Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8852-H8887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 1995

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

H. Res. 219

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1670) to revise and steamline the acquisition
laws of the Federal Government, to reorganize the mechanisms
for resolving Federal procurement disputes, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with section 302(f) or 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title
rather than by section. The first two sections and each title
shall be considered as read. Points of order against the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure
to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI or section 302(f) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a
time during further consideration in the Committee of the
Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than five minutes the time for voting by electronic device on
any postponed question that immediately follows another vote
by electronic device without intervening business: Provided,
That the time for voting by electronic device on the first in
any series of questions shall be not less than fifteen
minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

[[Page H 8853]]
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instruction.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 219 is a noncontroversial resolution.
The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After general
debate, the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under the 5
minutes rule.
The resolution provides that the bill be considered by title rather
than by section, and it provides that the first two sections and each
title shall be considered as read. The rule waives points of order
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section
302(f) and 308(a). Additionally, points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the failure to comply with
clause 5(a) of rule 21 or section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 are waived. The chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, Mr. Clinger, was kind enough to provide the
Committee on Rules with a explanation of the waivers that has been
included in the Rules Committee report. The resolution allows the Chair
to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record, and the Chair may postpone
votes in the Committee of the Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if
those votes follow a 15-minute vote. Furthermore, at the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, Chairman Clinger, requested an open rule for this
legislation. This open rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules
by voice vote, without any opposition. Under the proposed rule, each
Member has an opportunity to have their concerns addressed, debated,
and ultimately voted up or down by this body.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Federal Acquisition
Reform Act of 1995 is critical legislation. Each year the Federal
Government spends about $200 billion on goods and services, ranging
from weapons systems to cleaning supplies. The current system costs too
much and is blanketed with redtape. The Secretary of Defense has found
that, on average, the Government pays an additional 18 percent on what
it buys solely because of requirements it imposes on its contractors.
Additionally, the Government's own administrative costs are
astronomical. The Government's contracting officials are often mandated
to follow step-by-step prescriptions that increase staff and equipment
needs. In today's tight budgetary climate we need to get the most for
each dollar we spend. I believe this legislation is a step in the right
direction. I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I sumbit for the Record the following material from the
Committee on Rules.

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of September 13, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 45 74
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 14 23
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 61 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of September 13, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/13/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/
95)

[[Page H 8854]]
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued
[As of September 13, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... A: 414-4 (5/10/95)
H. Res. 144 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 535............ Fish Hatchery--Arkansas.. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 145 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 584............ Fish Hatchery--Iowa...... A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 146 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 614............ Fish Hatchery--Minnesota. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 149 (5/16/ MC.................. H. Con. Res. 67..... Budget Resolution FY 1996 PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
95). 168 (5/17/95)
H. Res. 155 (5/22/ MO.................. H.R. 1561........... American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
95). Interests Act. 95)
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) MC.................. H.R. 1530........... Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
1996. 183 (6/13/95)
H. Res. 167 (6/15/ O................... H.R. 1817........... MilCon Appropriations FY PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
95). 1996. 155 (6/16/95)
H. Res. 169 (6/19/ MC.................. H.R. 1854........... Leg. Branch Approps. FY PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
95). 1996. 191 (6/20/95)
H. Res. 170 (6/20/ O................... H.R. 1868........... For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
95). 1996. 175 (6/22/95)
H. Res. 171 (6/22/ O................... H.R. 1905........... Energy & Water Approps. A: voice vote (7/12/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 173 (6/27/ C................... H.J. Res. 79........ Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
95). Amendment. 152 (6/28/95)
H. Res. 176 (6/28/ MC.................. H.R. 1944........... Emer. Supp. Approps...... PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
95). 192 (6/29/95)
H. Res. 185 (7/11/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
95). 238 (7/12/95)
H. Res. 187 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
95). #2. 195 (7/13/95)
H. Res. 188 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1976........... Agriculture Approps. FY PQ: 242-185 A:
95). 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95)
H. Res. 190 (7/17/ O................... H.R. 2020........... Treasury/Postal Approps. PQ: 232-192 A:
95). FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95)
H. Res. 193 (7/19/ C................... H.J. Res. 96........ Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/20/
95). China. 95)
H. Res. 194 (7/19/ O................... H.R. 2002........... Transportation Approps. PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 197 (7/21/ O................... H.R. 70............. Exports of Alaskan Crude A: voice vote (7/24/
95). Oil. 95)
H. Res. 198 (7/21/ O................... H.R. 2076........... Commerce, State Approps. A: voice vote (7/25/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 201 (7/25/ O................... H.R. 2099........... VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996.. A: 230-189 (7/25/
95). 95)
H. Res. 204 (7/28/ MC.................. S. 21............... Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/1/
95). Embargo on Bosnia. 95)
H. Res. 205 (7/28/ O................... H.R. 2126........... Defense Approps. FY 1996. A: 409-1 (7/31/95)
95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95) MC.................. H.R. 1555........... Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/95)
1995.
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95) O................... H.R. 2127........... Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/95)
1996.
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95) O................... H.R. 1594........... Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/12/
Investments. 95)
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95) MO.................. H.R. 1655........... Intelligence A: voice vote (9/12/
Authorization FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 218 (9/12/ O................... H.R. 1162........... Deficit Reduction Lockbox A: voice vote (9/13/
95). 95)
H. Res. 219 (9/12/ O................... H.R. 1670........... Federal Acquisition ...................
95). Reform Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we support this rule, and the bill it makes in order,
the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995. As the gentleman has said,
this is an open rule, so Members may offer any amendment that is
otherwise in order under the standing Rules of the House. The rule
permits the chair to accord priority in recognition to Members whose
amendments have been printed in the Congressional Record.
This rule also provides for several waivers of sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. Although we are normally
reluctant to waive the Budget Act--and particularly section 302(f),
which prohibits spending in excess of a committee's allocation, and is
one of the most important safeguards we have to control spending--we
understand and accept the necessity of waiving the Budget Act in the
cases provided for by this rule.
The rule also waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI, which prohibits
appropriations in an authorization bill. Just as we do not normally
approve of waiving the Budget Act, we are also reluctant to waive this
important rule. However, here, also, we accept the need for the
waivers.
All of these waivers are necessary because the bill consolidates a
number of Federal contract boards of appeals into one civilian board,
and one defense board. Because they authorize pay for board members,
they provide for a relatively modest amount of spending--thus, they
require Budget Act and rule XXI waivers. However, the consolidation
will result in a net savings to the Government.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1670 builds upon the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act that Congress approved last year, further
incorporating many of the reforms proposed by Vice President Gore's
National Performance Review. This legislation would encourage the
substitution of commercial items for goods developed according to
unique government specifications, relax reporting requirements for
Federal contractors, centralize the bid protest system, and develop
better trained procurement personnel. Although the Congressional Budget
Office was unable to estimate the amount of savings that this
legislation would produce, CBO believes that many of the bill's
provisions are likely to reduce costs to the taxpayers.
This is a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support in the House.
However, significant controversy has emerged over the issue of whether
every potential seller will have the opportunity to compete for a
government contract, particularly small businesses. That issue is
likely to be resolved through consideration of an amendment to be
offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and the
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
Mr. Speaker, to repeat: This is an open rule, which we support. We
urge adoption of the resolution so that we can proceed to the
consideration of H.R. 1670.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the
committee, and I appreciate his involvement.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule
and, obviously, in support of the bill, which as has been indicated,
has very broad bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, the bill represents, I think, a dramatic improvement in
the way we go about buying our goods and services at the Federal level.
The best that we could do, Mr. Speaker, in terms of lowering the
deficit, cutting Federal spending, would be to pass this dramatic
improvement in the way we buy goods and services.
It is estimated that we spend 20 percent more for everything we buy
at the Federal level, because of the arcane and convoluted and
unnecessarily prolix regulations that we have that surround the
procurement process.
It is an antiquated process, Mr. Speaker, that results in such
outrageous situations where we have an FAA which is charged with
protecting the safety of the flying public, so hamstrung by the
requirements that they are obliged to deal with to buy new, updated,
state-of-the-art technology to ensure the protection of the flying
public, it is so outdated that we are at least a generation of
technology behind and probably two
or three generations behind.

Mr. Speaker, we still operate the entire air traffic control system
using vaccum tubes, which we cannot even make in this country and have
to purchase abroad. That says there is something seriously wrong with
the way we go about buying goods and services.
We made significant progress last year on a very bipartisan basis to
reform those procedures. This is the next step. This is an addition to,
not in lieu of. It really does build with respect to what we
accomplished in the last Congress.
It is also a bipartisan effort and I think it will have, when we get
to the final analysis, a very broad bipartisan support, because I think
we all recognize that this is one area where there should not be
partisan differences in terms of how we go about buying things and how
we go about trying to do it in the most efficient way.
Mr. Speaker, there will be amendments offered and that is why I think
we need to have an open rule. These amendments deserve a full and open

[[Page H 8855]]
debate, just as we continue to provide for full and open competition.
I want to express the fact that we think that since this matter was
considered some months ago in connection with the Defense Department
authorization bill, that we have gone a long distance in meeting the
concerns of those who felt that this was somehow going to be harmful to
or work against the interests of small business. We have really made a
number of significant changes in trying to reach accommodation with the
concerns that were legitimately expressed.

{time} 1630

I think we have addressed many of those concerns. There are still
some concerns out there. There may be amendments that would be offered
in this regard, and I would urge resistance to those amendments, Mr.
Speaker, not because they are certainly not well-intended. They are.
But I think that they are unnecessarily concerned about what this is
going to do to the small-business interests.
I think that this will, in effect, really improve the opportunities
for small business and, frankly, the community is divided. Some are for
this bill. Some are opposed to it. But I think, as the debate develops,
we will be able to persuade them, in fact, this bill is going to be
very small-business-friendly. In fact, it is going to be much
friendlier to business of all persuasions across the board.
Right now, every businessman who wants to sell to the Federal
Government has to go through an incredible maze, if you will, and jump
over hurdle after hurdle to even become a player in the system. We are
trying to eliminate all of that. At the same time, we are
trying to make the Government a little more like a business in the way
we buy things, and to do that we have to provide a measure, a modicum,
not unlimited, but some measure of flexibility and some measure of
discretion to the people who are out there on the lines doing the
purchasing, doing the buying.

