led the fight to pass those reforms last year--
the first in nearly a decade--as he is leading the fight this year to 
continue the job.
  Today's amendment will give the taxpayer more bang for the buck. It 
requires more efficient competition, expanded use of off-the-shelf 
commercial products, results-oriented performance incentives, and 
streamlining of the dispute resolution and bid protest process.
  When you have a system as bloated and inefficient as the Federal 
acquisition system, even today's reforms may not be enough. While 
scuttling the system all together may be tempting, I would urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment. It recognizes the need for major 
reform by requiring dramatic yet prudent change.
  I share Chairman John Kasich's concern that the culture surrounding 
the Federal procurement process, especially within DOD, must be 
reassessed and fundamentally changed.
  As a small businessman, I have learned that at the end of each day, 
you need to balance your books if you want to stay in business. Our 
Government and the Federal acquisition process need to be reintroduced 
to these basic business practices. We need to incorporate these lessons 
from the private sector. This amendment pushes us in that direction.
  Finally, a subcommittee chairman charged with overseeing the economy 
and efficiency of DOD, I share Chairman Spence's desire to achieve 
greater efficiency without sacrificing one ounce of security. This 
amendment cuts costs without cutting military readiness.
  Mr. Chairman, today's amendment calls for fundamental change that is 
[[Page H5930]] long overdue in the Federal acquisition system. Many 
among us, Republicans and Democrats, have been working to improve the 
way our Government does business. We are blessed with a wealth of ideas 
and energy in this Congress.
  My fellow colleagues, let us seize this moment and channel our energy 
into a positive, constructive force. Let us pass this amendment and 
improve the Federal acquisition system. That is what the American 
people expect--and I am confident that is what we will deliver.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chair of the Committee on Small Business.
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to consent to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the 
Clinger amendment and enthusiastically in support of the Collins 
amendment. The Clinger amendment does several things. First, it repeals 
the requirement for full and open competition. Next, the Clinger 
amendment would permit the use of so-called simplified procedures for 
the procurement of commercial products without any dollar limitation. 
Currently, these simplified procedures can be used only for small 
purchases, those less than $25,000. After implementing regulations are 
issued on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act [FASA] from last 
year, authority to use simplified procedures will increase to $100,000. 
Let me repeat, the Clinger amendment would permit the use of simplified 
procedures for the purchase of commercial products, without dollar 
limitation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the Clinger amendment for 
procedural reasons. This sweeping procurement legislation should not be 
considered at the last minute as a floor amendment to the DOD 
authorization bill. It has had one hearing. It has not had a markup. 
The sponsor urges that the text of the amendment being considered is 
merely a placeholder, subject to future revision. I remain concerned, 
given the changes that this legislation makes and how those changes 
would affect small business.
  In its present form, this legislation, the Federal Acquisition Reform 
Act of 1995, is a disaster for small business. This legislative alert 
is now being circulated at the 1995 White House Conference on Small 
Business, which is taking place this week. I am informed that it is 
being distributed by the Small Business Working Group on Procurement 
Reform, which includes NFIB, National Small Business United, the Small 
Business Legislative Council, and other groups. It expresses great 
concern about the this legislation and this process. It says that this 
legislation, now being considered in the form of the Clinger amendment, 
would take away small businesses' right to bid on contracting 
opportunities being offered by the government by repealing the full and 
open competition standard of the 1984 Competition in Contracting Act.
  When I was elected in 1984, all during that long, hot summer and 
fall, all I heard about was the $435 hammers and the $7,600 coffee 
pots. The full and open competition standard was put in legislation to 
do away with those and similar sole-source procurement excesses. Now we 
are considering legislation to repeal it.
  Small business sees this effort as a mechanism to again deprive them 
of the opportunity to bid. The legislative alert specifically 
highlights that the legislation before us as the Clinger amendment 
would repeal current protections requiring a contracting officer to 
justify the proposed award of a contract through less than full and 
open competition. The Clinger amendment would repeal statutory 
protections for the prequalification of contractors. It would repeal 
the provisions of the Small Business Act that require notice of 
contracting opportunities in the Commerce Business Daily--or local 
posting for small purchases--and assure adequate time to submit an 
offer.
  The legislation contained in the Clinger amendment would authorize 
awards of contracts for commercial items without dollar limitation 
through simplified procedures currently used for only small purchases. 
I approve of the use of simplified procedures for commercial items 
under $25,000 or even under $100,000, but not without any dollar 
limitation. Under simplified procedures, a person sitting in the 
Pentagon could make a telephone solicitation of three firms of the 
contracting officer's choosing, and that would be recognized as 
competitive.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result of last year's Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act, commercial items are broadly defined to include not 
only items sold in the marketplace, but even unbuilt items that are, 
``intended to be offered in the future.'' The Clinger amendment 
legislation would also broaden the definition of commercial items to 
cover a broad range of services.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the Clinger amendment locks out small 
business. The Collins amendment strikes the most egregious provisions 
of the Clinger amendment. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Collins amendment and against the Clinger amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, the task force alert which was referred to by the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] unfortunately, I regret to say, 
is full of misinformation and disinformation, and I think that may be 
partially our fault for not have been--but I think we will have an 
opportunity before we go to markup next week to correct some of the 
misinformation that is included in that markup, and we will certainly 
do that. I stress again we are going to markup next week. If there are 
these problems that are alluded to, we can address those at that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Watts], a member of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I believe Congress is finally 
doing something positive for small business. The Clinger-Spence-Kasich 
amendment to H.R. 1530 slashes bureaucracy and creates an accomodating 
marketplace environment. It does this by increasing the use of 
commercial practices, streamlining the lengthy dispute process, and 
enhancing competition.
  It will be easier for the Federal Government to contract with the 
private sector, easier for the private sector to carry out its 
responsibilities, and easier for the user--our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines--to receive the goods and services necessary to 
fight and win the battles that lie before them.
  Last month, the National Security and Government Oversight Committees 
held a joint hearing. In that session, a senior official of a minority-
owned information technology firm testified that Congress needs to 
streamline the currently cumbersome and costly acquisition process. 
This amendment moves us in that direction by eliminating administrative 
burdens normally associated with the contracting process. For example, 
the use of cost accounting standards on commercial items would become a 
thing of the past. Cost accounting standards are complex rules for 
collecting and reporting costs. How much will this save? Hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in costs will no longer be paid to company 
employees and watchdogs whose primary role is to collect, organize, and 
report costs to government buyers.
  We can no longer tolerate the archaic approach at work within the 
Federal acquisition process. We have before us the opportunity to lower 
the cost of doing business and expedite deliveries to the military 
consumer. This chance should not be overlooked. I ask my colleagues to 
please join me in supporting this amendment.
                              {time}  1115


amendment offered by mrs. collins of illinois to the amendment offered 
                      by mr. clinger, as modified

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Clinger, as modified: Strike out 
     sections 801, 802, 803, and 806 in the matter proposed to be 
     inserted, and insert in lieu of section 801 the following:

     SEC. 801. COMPETITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Conference Before Submission of Bids or Proposals.--(1) 
     Section 2305(a) of title 10, United State Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following paragraph: [[Page H5931]] 
       ``(6) To the extent practicable, for each procurement of 
     property or services by an agency, the head of the agency 
     shall provide for a conference on the procurement to be held 
     for anyone interested in submitting a bid or proposal in 
     response to the solicitation for the procurement. The purpose 
     of the conference shall be to inform potential bidders and 
     offerors of the needs of the agency and the qualifications 
     considered necessary by the agency to compete successfully in 
     the procurement.''.
       (2) Section 303A of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) To the extent practicable, for each procurement of 
     property or services by an agency, an executive agency shall 
     provide for a conference on the procurement to be held for 
     anyone interested in submitting a bid or proposal in response 
     to the solicitation for the procurement. The purpose of the 
     conference shall be to inform potential bidders and offerors 
     of the needs of the executive agency and the qualifications 
     considered necessary by the executive agency to compete 
     successfully in the procurement.''
       (b) Description of Source Selection Plan in Solicitation.--
     (1) Section 2305(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     further amended in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking out ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) a description, in as much detail as is practicable, 
     of the source selection plan of the agency, or a notice that 
     such plan is available upon request.''.
       (2) Section 303A of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253a) is further amended in 
     subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking out ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (2) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) a description, in as much detail as is practicable, 
     of the source selection plan of the executive agency, or a 
     notice that such plan is available upon request.''.
       (c) Discussions Not Necessary With Every Offeror.--(1) 
     Section 2305(b)(4)(A)(i) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
     ``and provided that discussions need not be conducted with an 
     offeror merely to permit that offeror to submit a technically 
     acceptable revised proposal''.
       (2) Section 303B(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
     ``and provided that discussions need not be conducted with an 
     offeror merely to permit that offeror to submit a technically 
     acceptable revised proposal''.
       (d) Preliminary Assessments of Competitive Proposals.(1) 
     Section 2305(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``With respect to 
     competitive proposals, the head of the agency may make a 
     preliminary assessment of a proposal received, rather than a 
     complete evaluation of the proposal received, rather than a 
     complete evaluation of the proposal and may eliminate the 
     proposal from further consideration if the head of the agency 
     determines the proposal has no chance for contract award.''.
       (2) Section 303B of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 (U.S.C. 253b) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``With respect to competitive 
     proposals, the head of the agency may make a preliminary 
     assessment of a proposal, and may eliminate the proposal from 
     further consideration if the head of the agency determines 
     the proposal has no chance for contract award.''
       (e) Federal Acquisition Regulation.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to reflect the 
     amendments made by subsections (a)< (b), (c), and (d).