What we have tried to do in this bill is strike a balance between the
needs for full and open competition. Nobody is going to be shut out of
the door, but also to give the Government the opportunity to define
what do we need to ensure that we have full and open competition,
enough competition in this particular procurement.
We have procurements that go everywhere from No. 2 pencils to jet
engines to massive, huge defense contracts. Those procurements differ
from one to the other, and I think there needs to be a measure of
flexibility provided to the procurement people who have universally
come to us and said, ``Let us do our job. Do not wrap us up like Atlas
in all kinds of red tape and all kinds of requirements that prevent us
from doing our job. Let us do our job. Trust our judgment to some
extent to say we can be reasonable, we can be responsible in how we
deal with this.'' I think we achieve enormous savings if we give that
modicum, measure, of flexibility to our procurement regime.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. I urge support of the bill.
Hopefully, we can avoid having any amendments that I think will
seriously undermine the ability we are trying to achieve to give that
kind of a flexibility or achieve those kinds of savings.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the distinguished ranking member of the full
committee.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in
support of the rule on which the chairman and I have worked
cooperatively on procurement legislation. I have some mixed feelings
about bringing this bill to the floor at this time.
As you all know, the House considered a bill virtually identical to
H.R. 1670 on June 14, as an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act. That amendment passed on a bipartisan basis with
vote of 420 to 1.
The fundamental difference between the House-passed procurement
amendment and H.R. 1670 is that H.R. 1670 does not include my amendment
which passed the House to preserve the current full and open
competition standard. The failure to include my amendment as a part of
this bill is to ignore the will of the House, and to ignore the stated
concerns of the small business community.
Small business organizations, which supported my amendment in June,
continue to believe that H.R. 1670 will significantly limit the ability
of small businesses to fairly compete for Government contracts. An open
rule will allow the best opportunity for the House to once again
correct this major defect with H.R. 1670.
I intend to offer the same amendment to H.R. 1670, which I offered to
the DOD authorization bill and which passed the House. That amendment
will protect small businesses by retaining the current procurement
standard of full and open competition.
Since the House adopted my amendment to retain full and open
competition as part of the Defense authorization bill, Chairman Clinger
has made an effort to move H.R. 1670 closer to the House position. The
version of H.R. 1670 which passed the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee, does at least state full and open competition as a Federal
policy. However, in subsequent provisions, the bill creates large
loopholes through which bureaucrats can limit the ability of small
businesses to compete for Government contracts. This is the basis for
the opposition to title I by the Chamber of Commerce and the small
business community.
I am pleased that I have been able to work with Chairman Clinger on
all of the other parts of this bill, and have no amendments to those
titles. The bill makes about eight fundamental changes in procurement
procedures that Chairman Clinger has described to you, and I support
them.
When we considered this bill in committee, we were in the midst of
the Waco hearings, and had little time to work out this one difference.
While I respect Chairman Clinger for pledging to ensure my right to
offer the full and open competition amendment to the bill, I believe it
is unfortunate that the House will be required to essentially revote on
my amendment, which the House endorsed.
Nonetheless, I am prepared to return to the House floor to once again
keep the procurement process open to all businesses, small and large.
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economic system, and they
deserve a level procurement playing field.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I commend the chairman of the committee,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for coming to the
Committee on Rules and asking for an open rule.
Second of all, I do not think we can overstate the importance of this
legislation. This Federal Government spends $600 million, over $600
million a day in acquisitions, $600 million a day. We have got to have
a system that minimizes the waste and maximizes the efficiency of the
system to acquire or to make those type of acquisitions. So I think
that it is extremely important that we continue to support this kind of
legislation, and I look forward to some of the amendments that we are
going to debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\2/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to first of all compliment the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and the chairman, the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence], for putting this bill together, putting a broad
coalition of groups interested in expediting the procurement process,
making it better for American taxpayers and bringing this through
committee and now bringing this to the floor.
I want to address just a couple of issues that will be coming up in
this bill that it does that, I think, helps the American people and is
going to help that current process, which right now is a very lengthy
process. It is a process that, as the chairman noted in his previous
remarks, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, adds almost 20 percent to the
costs of goods that American taxpayers pay for that are obtained
through the procurement process.
First of all, let me talk to you about the procurement integrity
certifications part of the current law that are stricken here. In lieu,
we have planted some tougher penalties, but instead of the lengthier
certification contractors have to go through today, there will be

[[Page H 8856]]
stricter and more succinct penalties in this current bill.
Today, if a contractor, when they submit a bid to the Government for
a Government procurement, has to sign a certification saying that they
have no insider knowledge about this procurement, that nobody in the
organization has obtained this. Now, how does this work? This means
that the organization, the company, the bidder has got to go through
every person in that organization who has worked on that particular
procurement and have them sign an individual certification saying they
have no insider information, and obtain that. After looking at all of
those, it is only then that the officer for that corporation can sign
that procurement integrity certification to the Federal Government. In
turn, the Federal Government contracting officers have to sign
certifications based on these other certifications and on their own
notes and experiences in that procurement.
The end result is that many times hours are wasted. Reams of
paperwork are wasted. To my knowledge, not one person has been
prosecuted under these procurement integrity certifications put in as
an over-reaction, if you will, to the Ill Wind scandals of the 1980's.
So this does away with that but keeps even stricter penalties in place
so that prosecutors and the Federal Government will be able to police
these but at the same time not add layers and layers of costs on
contractors.

The recoupment provision that currently exists under foreign military
sales contracts will be eliminated. What does this mean? This means the
surcharge now put on American companies selling abroad under FMS
contracts will be stricken. We will be more competitive in the
international arena as we compete with companies from other countries
who are going after foreign procurements under FMS contracts. This will
bring us, if you will, into the 21st century and make us more
competitive as we move toward the borderless economy and into
international trade.
Finally, the consolidation of bid protest appeals, I think, is going
to help expedite the process for everybody. Right now, there is a lot
of gaming that goes on in terms of if a contractor loses a bid and they
are the incumbent contractor and they lose their recompete, many times
they can file a bid protest, tie that protest up and keep on performing
that work, often at a higher price than somebody who has beaten them in
fair competition, simply because of the entanglements and the
opportunities they have to game the process through agency protests,
GAO process, board of contract appeals, whatever. This expedites that
flow procedure. It allows postbid discovery and, I think, will help the
process and speed it up.
Finally, if I can briefly address the Collins-Meyers amendment that
may be offered to this, I think one of the major problems we have in
the process today in procurement is the fact that many very dedicated
public servants who are dedicated to save the public money, dedicated
to getting the best costs they can for the Government, and they are
working very hard, but in many cases they are performing tasks that do
not need to be performed. They are operating under regulations that
never should have been written, rules that never should have been
written. They are filling out forms that should never have been
printed. This is make-work, and it is a waste in many cases.
What this legislation does is it takes 7 pages of the United States
Code, of a basically cook book, and allows the buyers, the Government
procurement officer in charge at that point, to move through and, of
course, full and open competition standard remains of the amendment
that the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] put through during
the authorization schedule. We now get rid of those seven pages of
authorization and will allow that buyer the appropriate discretion they
have so they can expedite that procedure.
I urge support of this bill and rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 9 seconds to the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the vice chairman of the
committee, my good friend.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, within the first 9 seconds I want to thank
the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, I hope the House realizes how much
H.R. 1670 is needed. The fact of the matter is that procurement is just
one of many areas where our Government is operating years, if not, in
fact, decades behind where private enterprise is now functioning.
The provisions contained in H.R. 1670 are needed to bring the
Government's processes more current so that the Government can better
serve itself, that is the taxpayers who are funding it, and better
serve those businesses who wish to do business with the Government.
Specifically with respect to small business, we believe that if H.R.
1670 becomes law, that procurement will become easier so that more
small businesses will be enticed to offer to do business with the
Government, when many small businesses might not do so today because of
the cumbersome nature of the whole procurement process.
But I want to take an additional moment to address specifically the
concerns raised by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] who, of
course, is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small
Business, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], who is the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. There are, in fact, no two Members in Congress who are more
vigilant in looking at small-business interests than these two Members.
When they express concerns, it is of concern to me.
The concern, I believe, though, is misapplied. I hope we can work
something out between now and the time this bill might become law.

{time} 1645

But the concern is that there is no longer going to be free and fair,
equal, competition. The fact of the matter is there will continue to be
free and fair competition for small business, for all business, under
H.R. 1670. The fact is that all businesses could submit bids just like
they do now.
Here is the difference. Earlier in the procurement process Government
procurement officials can make a decision that certain bids, for
whatever reason, maybe a lack of ability to perform in a certain area
that is desired by the Government in this particular contract, whatever
it might be, that the offerer, the business, is not qualified to
proceed further in this bid process.
Now, first of all the suspicion is that there might be some
malfeasance on the part of Government officials that will discriminate
against small business. Malfeasance is an issue for oversight, and, if
H.R. 1670 becomes law as it is, then I think the Committee on Small
Business and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight should
pay very close attention to its implementation. But the fact is that
denial at the beginning of the process of a bid is still appealable.
The Government official must state why a particular bid is not to
proceed further in the process, and the business that does not agree
with that can appeal that and still have a remedy.
The point is that by allowing Government officials the discretion
that private business has to start filtering through offers at the
beginning of the process we can save a great deal of time and money not
only for the Government in terms of its procurement process of having
to review the same bids over and over again, if they qualify, but to
the businesses, too.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 50 seconds to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I will make sure we do that accurately, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform
Act of 1995, and it is, to my colleagues I would say, very interesting.
It is not every bill that we have that the Americans for Tax Reform and
the National Taxpayers Union have both come together to support this
legislation. The Government spends over $200 billion each year in goods
and services and pays a 20-percent premium. If H.R. 1670 removes even
one-half of the red tape and paperwork, then we can easily save $20
billion a year.
The National Taxpayers Union has been very clear on its support of
this

[[Page H 8857]]
legislation. H.R. 1670; according to them they said this legislation
will reform the Federal procurement system, which is a critical
component of fiscal discipline. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the
system currently is riddled with bureaucratic red tape and outdated
procedures, and this antiquated system is in desperate need of
fundamental reform. Each year the Government spends over $2 billion.
Taxpayers have long been saddled with the excess costs of maintaining
this expensive program, and by some estimates today the system forces
taxpayers to pay over a 20-percent premium on all Federal purchases.
Enabling the procurement process, Mr. Speaker, to open up to both
large and small businesses will save taxpayers billions of dollars not
only this year, but in the future. Reaching the goal of a balanced
budget by the year 2002 will require implementation of more efficient
and more cost-effective programs in every area of Government.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are leading by example with this bill because it
will bring a more rational approach to the management of these
programs. The Federal Acquisition Reform Act will prove to be the key
to a new era of Federal acquisition policy that benefits taxpayers and
simplifies the rules for contractors.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 1670 and to remind them
the Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union have
endorsed this legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the legislation. It is time to move
on to the legislation in regards to that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 0, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 659]

YEAS--414

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--20

Barr
Barrett (NE)
Becerra
Chenoweth
de la Garza
DeFazio
Doolittle
Ensign
Frost
Gibbons
Moakley
Mollohan
Reynolds
Schaefer
Sisisky
Torkildsen
Tucker
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Wilson

{time} 1708

Mr. NADLER and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
219 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 1670.

{time} 1711

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1670) to revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal
Government, to reorganize the mechanisms for resolving Federal
procurement disputes, and for other purposes, with Mr. Weller in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995,
is an important piece of legislation, which the gentleman from South
Carolina

[[Page H 8858]]
[Mr. Spence], chairman of the Committee on National Security, and I
introduced along with several other members of our committees.
The bill which we bring before you today represents the efforts of
many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined us in
rejecting the status quo and who are prepared to lead the way toward
reforming a system which for years has become increasingly more arcane,
more convoluted, more difficult to deal with, and therefore, more
costly, both to business, who wants to be a participant in bidding for
projects with the Federal Government, and certainly for the Government.
Members have heard it mentioned here today that the cost to the
Federal Government is about a 20 percent premium that we pay for all
goods and all services that we purchase. So we are trying to seek
fiscal discipline, and this is the surest and best way we can go about
reducing Federal spending and moving us toward a balanced budget.
Mr. Chairman, this bill sends a message to our employer, the American
taxpayer, who frankly has been paying an extraordinary premium for the
services that he has been receiving from the Federal Government. The
message is that we are serious about changing the way the Government
operates. We have to ensure that this country's resources are allocated
properly, and this bill provides the answer.
The bill has been very thoughtfully crafted. It does a number of
things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it makes us more like a business. I
mean, why should the Federal Government be involved in processes that
add cost to the taxpayer? Why can we not seek goods and services and
seek competition the way businesses do?
{time} 1715

Second, it dramatically reduces the amount of paperwork and the
incredible amount of regulatory overkill which we have imposed upon all
of our businesses.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is fewer and fewer people
are willing to participate in the process, are willing to really get
into the competition, because the process is so complex and so costly
to them that they do not want to do it. We are trying to make that a
simpler process. We are trying to say Government should be more like
business. We should not have $500 hammers. We should be able to come
into the 20th century because of our technology, which we are not able
to do because of the restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the bill.
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, with the exception of the limitation on open
competition, a change that will hurt small business, I support H.R.
1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995. Chairman Clinger and
I have worked cooperatively on this bill and he is to be commended for
his leadership in attempting to modernize and streamline the Federal
acquisition process. I also appreciate his ongoing efforts to reach a
consensus with Democratic members of the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee on procurement reform legislation, including his
incorporation into H.R. 1670 most of my suggestions as well as those
offered by the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on
Government Information and Technology, Representative Maloney.
In brief, the bill represents meaningful reform and enhancement of
Federal procurement policy. It allows for the increasing
decentralization of procurement authority, and elicits greater
costeffectiveness for the Federal Government and the taxpayer.
Let me begin by describing some of the positive features of this
bill. First, H.R. 1670 includes my provision that improves 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 longstanding and
widely accepted technique in both the public and private sectors that,
despite its proven capabilities, remains severely underutilized in the
Federal acquisition process.
Numerous General Accounting Office and Inspectors General reports,
independent studies, and even the Presidentially appointed Grace
Commission, have demonstrated that the under utilization of value
engineering by Federal agencies has resulted in billions of dollars in
lost opportunities to reduce costs to the Federal Government.
This provision will ensure greater use 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, H.R. 1670 now incorporates my language retaining the
``knowing'' standard for criminal violations of our procurement
integrity laws, and increases the maximum criminal penalty from 5 to 15
years. This provision will facilitate the Justice Department's ability
to prosecute criminal and civil procurement fraud cases.
Third, H.R. 1670 includes important provisions regarding
accountability on sole-source contracting for commercial products.
While I still believe that the complete elimination of the simplified
acquisition threshold contained in this bill will raise problems, this
provision 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, H.R. 1670 includes a provision authored by Representative
Maloney, the Subcommittee ranking Democratic member, that improves the
performance capability of the frontline contracting personnel. The bill
requires civilian agency heads to adopt education, training and
incentive features that raise the level of excellence and
professionalism of the acquisition work force. It is this work force
that will have to respond properly to the increasing decentralization
of authority.
The inclusion of those provisions in H.R. 1670 substantially improves
this legislation, and again, I applaud Chairman Clinger for approaching
this matter in the bipartisan spirit with which any acquisition reform
effort should be undertaken. However, despite our efforts to reconcile
our differences on title I of the bill, Chairman Clinger and I remain
far apart on its revision of the ``full and open competition''
standard.
Title I would change the meaning of the current ``full and open
competition'' standard mandated in the Competition in Contracting Act
of 1984 [CICA] by adding the words ``open access'' to its definition
and by adding new exceptions to the standard. The substitution of clear
statutory standards for this unknown hybrid is unnecessary, potentially
harmful, and flies in the face of reform, modernization and
streamlining goals that we all share.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that Federal procurement procedures should be
streamlined and made more cost-efficient for both the Government buyer
and the vendor. It is no secret that many vendors are spending large
sums of money bidding on Government contracts for which they have
absolutely no chance to win, and that Government contracting officers
are overburdened evaluating bids that are essentially noncompetitive.
However, the hearing record on H.R. 1670 does not establish that the
revision of the current ``full and open'' competition standard is
necessary to resolve these problems.
Title I, as it stands, represents a fundamental departure from
longstanding Federal procurement philosophy and will undermine the
basic principles of free enterprise. This is a serious defect in H.R.
1670 that I intend to correct with an amendment.
On June 14, when the House considered a nearly identical procurement
reform measure on the DOD Authorization bill, the House supported my
amendment to retain the full and open competition standard for
procurement. That amendment was passed with bi-partisan support, and I
particularly want to commend the chairwoman of the Small Business
Committee, Jan Meyers, who worked so hard on behalf of the amendment.
My amendment had the strong support of the small business community,
as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The bill before us today,
unfortunately, does not include my amendment, and instead would grant a
broad new authority to procurement officials

[[Page H 8859]]
on limit competition. Therefore, I will once again be offering an
amendment to restore the full and open standard which the House
endorsed in June.
While I maintain reservations about other portions of the bill, I
believe that H.R. 1670 can provide a substantially improved legislative
structure for Government procurement if the current statutory
interpretation of the full and open competition standard is preserved
in title I.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], a very active member of the committee.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, as a person with 25 years of private sector business
experience and as an entrepreneur, I am pleased that the committee is
taking up this bipartisan legislation, and I want to declare my strong
support for H.R. 1670. It is unfortunate that some have portrayed this
legislation as an anti-small business bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am small business. I have firsthand experience with
the Federal procurement system, and I can tell you from my personal
experience that this bill that we are offering is better. There is
misinformation circulating on this bill that is simply incorrect, and
it is the type of misinformation and rumors that can undermine valuable
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to emphasize that this bill will help
all businesses, both small and large, to participate more fully in the
Federal contracting process. H.R. 1670 will increase the use of
commercial practices, cut redtape, streamline dispute resolutions,
protect against sole source contracting, while at the same time
maintaining the necessary safeguards for small business.
H.R. 1670 removes the cost accounting standards from the commercial
item purchases, which require an immense amount of information for
reporting costs. The elimination of this government-unique requirement
will save companies millions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees the system is outdated. It is time that
the Government start operating its procurement system as a business
would. The time is now for reforming the system and moving it into the
21st century. We should take this opportunity to make a difference and
vote for H.R. 1670 without any weakening amendments.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chair of the Committee on
Small Business.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Illinois
[Mrs. Collins] and I both are offering an amendment which would restore
full and open competition to bidding. Now, I know that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] says that there is full and open
competition in this bill, but it is defined as open access, which is
then further defined, which then says that the regulators will really
define what is full and open competition, and we can get into that more
a little later.
But to say that this bill has full and open competition is simply not
accurate. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be offering
an amendment that just restores full and open competition, and I will
be offering an amendment that restores full and open competition but,
in addition to that, seeks to set forth some processes to answer some
of the very real concerns that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] has.
We want to give him some processes to screen out people early in the
process that do not have a chance of winning the bid. After all, it is
not to small business' benefit to put a lot of money into a bid they
cannot win, and that is not to the benefit of the Government either,
because it costs us time and money. So what we are trying to do is
preserve real opportunity in the procurement process.
Right now small business is a player in Federal procurement. Ninety
percent of the firms providing supplies, services and construction for
the Government are small businesses. But while they dominate
numerically, these small businesses account for about 18 to 20 percent
of the dollars awarded.
Mr. Chairman, over half of these awards are through full and open
competition, and that number is growing. We heard regular testimony in
the Committee on Small Business that half of all Government procurement
dollars are awarded for large contracts, too big for small business.
That means that 90 percent of the contractors are competing for half of
the shrinking Federal purchasing pie.
Mr. Chairman, the biggest concern among the small business community
is access. All they want is a chance to compete, to show that they can
do the job. But H.R. 1670, under the guise of procurement reform, will
take away that chance to compete by allowing faceless bureaucrats to
take a small businessman or woman's opportunity away with the stroke of
a pen.
Mr. Chairman, small business supports procurement reform, but, more
important, small business supports competition. H.R. 1670 is supposed
to simplify the procurement by weeding out bids from firms that have no
chance at winning a contract. Fair enough, but how?
In title I, H.R. 1670 eliminates full and open competition in favor
of competition whenever it is feasible or appropriate or efficient. Who
decides feasibility? Some agency functionary. Who decides what is
efficient? That same bureaucrat, the same people who gave us $600
hammers and costly coffee pots.
We will be submitting letters from the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense, and from the Department of Veterans Affairs,
saying ``Do not do away with full and open competition.'' We will
submit letters from a dozen or more small business groups, among them
the Chamber of Commerce and Small Business United, and the Small
Business Legislative Council and Women's Business Owners, many of them
seeking to retain full and open competition.
I think my bill, with the processes set forth, responds more to what
the concerns of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], are. But
whatever we do, I think we must retain full and open competition.