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] is recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member in opposition will 
be recognized for 20 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we had a 4 
remaining minutes on the other discussion. Do I now have 24 minutes, 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 20 minutes, in addition to her 
remaining time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment does three things: First it strikes from 
Chairman Clinger's amendment his repeal of full and open competition 
for Federal contracts. Second, it strikes an unnecessary system of 
Federal agency verification, whereby agency bureaucrats determine which 
firms are allowed to bid for Federal contracts. Third, it moves us 
closer to commercial buying practices, by empowering agency officials 
to have more open communication with the private sector. My position is 
supported by the Small Business Administration and the National Federal 
of Independent Businesses.
  The cornerstone of our free enterprise system is full and open 
competition. The competitive market ensures fair prices to the 
Government. If a vendor's product costs too much it will not survive. 
At the same time full and open competition provides the opportunity for 
all vendors, particularly small businesses, to participate in the 
Federal marketplace, to be judged on merit. This creates incentives for 
the development of new and innovative products. Clearly these market 
forces are essential if we are to position our country for economic 
leadership into the next century.
  Chairman Clinger's amendment detours from the well-lighted road of 
full and open competition, and into the uncharted wilderness of maximum 
practicable competition. While it is unclear from the bill exactly what 
is meant by this new standard, I am concerned that we will be changing 
the playing field to significantly limit the ability of small 
businesses to compete for Federal contracts.
  Prior to 1984 Federal agencies used maximum practicable competition 
to award sole source contracts because agency bureaucrats complained 
that full and open competition would be too complicated and time 
consuming. They said it was less risky and more manageable to do 
business with a few selected vendors, instead of encouraging new and 
innovative qualified companies to enter the Federal marketplace.
  That lack of competition resulted in widespread waste and abuse in 
every Federal agency. As a result, in 1984, Congress passed the 
Competition in Contracting Act, which established the current standard 
of full and open competition which has saved the Federal Government 
billions of dollars. Now, the same old tired, fallacious arguments 
which were used to limit competition before we passed the Competition 
in Contracting Act, have resurfaced with the Clinger amendment.
  Now, I can understand why agency bureaucrats would only want 
competition to the maximum extent practicable. It is certainly much 
easier and less time consuming to do business with only a few selected 
well-known big companies. Agency officials get to know the people in 
these companies, and yes, the old-boy network does have its advantages. 
The question is: do we really want our country to go backwards as we 
move into the more enlightened information age? I do not think so; I 
certainly hope not.
  Over the past 5 years many of the major innovative and technological 
advances that our country has made have come from small businesses. For 
example, one need only to look at the remarkable rise of companies like 
Microsoft and Apple computers. Just a few years ago they were new, 
small companies; today they successfully compete with computer giants 
like IBM.
  Over the next 10 years, 85 percent of all new jobs in the United 
States will come from small businesses. Such business are in every 
district of every Member in this House. By returning to Chairman 
Clinger's standard of ``maximum practicable competition,'' we will 
establish procurement policy which locks small businesses out of the 
Federal marketplace and significantly undermine our Nation's 
competitiveness.
  Joshua Smith, who chaired President Bush's Commission on Minority 
Business, testified several years ago before the Government Operations 
Committee that emphasizing subjectivity in awarding contracts creates a 
``breeding ground for prejudice,'' because contracting officers, if 
given the choice, will usually go with a well-established, large firm 
instead of a small business offering a lower price.
  Much of the stated justification for this change in standard is to 
give agency employees more power to exclude noncompetitive companies; 
but under the current full and open competition standard most of that 
authority already exists. For example under existing law, companies can 
be excluded: First if they lack sufficient capital to perform the 
contract; second, if they lack a satisfactory performance record; 
third, if they lack sufficient technical [[Page H5932]] skill or 
experience; fourth, if they are not able to meet the delivery or 
performance schedule. In addition, Federal agencies have the authority 
to limit competition under special circumstances.
  Giving agencies the further authority to limit competition in 
noncommercial items is bad public policy. Suppose, for example that a 
contracting officer decides to cut off competition after receiving 
three competitive bids and bids four, five, and six were all 
technically better than any of the first three and offered at a lower 
price. The Clinger amendment could mean that Federal taxpayers will get 
stuck with paying higher prices for inferior products. That is not what 
I call procurement reform.
  Several years ago the Federal Aviation Administration ran a 
noncompetitive procurement known as corn. At the insistence of the 
Government Operations Committee, the FAA was forced to run a real 
competitive procurement procedure that actually resulted in a savings 
of $1 billion to the taxpayers. Under the proposed maximum practicable 
competition standard, such savings would have been lost.
  Now, I agree with Chairman Clinger that there does appear to be a 
problem of many companies having technical weaknesses which are evident 
to the agencies early in the process. However when agency procurement 
officers fail to so advise these companies of their little chance of 
winning, in a timely fashion, a lot of their money is wasted in a 
futile effort to win a contract.
  This point was made by Sterling Philips, chief operating officer for 
TRI-COR Industries, who testified at our hearing that:

       Our interests, and those of the taxpayer, would have been 
     served much better by telling us early in the cycle that our 
     solution, or our company, was simply not qualified to win.

  There also seems to be a problem with the lack of dialog between 
agencies and businesses prior to bidding. In the private sector, buyers 
and sellers talk to each other all the time. In the Federal Government 
we limit that discussion.
  Mr. Edward Cypert, vice president of TRW clarified this problem when 
he testified:

       It seems like when we have an opportunity to sit down and 
     discuss the requirements and to find what the requirement 
     base is going to be where, we understand it on both sides. 
     Both what is going to be imposed and what is going to be 
     built leads us into a position where not only is the process 
     shortened, but the response is better, it is more on target, 
     you can get to the price and the performance that you want.

  I agree with these two industry concerns. Therefore, my amendment 
provides for prebid or preproposal conferences which should disclose as 
much information as possible regarding the qualifications necessary to 
successfully win a contract.
  In order to give companies a better understanding of how agencies 
will evaluate bids, my amendment would require that solicitation 
describe the agency source selection plan in as much detail as 
practicable. If companies are better informed about how bids will be 
evaluated, they will be better able to give the Federal Government 
exactly what it needs and at the best price.
  Finally, my amendment empowers Federal agencies by giving them the 
authority to eliminate from cost and technical discussions and 
evaluations any proposal that clearly has no chance for award. In this 
way companies should be informed early in the process that they have no 
chance to win a bid. This will cut down on time and significantly 
reduce costs.
  Mr. Chairman, full and open competition is the key to efficiency and 
fairness in Federal procurement. it creates a level playing field upon 
which all qualified vendors, particularly small businesses, have a fair 
chance to compete for a share of the hundreds of billions of dollars 
spent by the Federal Government in procurement each year. In return, 
the Government receives the maximum benefit from the innovations and 
expertise offered by companies large and small. We should maintain this 
standard, and make the targeted changes contained in my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment being offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois. Her 
amendment, although well intended, is misdirected in that it seeks to 
address in piecemeal fashion, and with process-oriented requirements, 
the restrictions that have been imposed upon the acquisition system by 
the current rigid competition standard.
  Unfortunately, the amendment misses the point. There is simply no 
need for any of the patchwork provisions in this amendment if the 
source of the problems--the current competition standard--is addressed 
as it is in the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment.
  Once again, Congress is striving to make the system work better and 
cost less, not impose more inflexibility upon a system already filled 
with too many exceptions to its rules. If we provide the needed 
flexibility as proposed by the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment, there 
will be little need for more legislative fixes.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Collins 
amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I spent 2 years of my life in defense 
procurement and what I learned mostly is how little I know. But I do 
know this: I would tread lightly when departing from the standard of 
full and open competition. So I rise to raise a caution flag as to the 
language in the bill before us and to commend the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] our ranking member, for the amendment she is 
now offering, which I support.
  For those Members of this body who do not remember the passage of 
CICA, who were not here, CICA is the Competition in Contracting Act, I 
think it is important to recall some of its successes.
  CICA was a landmark piece of legislation which originated in the 
Congress, and originated in response to widely perceived abuses in the 
defense procurement arena which I need not enumerate here. CICA said in 
effect if we can have full and open competition, that we do not have to 
have post-award audits, because we can tell the public this has been 
vigorously competed and awarded in that manner. So it narrowed the 
exceptions to the use of full and open competition from 17 to 7. It 
required competition advocates to be established at each procurement 
activity as a way of
 checking routine use or abuse of any one of the exceptions to full and 
open competition. In effect, these advocates also served the role of 
breaking the code on how to do business with the Defense Department for 
firms that have not been bidders in the past. It required that notices 
of intent to procure be published daily in the Commerce Business Daily 
so that industry as a whole, the whole spectrum, would know of upcoming 
procurements, not just some selected groups. It reformed the protest 
procedure so that losing bidders could self-police the system, make it 
more competitive.

  What are the results after about 10 years?