{time} 1730

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Horn], chairman of the Subcommittee on Government
Management.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this landmark
procurement reform bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose any amendment
offered which would weaken this bill.
The current acquisition system saddles businesses, both small and
large, with a daunting array of red tape and mandates. These
restrictions make doing business with the Federal Government an
administrative nightmare. H.R. 1670 would revolutionize government
purchasing, something long overdue, in order to create a system that
costs less and works better. It operates under a very simple proposal:
streamline, standardize, and save.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1670 has been the subject of a significant amount
of misinformation concerning small business and its impact on small
business. It is time to clear up these misunderstandings. H.R. 1670 is
good for small business.
At the heart of H.R. 1670's reforms is the empowerment of government
purchasing officers. Instead of only shuffling the large reams of paper
required to fulfill the unique government requirements, at the present
time, purchasing officers will now evaluate the procurement proposals
and make a decision. This reform streamlines the procurement process,
empowers government workers, and creates a more efficient, more
businesslike procurement process.
Every business, both large and small, will still have access to the
protest process if they think the procurement officer who made that
decision chose incorrectly. In fact, we are also improving the
efficiency of the protest process as well. The 11 current protest
boards, each operating with their own rules, regulations, and
bureaucratic hoops, will be consolidated into two boards: One for
defense procurement and one for nondefense procurement. A small company
will not have to learn

[[Page H 8860]]
new rules for each and every government bid. The process is both
streamlined and standardized.
In short, H.R. 1670 provides the authority for government purchasers
and industry providers to use sound business practices in acquiring and
selling goods and services. H.R. 1670 provides the commonsense answers
to the very real problems of an overly bureaucratic system without
eliminating small business protections. With support for H.R. 1670,
small business finally can participate in a Federal marketplace that
uses sound business practices. And, finally, it saves the taxpayers
money.
I urge Members' vigorous support for H.R. 1670 and ask my colleagues
to oppose any weakening amendments.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], the ranking Democratic
member.
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R.
1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, offered by the chairman of
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Mr. Clinger.
I share the chairman's goal to shake up the system, streamline it,
and cut the red tape. I thank the chairman for his genuine hard work on
this issue, and I thank him for his sincere efforts to reach a
bipartisan consensus on this bill. We are very close to that consensus.
Unfortunately, there are several unaddressed fundamental problems
with the substance of this bill. This bill alters the longstanding
principle of full and open competition for Federal contracts. Members
will hear that it retains the words ``full and open competition,''
true. But the problem is, it adds new words, loopholes, blank checks,
and qualifiers. The new language does not preserve the old standard,
which is the best standard for saving taxpayers' dollars and allowing
small businesses to compete in the procurement process.
Under this bill, contracting personnel are authorized to use other
than competitive procedures under two new and excessively broad
exceptions to competition; namely, when the use of competitive
procedure is not, and I quote, ``feasible or appropriate,'' under
regulation to be prescribed, another blank check for agency contracting
personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand the other party's support
for this part of the bill. I join the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] in lauding, really, the chairman of the committee on many fine
parts of the bill. But Members of that party are regularly pressing in
this body for cost and risk assessment to control the bureaucrats in
the area of health, security, and environment. But in this bill, they
give blank checks to these bureaucrats for the procurement of over $200
billion of taxpayers' money in Federal procurement.
The case to replace full and open competition has not been made. In
the hearings that were held, no one testified in support of removing
full and open competition. In fact, many people, particularly small
business, testified in support of it.
I would like submit into the Record a letter from the deputy
inspector general of the Department of Defense to the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] that very clearly states his belief that this
fully and open standard must be maintained to protect taxpayers'
dollars and to allow small businesses to compete in the process.

Also the bill robs money from American taxpayers. Existing law says
that, when a defense contractor sells weapons and technology to a
foreign government, research and development funded by taxpayers, then
the defense contractor must pay a portion of profit back to the
Government to pay for that research and development The recovery of
funds is called recoupment. The authors of this bill are eliminating
recoupment, calling it a tax on American defense contractors.
I say recoupment gives a fair return for the American taxpayers'
investment in the research and development of new weapons and
technology. I intend to offer an amendment to restore it, and it would
mean well over a billion dollars to our Treasury over 5 years.
Finally, the Clinger bill allows simplified acquisition procedures
for the purchase of all so-called commercial products, no matter what
the dollar value.
Last year we passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, a
landmark bill that raised the threshold for simplified procedures to
$100,000 and $250,000 after the implementation of electronic bulletin
boards and Federal procurement. This provision allows officials to
purchase basic goods like salad dressing and small items without undue
red tape.
It is a good bill and I support it. However, this bill, H.R. 1670,
would entirely eliminate any threshold. It would not cut red tape,
since 90 percent of all purchases are under $100,000.
In the name of simplifying the procurement statutes, this bill grants
regulation writers sweeping authority to establish procedures and
guidelines. That seems to me completely contrary to the professed
Republican view that these regulators need to be restrained.
With a few changes, H.R. 1670 could represent an excellent second
step to follow the changes made last year and those made by Vice
President Gore. Until those changes are made, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], another freshman, a very valuable member
of the committee.
Mr. ERHLICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1670. I
applaud the leadership and diligent work of the chairman. It is a
pleasure to work with such a fine gentleman and members of the
committee.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1670 proposes a procurement system that Government
can manage more efficiently and effectively as well as a system that
will benefit all American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, Federal procurement
should be of interest to every American taxpayer. In the end, the $200
billion--with a B--dollars the Federal Government spends every year on
procurement functions is a nondiscriminating tax on every American
citizen.
Mr. Chairman, fundamental reform of how the Federal Government works
has been the backbone behind just about everything we have debated and
voted upon on this floor over the past 8 months. Business as usual is
no longer the business at hand in this Congress. This Congress is
changing the way Washington works.
During the next few weeks, we will be deciding how to balance the
Federal budget. But this fight will mean nothing, Mr. Chairman, if we
perpetuate a Federal Government which saddles itself with the gross
inefficiencies of an out-of-date procurement system. American taxpayers
not only deserve a balanced budget, Mr. Chairman, but also a Federal
Government cooperating to preserve our country's fiscal integrity.
I have often remarked how our businesses are beset by excessive and
burdensome regulations and how these costs are ultimately passed on to
the consumer. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Federal procurement process is a
perfect example of how the Government itself can become the victim of
its own overregulation.
I have said this before. It is a vicious cycle, Mr. Chairman. The
least of our worries now is a shortage of laws regulating Federal
procurement, Mr. Chairman. The thousands of pages I am holding here in
my hand constitute the Federal acquisition regulations. They must be
streamlined.
H.R. 1670 assures the business community that competition in the
Federal procurement process remains full and open. The Federal
procurement system has been hampered by its own unnecessary government-
unique requirements. Its costs are escalated by its own rules and
regulations, and its ability to promote free and open and full
competition among the private sector is stifled by the red tape of its
own bureaucracy. Please support H.R. 1670.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 21
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has
12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], another very

[[Page H 8861]]
valuable and contributing member of our committee.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight for yielding time to me.
We just heard from my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Ehrlich] about the amount of regulation that we have in terms of
Government procurement. Let me see if I can explain what that really
means ultimately to the taxpayers.
Earlier this year I was visiting with the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hunter] who chairs one of the committees or subcommittees that is
responsible for buying items for the Department of Defense. He told me
that in the Department of Defense we have something like 106,000 people
who are listed as buyers. That is the bad news. The news gets worse. It
is estimated they may have as many as 200,000 managers of those 106,000
buyers.
We buy approximately one F-16 fighter aircraft a week. To buy that
fighter aircraft, we have something like 1,646 buyers. Just about one
F-16 a week. And part of the reason it takes so many buyers and so many
administrators and so many managers--and that is just the Department of
Defense, that is repeated all throughout the Federal Government--is
because of all of these rules and regulations that we have put upon the
procurement process.
Earlier this year I met with some electronics manufacturers. One of
them gave me this little electronic disk, it is a little circuit board.
This circuit board goes into an M-1 Abrams tank. It costs the
manufacturer about $2 to manufacture this board. They sell it to the
Department of Defense for $15, in part because they have to jump
through all of these hoops to do business with the Federal Government.
This is a very important bill, my colleagues. It will ultimately, I
think, save the taxpayers billions of dollars. It makes common sense.
As a matter of fact, one example, it is estimated that this could save
in the purchase of each one of those F-16 fighter aircraft, we might be
able to save as much as $2 million. That is real money.
This makes common sense. This is the kind of thing I think the voters
voted for back in November. So I strongly support H.R. 1670, and I
thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