                              {time}  1130

  As a result of CCA, the Competition in Contracting Act, the Navy more 
than doubled the annual value of its competitive awards going from $9 
billion in fiscal 1982 to $21 billion in fiscal 1994. The Army 
increased the percentage of its competitive actions from 40 percent in 
1982 to 88 percent in fiscal year 1994. At a time when the investment 
accounts, procurement and R&D were declining, those are significant 
results, Mr. Chairman. I would not like to see us make the mistake 
today of turning back from this vigorous competition which we have been 
able to build into our system.
  Yet we have here before us an act which uses a new term, maximum 
practicable competition. I am told it was used in prior law. But when 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], as the ranking member, 
was going [[Page H5933]] through this legislation in the process of the 
first hearing on it and she simply asked a question for starters to the 
board of industry people who were testifying, what does it mean, not 
one of them could articulate a definition that was usable in practice.
  Then it provides, in addition to narrowing down competition from free 
and open to maximum practicable, it provides for a verification system 
so that certain contractors will become select contractors, and an 
elite set, a club of contractors. That is a very important and 
potentially dangerous step. It is potentially a move away from free and 
open competition all the way to cartelization. This is not streamlining 
potentially. It is potentially setting up a cartelized club of 
competitors, the established defense contractors.
  So I ask the question: What is the definition? What are the criteria 
for getting in this select club, being a verified contractor? Once 
again, we could not get from the witnesses before us an elaboration of 
what this meant. It is all left to the discretion of the procurement 
agencies.
  Let me tell you, we have found in the past that these procuring 
officers and these procuring activities and these procurement agencies 
do indeed wanted to streamline what they do. They would like to 
simplify. Vigorous competition comes down as a burden on their back to 
bear. They like to make it as simple and direct as possible.
  But we have to be careful here that, as we move to streamline, before 
just willy-nilly putting provisions like these in the code and turning 
back on something that has worked well, we will move, I fear, from 
competition to cartelization.
  There are other things in here: commercial exceptions for commercial 
buying which I support but we need better definition. We are moving 
away from using GAO and the dispute resolution process to a new 
appellate procedure. I have not any idea whether that is a good idea or 
not. I will say to the chairman I was there until midday with the 
hearing, I could not stay for the rest of the hearing. It may well have 
been worked out then. I am not criticizing him or the committee. I am 
simply raising a caution flag saying, let us be diligent, let us be 
careful, let us do the right thing here.
  Our objective in this bill and in the years ahead is to defend the 
country for about $250 to $260 billion. That is a lot less money than 
it used to be, but it is still a lot of money. If we are not--we simply 
cannot do what we need to do, fund four military services, if we spend 
the money the way we spent it in the 1980's. We have to spend it 
smarter than we did in the 1980's. We should take care here that we do 
not build into title 10 of the code a bias toward high cost contractors 
who bid without the fear or discipline of rigorous competition and 
charge us more than we have to pay, or we will undo the whole quest 
that lies before us in this bill.
  So the gentlewoman and I are saying is that, when we go into the 
markup, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, I think it is a 
substantially positive improvement to this bill and hope everybody will 
vote for it. But as we go into the markup of this bill, I think it 
still needs a thorough scrubbing.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a very excellent freshman member of the 
Committee on National Security.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Collins 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clinger-Spence acquisition reform amendment will 
finish the job begun by the Congress last year. Consider the changes 
proposed by the amendment:
  Changing competition requirements so that they are reasonable, 
establishing commercial-like procedures for Government procurement, 
reforming procurement integrity so that it no longer stifles the 
process--making American companies more competitive on the 
international market--streamlining the burdensome certification 
process, and consolidating the many dispute resolution mechanisms into 
a single review board.
  These are all commonsense answers to the very real problem of red 
tape and an overly bureaucratic procurement process. This Congress is 
finally applying real-world family and business practices to our 
budgets and our administration of Federal programs. Why not apply these 
standards to Federal purchasers?
  I commend Chairmen Spence and Clinger for working so hard to bring 
this needed change to Government. Support the Clinger-Spence amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Collins amendment.
  This amendment preserves the standard of full and open competition in 
Federal procurement, but it does so while adding needed reforms to the 
process, which bring Government acquisition closer to commercial buying 
practices.
  Full and open competition is at the heart of the free-market system. 
In the Federal procurement process, it guarantees that the Government 
gets the best value for the goods and services that it purchases. The 
full and open competition standard has been law for over a decade. It 
was enacted as part of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. That 
bill was a response to the fraud and abuse which characterized Federal 
procurement at the time.
  We all are familiar with the scandals of the late 1970's, the $1,000 
hammers, the $500 scarves. Chairman Clinger's amendment would replace 
the full and open competition standard with something called maximum 
practicable competition. What is that? In fact, not one witness at the 