{time} 1745

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Clinger-Spence
procurement reform initiative to untangle the current mass of
requirements that make up the Federal procurement system. These
requirements lead simply to too much money being spent for too little
product. In fact, studies show that such Government-specific mandates
add a 20-percent premium to the $200 billion the Federal Government
spends annually on the goods and services it needs to operate.
It is particularly important during this time of declining Federal
resources that we find ways to allocate our resources in a more
thoughtful, meaningful and efficient manner. H.R. 1670 provides part of
the solution by transforming the current complex web of rules into a
more common sense approach to doing business with the Government, much
like that used by worldclass commercial firms.
This legislation before us represents a significant shift in the
operation of our Federal procurement system to meet the needs of the
American taxpayer. I wholeheartedly support this reform effort and urge
my colleagues to support this measure and oppose any weakening
amendments.
Better Government does not mean bigger Government--it means more
efficient Government. This is the message we will be sending today if
we support this legislation. It is my pleasure to join with my
colleagues in support of H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act
of 1995. This legislation effectively changes the way the Federal
Government buys goods and services and revolutionizes the current
procurement system.
As chairman of the Budget Committee's National Security Working
Group, I am pleased to note that H.R. 1670 incorporates some of the
changes recommended in legislation developed by the Working Group--H.R.
1368, the Department of Defense Acquisition Management Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 1670 streamlines many of the unnecessary procedures in the
current system which increases costs to the Department of Defense, the
Government's largest single buyer, and therefore meets the needs of
American taxpayers, who pay for our Nation's defense.
The Federal Acquisition Reform Act rewards people in Government who
can get the job done on time while holding down costs.
I would like to thank Chairman Clinger and Chairman Spence for their
diligence and perseverance in pursuing such bold reforms and urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 1670 without any weakening amendments.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Clinger-Spence
procurement reform initiative to untangle the current mass of
requirements that too often have our Federal managers tied up in knots.
These managers have to select goods and services according to how easy
they are to procure rather then how good the quality is.
Would you buy a computer that way? How about medicine, or a new
building? Every year Uncle Sam buys over $200 billion worth of goods
and services, and he does it exactly that way. Whether we are buying
paper clips or tanks, this tacks on a 20-percent premium to the price
tag. Its Government-specific mandates and requirements leads to too
much money being spent for too little product.
The bottom line is we cannot, and even if we could we should not,
indulge in such regulation. With declining Federal dollars, we have to
find ways to allocate our resources in a more productive manner.
We talk a lot in this Chamber about getting rid of Government waste.
Today we can take and pass a vote for doing exactly that. I
wholeheartedly support this reform effort. It is a big giveback to the
American taxpayer with this effort. I urge my colleagues to support
this measure and, frankly, to oppose any weakening amendments. It is an
important step towards reforming and providing common sense towards the
procurement efforts in Congress. It saves money for exactly the same
bottom line. For that, I think we owe a great deal of gratitude to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I believe we should all support this measure.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a stalwart member of the
committee.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, H.R. 1670, the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act, will enable businesses to compete much
more effectively in the Federal marketplace. Each year our Government
spends approximately $200 billion for goods and services ranging from
weapons systems to everyday commodities. According to a report prepared
by the Secretary of Defense, the Government pays an additional 20-
percent premium for the goods and services it acquires solely because
of the requirements it imposes on its contractors, a 20-percent
premium. Clearly, some requirements are needed. But taxpayers pay a
premium for many unnecessary, duplicative procedures.
H.R. 1670 streamlines these procedures without compromising any
necessary safeguards. H.R. 1670 reaffirms the underpinnings of the
Government's acquisition system by placing in statute the policy of
Government reliance on the private sector to supply the products and
services the Government needs. This has been a longstanding
administrative policy of the Federal Government since the days of
Eisenhower. It is particularly significant at this time, as we are
reassessing the role of Government to reinforce our reliance on the
free enterprise system as the source of goods and services to fulfill
the public's needs.
I commend the chairmen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for bringing forth
this important and commonsense legislation. This is truly reinventing
government. Even more, it

[[Page H 8862]]
is entrepreneurial government at its best.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1670, without any weakening
amendments, in order to let the system meet the needs of the
Government, industry, and ultimately and importantly, the taxpayer.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am a bit confused when I hear the other side of the
aisle talking about weakening amendments. It seems to me the amendments
that I have before me are all amendments that are going to be very,
very helpful.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my understanding that free and open
competition is the American way, that it is something we have always
wanted. There is no way that free and open competition is going to be
harmful to the American people. There is no way that free and open
competition is going to be more costly to those of us who are
taxpayers, and we are all, in fact, taxpayers. I just do not understand
the rationale when the other side of the aisle seems to be so
thoroughly against free and open competition.
No place have I seen at all where there is a disagreement by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce which says that free and open competition is what
we need. We have not been misguided by what their letter has said to
us. It just seems to me it is something we ought to all keep in mind.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass], a member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1670. Before my
colleagues vote to considerably weaken this bill, I would ask them to
consider the reforms being offered here today by the chairmen, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence].
H.R. 1670 would enable businesses to compete effectively in both
commercial and Government markets, and would eliminate many of the
contracting requirements unique to the Government that increase the
cost of doing business with it. We have heard this from prior speakers.
The simplification of unwieldy requirements and procedures will also
encourage more businesses to enter the Federal marketplace which may
have been intimidated by the current system. These businesses just
simply cannot deal with the system as it is today. These changes will
enable the Government to take advantage of leading technology firms,
the technology being supplied by these firms important to the
Government.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Federal Acquisition
Reform Act in the interests of efficiency, a strengthened supplier
base, increased competition, and reduced procurement costs. I urge my
colleagues to vote against any amendments that are offered that will
weaken this bill and make the system work more slowly and more
bureaucratically.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the cosponsor of this
legislation and the very able and excellent chairman of the Committee
on National Security.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1670, the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995.
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 yet 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
concurrent budget resolution adopted by this House does increase
Defense 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 funds from
within the Defense program.
It makes necessary process reforms that will streamline procedures,
reduce the costly overhead associated with Federal procurements, and
allow the Government to buy commercially more often.
Mr. Chairman, the House National Security Committee shares
jurisdiction on these issues and received sequential referral of this
legislation. In that capacity, we have been working with the Government
Reform and Oversight Committee to iron out some last remaining
differences. I am happy to report that we have reached an agreement on
these differences and that I will be offering an amendment later on
reflecting these changes. I want to commend Chairman Clinger and
Representative Collins for the cooperative spirit in which they have
dealt with our committee and for the willingness to work out these last
remaining differences.
Mr. Chairman, I am told that there may be some amendments from the
minority or from the Small Business Committee that could have the
effect of walking back many of the important provisions of H.R. 1670.
These amendments, 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. H.R. 1670 is such
fundamental reform.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to defeat any weakening amendments
that may be offered by those seeking to protect the status quo system.
While change is always unsettling to some, there is no aspect of the
Federal Government that could stand more change than the Federal
procurement system.
H.R. 1670 represents such change, and I urge my colleagues to support
the Government Reform and National Security Committees in pursuing this
important objective.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe we can improve Government
procurement. There are many provisions in this bill that were developed
in a very bipartisan manner to reduce the number of steps in the
procurement process. In fact, many of these changes were recommended by
Vice President Gore. We have disagreed on just one item, the
requirement that we have full and open competition.
Full and open competition reduces the cost of the Government, it does
not add to the burden of procurement. Full and open competition lets
new business, small business, compete. Our amendment would also give
necessary flexibility to Government officials to discuss with
businesses whether they have a chance to win any kind of procurement
opportunity, so that companies with hopeless causes can voluntarily
withdraw.
This is not adding anything, this is in fact helping to streamline
the whole process while keeping full and open competition. Full and
open competition actually keeps bureaucrats from using prejudice and an
old boy network to exclude worthy businesses. That is all we are
talking about. That is all we

[[Page H 8863]]
are going to be talking about in my amendment. It just seems to me that
we have to make a case for full and open competition. If it were not
for this one hang-up that we have in this legislation, we would be on
our way home right now. We could have probably voted for this piece of
legislation and have been out of here.
I have to repeat that nowhere has the case been made to change the
competition standard. The procurement process can be streamlined, as I
said just now, and I agree with many of the provisions that are here.
It just seems to me that we ought to get about the business of taking
care of full and open competition so we can be on our way, so small
business, large business, megabusinesses can all have a fair shake at
getting Federal Government contracts.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.

{time} 1800

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to indicate
that I think that the gentlewoman said that we could have been out of
here if we could resolve this one niggling little disagreement.
I have to suggest that it is a little more than a minor disagreement.
I think that in my view it really goes to the heart of this bill. We
have a fundamental disagreement over the impact.
I believe, and I hope a majority will believe, that what we have
provided here is the kind of flexibility we need to really get the
reforms that are necessary. The other side does not agree with that, so
we will debate that in more detail later on, but it is not a minor
disagreement, I would have to say.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Hunter], a very key and senior member of the Committee on National
Security.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services and the chairman of the Committee on
Government Operations for their great work. Let me give a dimension to
this problem that has not been explored before.
This year in the Department of Defense we are going to be spending
about $40 billion for procurement of weapons systems. That is for
aircraft, for ships, for submarines, and for all that equipment that
our Armed Forces use, so we spend about $40 billion for equipment.
Well, folks, we have about 300,000 Government shoppers buying that
equipment. Those 300,000 Government shoppers, that is two U.S. Marine
Corps of shoppers. I call them the 173rd Airborne shopping division,
call them the Big Red One shopping division, but those shoppers are
necessary because we have built a mountainous system of regulations
that says if you buy a military airplane for $100 million, you will
spend abut $40 million that you pay in salaries to the Pentagon for the
service of buying it.
If we do not start reducing the regulations, and this bill goes a
long way toward doing that, we are going to continue to maintain two
U.S. Marine Corps for the service of shopping for weapon systems. That
is not in the interest of the taxpayers.
I commend the gentlemen for their hard work. I just hope everybody in
the House realizes the efficiencies that we can achieve if we will pass
this bill.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], another member from the Committee on National
Security, which is the cocommittee with our committee in bringing this
legislation to the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, the Clinger-Spence acquisition reform
bill before you will finish the job begun by the Congress last year.
Consider the changes proposed by the bill: Changing competition
requirements so that they are reasonable in light of the need;
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; consolidating the many dispute resolution mechanisms into a
single review board.
These are all commonsense answers to the very real problem of redtape
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?
When this bill was first put forward as an amendment to the Defense
authorization, many business groups voiced their concern
over the new approach to the process. They were concerned that this
legislation would in some way limit their ability to freely and openly
pursue contracts.