only hearing held on the legislation could define what maximum 
practicable competition meant.
  I find this lack of definition extremely troubling. How can we debate 
something when we do not even know what it means?
  Mr. Edward Black at our hearing on this amendment called this lack of 
definition, and I quote, ``a breeding ground for litigation.''
  Which is hardly simplified procedure.
  Doing business with only a few well-known firms is certainly easier 
than considering all responsible sources, but such a system would 
certainly cost the American taxpayer money in the form of higher 
prices. Adopting the proposed standard of maximum practicable 
competition would also make it much harder for small businesses to 
compete for Government contracts.
  Small businesses make up the heart of our economy, generating 85 
percent of all new jobs. Putting small businesses at a disadvantage in 
the Federal procurement system is not only unfair, it makes no economic 
sense.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Bass], another valued freshman member of our 
committee and a strong supporter of the Clinger amendment.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Illinois and in favor of the Clinger-Spence-
Kasich amendment as it has been originally offered.
  The Collins amendment strikes three of the four sections in the 
Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment and waters down the remaining section, 
section 801. The provisions of the original amendment that we are 
considering here today are not new. They have been around essentially 
in their present form since the mid-1980's. As it is, we have debated 
now the concept of trying to make it possible not only to have 
competition in procurement but to allow for normal business people like 
me or anybody else to be involved in the process. The fact is, that the 
Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment provides flexibility for vendors and 
buyers. It eliminates delays in procurement, and it reduces the overall 
cost of a $200 billion procurement system that we have in place today.
  What the Collins amendment would do would go back 90 or 98 percent of 
the way to the present system that we have today. I would submit to my 
colleagues that the arguments that we hear about increased competition 
are really the results of micromanaging. What happens is that we cannot 
compete unless we have experts and professionals who know how to deal 
with the [[Page H5934]] cumbersome and difficult process. Although it 
may seem like we are loosening up the rules, what we are in effect 
doing is providing this needed flexibility so that more people can 
become involved in the process.
  The fact is that we, the sponsors of the Clinger-Spence-Kasich 
amendment, believe that individuals should have more flexibility to set 
the rules so that more individuals can compete in the process and that 
we can reduce the costs and get more vendors involved in the process in 
the first place.
  So it is for this reason that I rise in opposition to the Collins 
amendment and in strong support of the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
has 16 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] 
has the right to close.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], a leader on the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My colleagues, for those who have complained about the $600 hammer, 
you are buying the $600 hammer today. You are paying for it. The 
difference is you are paying for part of it from the vendor and you are 
paying for the rest of it in the 300,000-person army that is the 
Pentagon bureaucracy that oversees this so-called competition.
  We are only spending about $40 billion a year in major weapons 
procurement. We are spending $30 billion a year, almost as much, in 
this army of personnel who are needed to oversee this very complex, 
heavily-regulated paperwork heavy system that we have created. So you 
are buying a $600 hammer, do not fool yourself. You are buying it right 
now.
  That means when you buy an aircraft that cost $200 million, you pay 
the Pentagon $100 million for the service of purchasing the aircraft. 
We are not going to be able to cut down this army, which is 
incidentally twice the size of the U.S. Marine Corps, if we do not cut 
the corresponding amount of paperwork at the same time.
  Please defeat the Collins amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis], chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia and a very valued member of the full committee.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise to speak today to oppose the Collins amendment. I do not think 
I have heard so much misunderstanding or misinformation about any 
amendment in my brief tenure here in the House as I heard today.
  I was a procurement lawyer for 15 years for both small businesses and 
large businesses, general counsel for each. And this has nothing to do 
with the $7,000 toilet seats or the $600 hammer. Some of these came 
well after the 1984 CCA Act and Procurement Integrity Act to try to get 
at those later. I am happy to see both sides are going to agree that 
those ought to be repealed here today.
  The rhetoric here today has been that this legislation hurts small 
business and that the Collins amendment somehow fixes this by restoring 
us back to the status quo.
  Actually, I think the opposite is the case. Proponents of the 
amendment will argue that it leads to more sole sourcing. We have got 
plenty of sole sourcing right now. Nothing in the Clinger amendment 
also allows or permits, let alone mandates, that a company be excluded 
from competition because of its size.
  You can be eliminated because of your capability, but that is in the 
current law as well. That happens under current law and the Collins 
amendment as well. So if a company is not in the competitive range, the 
key here is that this defines that competitive range a little earlier. 
But any small business who wants to bid has ample access to the 
competition under this bill.
  Nothing here states or allows or mandates that big companies, well-
known big companies bid on these projects and not small companies. That 
is just rhetoric. There is nothing here that states that or indicates 
that at all.
                              {time}  1145