Since that time, Chairmen Clinger and Spence have worked very hard to
address these concerns. They have made very important changes that
protect the rights of business while maintaining the commonsense
approach that serves as the basis of the legislation.
I commend Chairmen Spence and Clinger for working so hard to bring
these needed changes to Government. The changes will be good for
business, and ultimately they will be good for the taxpayers. Support
the Clinger-Spence procurement reform bill and reject this amendment.
However well-intentioned, the amendment of my colleague from Illinois
would embrace the status quo and prevent the kind of reform that will
get to the heart of this unruly process.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, if I may, just to
indicate that as we near the end of this debate, I think it has been a
very full and open debate, and I think we have touched on some of the
issues that will be part of the debate that will follow this as we
consider the bill title by title.
It is a significant, I think, reform, a dramatic reform, if you will,
of what we have had to live with and what procurement people have had
to live with for so long in trying to do the people's business, what we
heard in witness after witness from the procurement community. These
are dedicated public servants who are really trying to do the job that
we ask them to do but feel that they have been hamstrung, limited,
wrapped up in redtape, and unable to really accomplish what we all want
them to do, which is to get the best bargain that they can for the
Federal Government.
We preserve full and open competition, and that I think needs to be
stressed. We do provide that the Federal Government has a role to play
in determining what they need on any given procurement, how broad do
they need to cast the net to get that, and making a winnowing process
at the beginning of the process rather than well down the road.
Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor for me to yield the balance of our
time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the
House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I am very, very proud that we
are bringing to the floor and giving our Members a chance to join in a
very fundamental reform to fix the Federal procurement system. The
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 is a step toward bringing us
into the 21st century.
The fact is Federal procurement is, I think, one of the most
inefficient things the Federal Government does. One recent estimate is
that taxpayers today pay basically a 20-percent premium on Federal
purchases.
That is, if you are to take a product and ask what would it cost you
as a private citizen to go buy it, and that costs, say, $100, you would
find that for the very same product it costs you $120 if your
Government buys it. So you as a taxpayer are not just paying for the
legitimate requirements but you are in fact paying more than you should
be paying.
But there is something deeper. Because our procurement system today
is so slow and so cumbersome and so filled with redtape and is so time
consuming, we end up buying products that are in fact obsolete by the
time we can get around to procuring them. In fact, in computers, we
actually take longer to figure out how to buy the

[[Page H 8864]]
computer than the lifecycle of current computers.
I use some examples. This is an FAA vacuum tube. If there is any
single argument for this act, this is a Federal Aviation Administration
vacuum tube which we are currently buying for the air traffic control
system. This is an Intel Pentium chip, which is 3,100,000 of the vacuum
tubes. In a period when you could be buying this, and instead you are
buying this, you clearly have an opportunity for dramatic improvement.
I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. They have produced a bill which has the American Electronics
Association, the Electronic Industry Association, the American Defense
Preparedness Association, the Contract Services Association, the
Professional Services Council, and the list goes on and on, group after
group that knows that in the modern world, agile, lean, private
corporations using the best information technologies are literally
purchasing circles around a slow, cumbersome, redtape-ridden Federal
Government.
The National Taxpayers Union and the Americans for Tax Reform both
recognize that the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 will improve
the lot of the taxpayer. They urge a ``yes'' vote.
Let me say in closing that I commend my good friend, Chairman
Clinger. I urge every Member of the House, on behalf of the taxpayers
and on behalf of a better, more effective government that you can be
proud of, I hope you will vote ``yes'' today on the Federal Acquistion
Reform Act.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment. The first two sections and
each title are considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not
be less than 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Acquisition Reform
Act of 1995''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--COMPETITION

Sec. 101. Improvement of competition requirements.
Sec. 102. Definitions relating to competition requirements.
Sec. 103. Contract solicitation amendments.
Sec. 104. Preaward debriefings.
Sec. 105. Contract types.
Sec. 106. Contract performance.

TITLE II--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Sec. 201. Commercial item exception to requirement for cost
of pricing data and information limitations.
Sec. 202. Application of simplified procedures to
commercial items.
Sec. 203. Amendment to definition of commercial items.
Sec. 204. Inapplicability of cost accounting standards to
contracts and subcontracts for commercial items.

TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Government reliance on the private sector.
Sec. 302. Elimination of certain certification
requirements.
Sec. 303. Amendment to commencement and expiration of
authority to conduct certain tests of procurement procedures.
Sec. 304. International competitiveness.
Sec. 305. Procurement integrity.
Sec. 306. Further acquisition streamlining provisions.
Sec. 307. Justification of major defense acquisition
programs and meeting goals.
Sec. 308. Enhanced performance incentives for acquisition
workforce.
Sec. 309. Results oriented acquisition program cycle.
Sec. 310. Rapid contracting goal.
Sec. 311. Encouragement of multiyear contracting.
Sec. 312. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost,
schedule, and performance experience.
Sec. 313. Phase funding of defense acquisition programs.
Sec. 314. Improved Department of Defense contract payment
procedures.
Sec. 315. Consideration of past performance in assignment
to acquisition positions.
Sec. 316. Additional Department of Defense pilot programs.
Sec. 317. Value engineering for Federal agencies.
Sec. 318. Acquisition workforce.

TITLE IV--STREAMLINING OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 401. Definitions.

subtitle b--establishment of civilian and defense boards of contract
appeals

Sec. 411. Establishment.
Sec. 412. Membership.
Sec. 413. Chairman.
Sec. 414. Rulemaking authority.
Sec. 415. Authorization of appropriations.

subtitle c--functions of defense and civilian boards of contract
appeals

Sec. 421. Alternative dispute resolution services.
Sec. 422. Alternative dispute resolution of disputes and
protests submitted to boards.
Sec. 423. Contract disputes.
Sec. 424. Protests.
Sec. 425. Applicability to certain contracts.

subtitle d--repeal of other statutes authorizing administrative
protests

Sec. 431. Repeals.

subtitle e--transfers and transitional, savings, and conforming
provisions

Sec. 441. Transfer and allocation of appropriations and
personnel.
Sec. 442. Terminations and savings provisions.
Sec. 443. Contract disputes authority of boards.
Sec. 444. References to agency boards of contract appeals.
Sec. 445. Conforming amendments.

subtitle F--effective date; interim appointment and rules

Sec. 451. Effective date.
Sec. 452. Interim appointment.
Sec. 453. Interim rules.

TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATES AND IMPLEMENTATION

Sec. 501. Effective date and applicability.
Sec. 502. Implementing regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
The text of title I is as follows:
TITLE I--COMPETITION

SEC. 101. 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) Competition.--(1) 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--
``(A) shall obtain full and open competition--
``(i) that provides open access, and
``(ii) that is consistent with the need to efficiently
fulfill the Government's requirements,

through the use of competitive procedures in accordance with
this chapter and the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
``(B) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of
competitive procedures that is best suited under the
circumstances of the procurement.
``(2) In determining the competitive procedure appropriate
under the circumstances, the head of an agency--
``(A) shall solicit sealed bids if--
``(i) time permits the solicitation, submission, and
evaluation of sealed bids;
``(ii) the award will be made on the basis of price and
other price-related factors;
``(iii) it is not necessary to conduct discussions with the
responding sources about their bids; and
``(iv) there is a reasonable expectation of receiving more
than one sealed bid; and
``(B) shall request competitive proposals if sealed bids
are not appropriate under clause (A).
``(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

[[Page H 8865]]
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.--(1)
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.
Standards for determining when the use of competitive
procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth
in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Each procurement using
procedures other than competitive procedures (other than a
procurement for commercial items using simplified procedures
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.
``(2) In the case of a procurement using procedures that
preclude all but one source from responding (hereinafter in
this subsection referred to as a `sole source procurement'),
the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide for
justification and approval under paragraph (1) of such
procurement under standards that set forth limited
circumstances for such sole source procurements, including
circumstances when--
``(A) the property or services needed by the agency are
available from only one responsible source and no other type
of property or services will satisfy the needs of the agency;
``(B) the agency's need for the property or services is of
such an unusual and compelling urgency that the United States
would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to
award the contract for the property or services to a
particular source;
``(C) it is necessary to award the contract to a particular
source in order (i) to maintain a facility, producer,
manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing
property or services in case of a national emergency or to
achieve industrial mobilization, (ii) to establish or
maintain an essential engineering, research, or development
capability to be provided by an educational or other
nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and
development center, or (iii) to procure the services of an
expert for use, in any litigation or dispute (including any
reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the
Federal Government, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding
before any court, administrative tribunal, or agency, or in
any part of an alternative dispute resolution process,
whether or not the expert is expected to testify;
``(D) the terms of an international agreement or a treaty
between the United States and a foreign government or
international organization, or the written directions of a
foreign government reimbursing the agency for the cost of the
procurement of the property or services for such government,
have the effect of requiring the award of the contract for
the property or services to a particular source;
``(E) subject to section 2304f, a statute expressly
authorizes or requires that the procurement be made through
another agency or from a specified source, or the agency's
need is for a brand-name commercial item for authorized
resale;
``(F) the disclosure of the agency's needs would compromise
the national security unless the agency is permitted to award
the contract for the property or services needed by the
agency to a particular source; or
``(G) the head of the agency--
``(i) determines that it is necessary in the public
interest to award the contract for the property or services
needed by the agency to a particular source in the particular
procurement concerned, and
``(ii) notifies the Congress in writing of such
determination not less than 30 days before the award of the
contract.
``(3) The authority of the head of an agency under
paragraph (2)(G) may not be delegated.
``(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 maximum
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;
(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) Competition.--(1) 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--
``(A) shall obtain full and open competition--
``(i) that provide open access, and
``(ii) that is consistent with the need to efficiently
fulfill the Government's requirements, through the use of
competitive procedures in accordance with this chapter and
the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
``(B) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of
competitive procedures that is best suited under the
circumstances of the procurement.
``(2) In determining the competitive procedure appropriate
under the circumstances, an executive agency--
``(A) shall solicit sealed bids if--
``(i) time permits the solicitation, submission, and
evaluation of sealed bids;
``(ii) the award will be made on the basis of price and
other price-related factors;
``(iii) it is not necessary to conduct discussions with the
responding source about their bids; and
``(iv) there is a reasonable expectation of receiving more
than one sealed bid; and
``(B) shall request competitive proposals if sealed bids
are not appropriate under clause (A).
``(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
section 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.--(1)
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.
Standards for determining when the use of competitive
procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth
in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Each procurement using
procedures other than competitive procedures (other than a
procurement for commercial items using simplified procedures
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.
``(2) In the case of a procurement using procedures that
preclude all but one source from responding (hereinafter in
this subsection referred to as a `sole source procurement'),
the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide for
justification and approval under paragraph (1) of such
procurement under standards that set forth limited
circumstances for such sole source procurements, including
circumstances when--
``(A) the property or services needed by the executive
agency are available from only one responsible source and no
other type of property or services will satisfy the needs of
the executive agency;
``(B) the executive agency's need for the property or
services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that
the United States would be seriously injured unless the
executive agency is permitted to award the contract for the
property or services to a particular source;
``(C) it is necessary to award the contract to a particular
source in order (i) to maintain a facility, producer,
manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing
property or services in case of a national emergency or to
achieve industrial mobilization, (ii) to establish or
maintain an essential engineering, research, or development
capability to be provided by an educational or other
nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and
development center, or (iii) to procure the services of an
expert for use, in any litigation or dispute (including any

[[Page H 8866]]
reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the Federal
Government, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any
court, administrative tribunal, or agency, or in any part of
an alternative dispute resolution process, whether or not the
expert is expected to testify;
``(D) the terms of an international agreement or treaty
between the United States Government and a foreign government
or international organization, or the written directions of a
foreign government reimbursing the executive agency for the
cost of the procurement of the property or services for such
government, have the effect of requiring the award of the
contract for the property or services to a particular source;
``(E) subject to section 303M, a statute expressly
authorizes or requires that the procurement be made through
another executive agency or from a specified source, or the
agency's need is for a brand-name commercial item for
authorized resale;
``(F) the disclosure of the executive agency's needs would
compromise the national security unless the agency is
permitted to award the contract for the property or services
needed by the agency to a particular source; or
``(G) the head of the executive agency--
``(i) determines that it is necessary in the public
interest to award the contract for the property or services
needed by the agency to a particular source in the particular
procurement concerned, and
``(ii) notifies the Congress in writing of such
determination not less than 30 days before the award of the
contract.
``(3) The authority of the head of an executive agency
under paragraph (2)(G) may not be delegated.
``(e) Simplified Procedures.--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 maximum
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;
(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 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--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in subparagraph (B) of paragraphs (1)--
(i) by striking out ``subsection (f)--'' and all that
follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting in
lieu thereof ``subsection (b); and''; and
(ii) by inserting after ``property or services'' the
following: ``for a price expected to exceed $10,000 but not
to exceed $25,000'';
(B) by striking out paragraph (4); and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and (2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) to read
as follows:
``(B) state where the acquisition is to be conducted
pursuant to a contractor verification system (as provided
pursuant to section 35) or whether the offeror, its product,
or its service otherwise must meet a qualification
requirement in order to be eligible for award and, if so,
identify the criteria to be used in determining such
eligibility;'; and
(B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) a statement that all responsible sources may submit
for consideration a bid, proposal, or quotation;''.
(d) 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 competition that provides open access
for responsible sources 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. 102. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Definition.--Paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 4 of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) are
amended to read as follows:
`(5) The term `competitive procedures' means procedures
under which an agency enters into a contract pursuant to full
and open competition that provides open access and is
consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the
Government's requirements.
``(6) The term `open access', when used with respect to a
procurement, means that all responsible sources are permitted
to submit sealed bids or competitive proposals on the
procurement.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Office of federal procurement policy act.--Section 20
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), subsection (b)(3)(A), and
subsection (c), by inserting after ``full and open
competition'' the following: ``that
provides open access and is consistent with the need to
efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements'' each
place it appears; and
(B) in subsection (b)(4)(C), by striking out ``to full and
open competition that remain'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``that remain to achieving full and open competition that
provides open access and is consistent with the need to
efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements''.
(2) Title 10.--Title 10, United States code, is amended--
(A) in section 2302(2), by striking out the first sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The term
`competitive procedures' means procedures under which an
agency enters into a contract pursuant to full and open
competition that provides open access and is consistent with
the need to efficiently fulfill the Government's
requirements.'';
(B) in section 2302(3)(D), by striking out ``full and open
competition'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``open access'';
(C) in section 2323(e)(3), by striking out ``less than full
and open'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``procedures other
than''; and
(D) in section 2323(i)(3)(A), by striking out ``full and
open''.
(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 the first sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The term
`competitive procedures' means procedures under which an
executive agency enters into a contract pursuant to full and
open competition that provides open access and is consistent
with the need to efficiently fulfill the Government's
requirements.'';
(B) in section 309(c)(4), by striking out ``full and open
competition'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``open access'';
and
(C) in section 304B(a)(2)(B), by striking out ``encouraging
full and open competition or''.
(4) Other laws.--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''.

SEC. 103. 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 (A) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``(A) In preparing for the procurement
of property or services, the head of an agency shall use
advance procurement planning and market research.'';
(B) by striking out subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B)
and in that subparagraph by striking out ``For the purposes
of subparagraphs (A) and (B), the'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Each solicitation under this chapter shall include
specifications that include restrictive provisions or
conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs
of the agency or as authorized by law. The'';
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting after ``(other than
for'' the following: ``a procurement for commercial items
using simplified procedures or''; and
(3) 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) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``(1) In preparing

[[Page H 8867]]
for the procurement of property or services, an executive agency shall
use advance procurement planning and market research.'';
(ii) by striking out paragraph (2); and
(iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2) and
in that paragraph by striking out ``For the purposes of
paragraphs (1) and (2), the'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Each solicitation under this title shall include
specifications that include restrictive provisions or
conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs
of the executive agency or as authorized by law. The''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``(other than
for'' the following: ``a procurement for commercial items
using simplified procedures or''.
(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. 104. 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 offeror's 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
any debriefing conducted under subsection (e) or (f) in the
contract file.''.

SEC. 105. 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''.

(3) The item relating to section 2306 in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 137 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``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'';
(B) by striking out ``Every contract awarded'' in the
second sentence of subsection (a) and all that follows
through the end of the subsection; and
(C) in subsection (b), by striking out ``used,'' in the
first sentence and all that follows through the end of the
subsection and inserting in lieu thereof ``used.''.
(2) The heading of such section is amended to read as
follows:

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

(3) The item relating to section 304 in the table of
contents for such Act (contained in section 1(b) 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) Part IV of subtitle A of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by transferring section 2855 to the end of chapter 137;
and
(B) by striking out the section heading and subsection (a)
of such section and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

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

``(a) 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.''.

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

SEC. 106. 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 System.--
``(1) Requirement.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation
shall provide for a contractor verification system in
accordance with this section.
``(2) Procedures.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall
provide procedures for the head of an executive agency to
follow in order to verify a contractor as eligible to compete
for contracts to furnish property or services that are
procured by the executive agency on a recurring basis.
``(3) Notification.--The procedures shall include a
requirement that the head of an executive agency provide for
the publication of appropriate notification about the
verification system in the Commerce Business Daily.
``(b) Evaluation.--(1) Under the procedures referred to in
subsection (a)(2), the head of an executive agency in
granting a verification to a contractor shall use the
following factors as the basis of the evaluation:
``(A) The efficiency and effectiveness of its business
practices.
``(B) The level of quality of its product or service.
``(C) Past performance of the contractor with regard to the
particular property or service.
``(2)(A) The evaluation of past performance may include
performance under--
``(i) a contract with an executive agency of the Federal
Government;
``(ii) a contract with an agency of a State or local
government; or
``(iii) a contract with an entity in the private sector.
``(B) The procedures shall include a requirement that, in
the case of a contractor with respect to which there is no
information on past contract performance or with respect to
which information on past contract performance is not
available, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or
unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
``(c) Opportunity for All Interested Sources.--The Federal
Acquisition Regulation shall provide procedures for ensuring
that all interested sources, including small businesses, have
a fair opportunity to be considered for verification under
the verification system.
``(d) Procurement From Verified Contractors.--The Federal
Acquisition Regulation

[[Page H 8868]]
shall provide procedures under which the head of an executive agency
may enter into a contract for the procurement of property or
services referred to in subsection (a)(2) on the basis of a
competition in accordance with section 2304 of title 10,
United States Code, or section 303 of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) for
contractors verified with respect to such property or
services pursuant to the contractor verification system.
``(e) 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
granted a contractor under this section upon the expiration
of a period specified by the head of an executive agency;
``(2) may revoke a verification granted 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; and
``(3) may provide that a contractor whose verification is
terminated or revoked will have a fair opportunity to be
considered for reentry into the verification system.
``(f) Special Applicability Rule.--Notwithstanding section
34, the verification system shall apply to the procurement of
commercial items.''.
(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.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?

amendment no. 1 offered by mrs. collins of illinois

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

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois. Strike
out sections 101, 102, 103, and 106 and insert in lieu of
section 101 the following:

SEC. 101. COMPETITION PROVISIONS.

(a) Conference Before Submission of Bids or Proposals.--(1)
Section 2305(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(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 subparagraph:
``(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, 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 202B(b) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b(b)) 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, 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).
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, just 3 months ago, when H.R.
1670 was offered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, I
offered an amendment to Chairman Clinger's amendment to protect small
business by providing full and open competition procurement. My
amendment was passed with bipartisan support, by a vote of 213-207. The
procurement amendment was then passed by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote of 402 to 1.
My amendment today is the same one that passed the House on June 14,
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It does three
things: First, it strikes from H.R. 1670 its redefinition of the
competition standard 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 Chair of the Committee
on Small Business, Jan Meyers; the Small Business Administration; the
Small Business Working Group on Procurement Reform; and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
In a July 27, 1995, letter to Chairman Clinger, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and Small Business Working Group on Procurement wrote:

We believe that it is essential that H.R. 1670 be modified
to maintain the current standard of ``full and open
competition'', established by the landmark Competition in
Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) . . . The competitive standard
established by CICA has proven itself for over a decade,
resulting in a steady decrease in sole source contract
awards. It assures a fair and open procurement process, which
is essential to small business.

Clearly, for these major representatives of the small business
community, the case has not been made for changing the full and open
competition standard. Small business continues to believe that H.R.
1670 will significantly limit their ability to fairly compete for
Government contracts. In my opinion, this is a fatal flaw in H.R. 1670.
My amendment will correct this flaw.
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. These market forces are
essential if we are to position our country for economic leadership
into the next century.