  The current code has seven justifications or exceptions to allow sole 
source, but you can still have it, and we do very often. Under the 
Clinger amendment, we still have approvals and justifications for the 
sole source here, but what we have done, instead of pages of statute 
going through this, we give the contracting officer more discretion, 
and that contracting officer's discretion is then subject to review as 
well. So there are plenty of protections for businesses who think they 
are in the competitive range but are found otherwise by the contracting 
officer.
  The standard of the Clinger amendment is a dynamic one, not a 
statutory, static-driven one. We talk about reinventing Government and 
empowering the employee at the window or at the customer service desk 
to make the decisions. That is what the Clinger amendment is all about. 
That is what the Collins amendment eliminates.
  The issue, really, is, one, who is better equipped to handle complex, 
diverse, and specialized procurements, a one-size-fits-all Federal 
statute, or the Government buyer who is responsible for procuring a 
specialized service with a dwindling agency budget and procuring it 
within that budget?
  Small businesses and large businesses waste millions annually chasing 
rainbows, going after procurements that they cannot perform or that 
they cannot possibly win due to misinformation and by opening up the 
process to an extent early on that forces them to spend money, where if 
they knew more, they probably would not get into it. They are going 
after contracts they do not have a chance to win.
  Getting that word earlier in the process is good public policy, and 
it is good for business, all business, large business, minority 
businesses, small businesses. Passing the Collins amendment is a return 
to a longer procurement process, a more costly procurement process, for 
Government and for business, and more bid protests and delays in final 
awards. That is a step backward at this time, when we are tightening 
our belts at the agency level, the Federal level, and it is also a step 
backward for businesses who want to go after meaningful competition and 
go after contracts that they can afford to compete in and win.
  I think this is an outstanding acquisition reform amendment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], and I am happy to support it as it is, and I 
oppose the Collins amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentlewoman from 
Illinois if she has additional speakers?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I would say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, I have one additional speaker, and I would like to close 
after the gentleman has finished.
  Mr. CLINGER. The gentlewoman has one additional speaker and then she 
will close?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I have one additional speaker that will 
close.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Collins 
amendment, and urge my colleagues to vote against it. The amendment 
furthers the notion that Congress is in the business of micromanaging 
the operations of the executive branch and dilutes the fundamental 
reforms included in the Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment. The Clinger-
Spence-Kasich amendment would provide the much-needed flexibility to 
Government buyers to seek meaningful competition among sources who meet 
or exceed the government's requirements. To do this, we are eliminating 
much of the current maze of statutory requirements and restrictions 
which, over the years, have been imposed on our government purchasers.
  To some, this is alarming--we are moving away from a well-known 
system to one that requires thought and creativity. We expect our 
Government buyers to make rational business judgments instead of 
blindly following arcane procedures when making purchasing decisions.
  Unfortunately, Mrs. Collins' amendment would counter our drive to 
[[Page H5935]] streamline and simplify the system. Instead, her 
amendment adds more requirements and more direction and more 
micromanaging.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Collins 
amendment and to support the Clinger amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment 
of my ranking minority member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins]. I certainly am very grateful and appreciate her willingness 
to address the problem. She has made a very good faith and a very 
instructive effort to address the problem within the procurement 
system, and I also commend her for her sensitivity to issues which were 
raised at the hearings. However, I cannot support the approach. I think 
this does represent a fundamental difference in dealing with this 
question of acquisition reform.
  The Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment would provide, I think, very much 
needed flexibility to Government buyers to maximize competition in a 
way that is consistent with their particular and unique requirements. 
To do this, we would eliminate much of the current underbrush, thicket 
if you will, of statutory requirements and restrictions which over the 
years have been placed on government purchasers.
  To some, I can understand, this is alarming. We are moving away from 
a very well-known system to one that requires perhaps more thought, 
more creativity, would eliminate sort of the knee-jerk reaction to look 
at the regulations and say ``This is what we have to do.'' We will now 
be expecting our Government buyers to use their heads, their heads, 
instead of a rule book while making purchasing decisions. I think the 
Clinton administration would call this empowering of the government 
work force to do their jobs. This is what we have tried to do in this 
amendment, stop micromanaging, stop trying to predict everything that a 
purchaser might have to deal with, give them some flexibility to ensure 
that the Government gets its money's worth.
  Unfortunately, the amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois would 
strike from our amendment all the provisions which eliminate the 
statutory underbrush and drive the fundamental changes. Instead, her 
amendment really adds more of the same, more requirements and direction 
to the government purchaser. The objective, I think, is meritorious. 
The objective is one we are both trying to achieve. My only objection 
is that we are adding additional requirements on the purchaser, things 
they have to comply with, levels they have to meet before they can make 
that decision.
  Some have raised the issue that our amendment may unfairly exclude 
small businesses from the Government marketplace. That, Mr. Chairman, 
is simply wrong. As I have alluded to in the handout from the Small 
Business Task Force, it is really full of misinformation, and I am 
hopeful that we can address their concerns and the misinformation which 
they are promulgating here during the time we have before markup next 
week.
  This will not exclude small businesses from the marketplace. It 
really is wrong. This amendment does not in any way inhibit small 
businesses from participating in the Federal marketplace. It does not 
amend or change any small business, small disadvantaged business, or 
woman-owned business program. Some would have liked to have addressed 
those issues, and we did not deliberately, we stayed away from getting 
into that whole thicket.
  It does not eliminate notification of Federal contracting 
opportunities, and it does not, I would stress again, it does not 
encourage sole source contracting. Again, while I do commend the 
gentlewoman from Illinois for her effort, and we have been working in a 
very cooperative effort on this whole question of procurement reform, 
both in the last Congress and in this Congress, and I have been very 
grateful for the cooperative effort that we have seen, I have to oppose 
her amendment. It is one that we both feel strongly on our sides of it, 
because it does treat, in my view, symptoms of the problem, instead of 
attacking its source.
  There is simply no need for any of the patchwork provisions that I 
think are in the Collins amendment if the source of the problem, which 
is the current competition standard, is refined by the Clinger-Spence-
Kasich amendment.
  I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been suggested that this 
is some attempt to sort of backdoor the process, to jam the circuits, 
to ramrod something through here without due consideration. 
Respectfully, with regard to some in the full committee's concern about 
the process, I respect that, but I would just assure all those that 
have been concerned about that, that is not this gentleman's intention.
  My intention is to assure that we will have action on procurement 
reform in this Congress. I can only absolutely assure myself and the 
other Members that we will have action on it, if it is included in this 
bill. If it goes as a freestanding bill, I cannot be assured that the 
other body will deal with this in that fashion, so the purpose of this 
is really to establish the fact that we will have action on procurement 
reform, which I think we all want, that we are all desirous of moving 
beyond what we did last year.
  What I have always committed to, however, is that as we move through 
this process, and as we go next week to a markup in the committee, that 
we will have an opportunity to consider these matters further. I have 
also pledged that if there are amendments as we go through the process, 
either at the committee, and then the bill will be back here on the 
floor, I have requested the majority leader to provide time for us to 
consider this measure as a freestanding bill in this session.
  When we have completed the process here, all of the amendments that 
may be adopted in that exercise will be included, and I would pledge 
this, and the chairman agrees to that, will be included in any 
conference report that comes out of the DOD authorization.
  I will just reiterate again, this is not an attempt to short-circuit 
the process, it is not an attempt to defeat the good intentions that 
people have, it is merely an attempt to ensure that all of us get what 
we all want, which is procurement reform.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I still must express my 
concern, because the gentleman has said repeatedly today that we are 
going to take this procurement bill up in committee on the 21st day of 
June, which is next week. We are talking about procurement now. As far 
as I am concerned, it is a backdoor procedure, because we have not had 
a markup on the procurement bill. We have not had a markup on this 
section of the bill that the gentleman wants to be put into the defense 
authorization bill.
  It seems to me that without having had any kind of markup at all, or 
when we do go to markup, as the gentleman has said, we will inherit 
whatever amendments that will have been passed today on procurement as 
an integral part of the bill which we will be remarking up on June 21 
of next week, which is backward. It is not the legislative process that 
we have always worked on in this House of Representatives. We have put 
the cart before the horse, and the cart is running away with it.
  Mr. CLINGER. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just 
again reiterate that if in fact we are going to make changes, and they 
may well happen, that I would pledge to the gentlewoman and to all the 
Members that those changes will be incorporated in the ultimate product 
that comes out of this process.
  Mr. Chairman, I would at this time urge the defeat of the Collins 
amendment, well-intentioned as it may be, and urge the support of the 
Clinger-Spence-Kasich amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair how 
much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to close to 
the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], chairman of the Committee on 
Small Business.
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)

[[Page H5936]]

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, there has been a good debate 
today, and a lot of comments about $435 hammers, but the fact is that 
the Clinger amendment does away with full and open competition. And, 
the Clinger amendment would permit the use of simplified procedures, 
three phone calls, for commercial items, without any dollar limitation.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] said that he will go to 
markup next week, but he will go to markup if his amendment passes with 
these provisions already in the DOD authorization bill, provisions 
which small business opposes. By adopting the Collins amendment, the 
bill will go to markup, but the House will preserve full and open 
competition, and eliminate other changes approved by small business.
  The Small Business Working Group on Procurement Reform opposes the 
Clinger amendment. The Small Business Working Group includes NFIB, 
National Small Business United, the Small Business Legislative Council, 
the National Association of Women Business Owners, and several other 
groups.
  The Associated General Contractors have written a letter in 
opposition to the Clinger amendment.
  Listen to what they say: ``The Clinger amendment as a freestanding 
bill was introduced May 18 and was the subject of one hearing, which 
did not include testimony from the construction industry, and has not 
moved through the markup process. Changing the competition standard 
away from full and open competition to something less invites potential 
for subjectivity, favoritism, and abuse. Please, vote ``no'' on the 
Clinger amendment. I am sure they would support the Collins amendment, 
which preserves full and open competition, and would want the Federal 
Acquisition Reform Act to go to markup with the changes reflected in 
the Collins amendment.
  The landmark Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, CICA, which 
established the full and open competition standard, and prescribed 
deterrents to noncompetitive contracting, has increased competition in 
the award of Government contracts. Prior to CICA 60 percent of 
Government contracts were sole sourced. Today, more than 70 percent are 
competitive.
  Now the Clinger amendment wants to go back to the pre-CICA standard. 
Competition increases quality and checks cost growth. Work by the GAO, 
the Department of Defense IG, and the major DOD buying activities all 
demonstrate savings averaging 25 percent when a buy is competitive, 
rather than sole-source.
  Evidence of excessive competition has never been established by 
anything more than isolated anecdotal examples. In contrast, the 
Advisory Panel on Codifying and Streamlining Defense Acquisition Laws, 
this is a group comprised of recognized procurement experts from 
Government and the private sector, which made an 18-month study and an 
1,800-page report, that provided the analytical foundation for last 
year's Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, specifically reviewed and 
rejected the idea of abandoning the full and open competition standard.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Collins 
amendment and oppose the Clinger amendment.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that the original 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] was 
in a modified form which was at the desk with the concurrence of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] pursuant to section 4(a) of 
House Resolution 164.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] to the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 207, not voting 14, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 371]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--207

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     [[Page H5937]]
     
                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop
     Diaz-Balart
     Fields (TX)
     Geren
     Hastert
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Mineta
     Myrick
     Rangel
     Sisisky
     Smith (TX)
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1223

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Mineta for, with Mrs. Myrick against.

  Messrs. HALL of Texas, YOUNG of Alaska, DUNCAN, ALLARD, and 
SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BEVILL, ROBERTS, MARTINI, BUNN, GENE GREEN of Texas, RIGGS, 
and LONGLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So, the amendment to the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________