{time} 1815

Mr. Chairman, title I of H.R. 1670 amounts to little more than a bait
and switch maneuver in which the term ``full and open'' is included in
the text but its meaning is substantively

[[Page H 8869]]
changed. The maximum practicable standard which we rejected on the
House Floor on June 14 has been replaced by ``open access'', the
definition of which is identical to the definition of ``full and open''
in CICA.
However, the bill provides broad new exceptions to full and open
competition when agency officials determine it is not feasible or
appropriate.
Prior to passage of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984,
Federal agencies tended to award sole source contracts because agency
bureaucrats complained that full and open competition would be too
complicated and time consuming.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 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. However, this lack of competition resulted in
widespread waste and abuse in every Federal agency.
The Competition in Contracting Act's establishment of the full and
open competition standard has saved the Federal Government billions of
dollars. Now, the same old arguments which were used to limit
competition before we passed that legislation have resurfaced with H.R.
1670.
I can understand why agency bureaucrats would want additional powers
to impose limits on competition. 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.
Yes, the old boy network does have its advantages; but do we really
want our country to go backwards as we move into the more enlightened
information age?
Over the past 5 years much of the major innovative and technological
advances that our country has made have come from small businesses.
Just 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 businesses are in every
district of every Member in this House. By adopting this new
competition standard we will lock in procurement policies that lock
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 H.R. 1670's change in the
competition standard is to give agency bureaucrats more power to
exclude noncompetitive companies; but under the current full and open
competition standard most of that authority already exists.
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 agencies fail to so
advise these companies of their little chance of winning, a lot of
their money is wasted in a futile effort to win a contract.
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.
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
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] had expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 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 the
current standard and the current interpretation of full and open, and
make the targeted changes contained in my amendment.
My amendment had the strong support of the small business community,
as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the following
groups: Small Business Legislative Council [SBLC]; National Small
Business United [NSBU]; 100 + member National Association of Women
Business Owners [NAWBO]; Latin American Management Association [LAMA];
Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund
[MBELDEF]; National Association of Minority Business [NAMB]; National
Association of Minority Contractors [NAMC]; Women Construction Owners
and Executives; and American Gear Manufacturers Association. The bill
before us today unfortunately does not include my amendment, and
instead would grant a broad new authority to procurement officials to
limit competition. Therefore, I once again offer an amendment to
restore the full and open standard which the House endorsed in June.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant but very strenuous opposition to
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. I know
of her concern and I know that she has really thought long and deeply
about this matter, but I have to say that I think the gentlewoman is
wrong in the interpretation that she gives to the language that we have
included in this bill.
I also point out that since we considered this amendment back in
June, significant, substantive changes have been made in the
legislation, primarily to move in the direction that the gentlewoman
has importuned us to do. I think we recognized a number of the concerns
that she raised and we did move in that direction.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the amendment that we have
before us tonight really is in response to an earlier, now outmoded
iteration of the legislation that we have before us tonight. The
legislation we have before us tonight, I think, has addressed many of
the concerns that were raised.
In that respect, I would point out that I know the gentlewoman would
not want to mislead anybody in terms of the support, but I think that
it was alluded to that the NFIB had supported this amendment. They did
indeed support this amendment when it was offered in June. I think they
recognized that we have moved significantly toward the objectives that
we all seek, and we just received a call, I would tell the gentlewoman
and the Members, in our cloakroom asking me to make clear that they
take no position on the amendment that is being offered tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I think that reflects a movement and a recognition that
the bill that we are offering tonight really

[[Page H 8870]]

has gone, we think, the extra mile in trying to address those concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment. I think what we are
attempting to do here is to remove the restraints that have been placed
upon our procurement officers to do the job that we want them to do,
not add new restraints, new requirements, new restrictions.
I stress at the outset, this bill retains the language of full and
open competition. It is our intent to encourage everybody that wants to
do business, to come in and do business with the Federal Government.
It does say that that cannot be an open-ended process where they are
going to be in the process to the end of time or until the end of the
process. It does indicate there has to be some flexibility, some
discretion lodged in the very competent and able people who we have
manning that job. I would say if that proves not to be true, I think we
could revisit that.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide that a solicitation
include an agency's source selection plan. According to FAR, the
Federal Acquisition Regulation, source selection plans are to include
such information as a description of the organization of the agency's
source selection structure, a summary of the agency's acquisition
strategy, the proposed acquisition factors and a description of the
evaluation process.
Since agencies are required by current law to set forth in a
solicitation a clear statement of the Government's requirements, along
with evaluation factors and subfactors as well as their relative
weights, it is not clear to me, at least, that this additional
information, to the extent that it could be released under the
procurement integrity laws contained in the plans, would be of any
value to the offerors. What is clear is that the already bloated
procurement code would still have another requirement.
Mr. Chairman, we want to compress and eliminate those that are no
longer necessary or redundant, not add to the burden that we place on
these people. H.R. 1670 provides for a standard of competition, focused
on the competition received in response to the Government's
requirements.
What we do not recognize now is that there are procurements that are
in the millions of dollars, and there are procurements that are in the
hundreds of dollars. There is enormous variety and disparity between
the types of procurements we do, and yet we put them in a straitjacket,
requiring them to do everything the same.
Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that there ought to be some
ability for the procurement people to look at what the scope of that
procurement is, to determine what is going to give good competition to
achieve what we all want, and that is very simply what we are after.
What we have done here, I think, in our amendment would permit
acquisition professionals to make rational judgments in accordance with
the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation throughout the
entire selection process to ensure that only firms with a realistic
chance of award, which is not the case now, I mean, they never get the
word perhaps that they are not eligible until way down the process
after they spent a lot of money and time, and then are told, ``Hey, you
were never in the ball game to begin with.'' We allow the procurement
officers to make those determinations early.
The amendment would provide that an agency head may reject a proposal
on the basis of a preliminary assessment of its merits, rather than a
complete evaluation, if the agency has concluded that it has no chance
for award.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, many have indicated they would like to be
informed as soon as possible in the evaluation process if they had no
chance for award in order to save time and expense. We have not heard
that firms wish to have their initial proposals, which is what this
amendment would do, have their initial proposals rejected based on less
than a complete evaluation.
So, this amendment really, I think, takes away that full and complete
evaluation at the outset. The concern has been that offerors are
encouraged to incur the expense of submitting revised proposals without
the real chance of getting the award. This is addressed in H.R. 1670 by
providing for increased information in the public notice so that
offerors are provided, as early as possible in the process, detailed
information concerning the evaluation criteria to appear in the
solicitation and by granting acquisition professionals increased
discretion in accordance with the announced evaluation criteria
throughout the selection process.
Mr. Chairman, what this basically says is that we do treat all of the
applicants fairly. We do allow everybody to come in. This is not an
exclusionary process. We treat them very fairly, but we do tell them up
front what this is about. It also gives the Federal Government the
opportunity to have some flexibility, some discretion about the way
they do it.

{time} 1830

So this is all backed up. Our bill is all backed by simplified,
easily accessed, robust bid process to guard against abuse by the
discretion of the contracting officers.
We are concerned about what contracting officers are going to do;
then we have a provision there that allows that to be reviewed on a
regular basis.
Mr. Chairman, this is really an obsolete amendment. As I say, it
addresses problems that were inherent, perhaps, in the earlier bill, we
did not think so, that were inherent. We have changed many of those to
achieve the kind of reforms we all seek.
I would urge in the strongest possible way, reluctant as it may be, a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have three basic principles at issue before us.
About 10 years ago, in the midst of all kinds of procurement excesses,
Congress amended procurement law and established in the Competition and
Contracting Act a vigorous commitment to the principle of free, full,
and open competition. Basically, the philosophy of that was that if we
had full and open competition, we could say to the public, ``This is
the public's money you are spending. You are getting your value's worth
because it is a result, what we are doing, the contracts we are
awarding are a result of full, open, and vigorous competition.''
So I think that we can still say 10 years later any deviation from
full and open competition ought to be staunchly defended. I think we
ought to be wary right now of deviating from full and open competition
for a particular reason. We are downsizing acquisition in the defense
arena, drastically cutting the amount that we appropriate every year
for the so-called investment accounts, research and development and
procurement, by huge percentages.
There is a tendency there for the haves, for those
who are now defense contractors, to want to exclude the others
because the pie is shrinking, and there are just so many pieces you can
cut out of a shrinking pie. So there is already a tendency, because of
downsizing of funding of procurement for the haves, to try to exclude
the have-nots, and we want to be very careful so we do not dovetail
procurement law at this very point in the history of procurement
funding and make it easier for the haves to rule out the have-nots. I
fear we still have too much tendency toward that in this revision of
the bill.

Do not take it from me. Read what the Chamber of Commerce said in a
letter they wrote at the end of July, looking back at this bill. They
said,

We do not believe that any case has been made for modifying
the standards and practices of full and open competition. We
are unaware of any testimony or study that such a change is
needed. On the contrary, it was specifically considered and
rejected by the advisory panel on codifying and streamlining
acquisition laws whose 1,800-page report was the foundation
for P.L. 103-355, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994.

So that is the first principle here.
Let us be extremely careful about the deviations we make from full
and open competition.
Second, to the extent we do and to the extent we allow and authorize
those who manage this system in the

[[Page H 8871]]
executive branch to manage and operate the competitive system and to
determine who can bid and who cannot bid, who wins the bid, who is
excluded and who is included, then we should at least lay down our own
principles to guide them.
The second point that the Chamber made, and speaking for small
businesses in particular, is, and I am reading from their letter, ``We
are perplexed by a theme reflected in so many of the bills' provisions
eliminating clear statutory standards and substituting virtually
unfettered discretion in the career regulation writers to shape the
procurement system as they see fit.'' We are virtually letting them
make sandlot rules, to make up the rules as they go along and giving
them next to no criteria for doing so.
Read the bill itself. Pick up a copy of it. I am reading from page
13, 2304(d), ``Standards for determining when the use of competitive
procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth in the
Federal acquisition regulations.'' That is basically the bare language
of the statute. That is the prescription we are giving to the
regulators who write the rules and regulations, the black-letter law
that will determine who gets included and who gets excluded.
The Speaker just made a very compelling speech. I would like to share
another anecdote about procurement history that goes back some years.
When Ike had retired and gone to Gettysburg, he was interviewed once.
Somebody asked him ``General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, who were
the heroes of the Second World War who were unsung, the people who
helped win it, the people who played a pivotal role who did not get
adequate credit?'' The first person he mentioned was Andrew Jackson
Higgins, A.J. Higgins, a small boat manufacturer who made bayou boats
in New Orleans, LA, who came on during World War II to make PT boats
and the famous Higgins boats that made the amphibious landings
possible. That is the very kind of small business we want to make
provision for.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spratt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Spratt was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. SPRATT. That is what we are about here. We want to make sure this
system is still open to A.J. Higgins, that will ensure that we have the
kind of innovation that keeps us abreast of technology and that will
assure that we do not fall victim to having a cartel, a club of pre-
qualified bidders who are the only ones eligible to participate in this
shrinking procurement pie.
I support the amendment that the gentlewoman, our ranking Member, has
offered. I think it improves upon title I of it and corrects some of
the deviations that the bill otherwise tends towards veering away from
the standard of full and open competition.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to confuse this group. I had intended to
offer my own amendment tonight, but because my amendment was so close
in purpose to what the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] attempts to do, I have decided instead to
support her amendment.
I have been working all week with the Chamber of Commerce to try to
represent their interests and the National Association for the Self-
employed, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the
Associated Builders and Contractors, the Small Business Legislative
Council, National Small Business United, the National Association of
Women Business Owners, the Latin American Management Association, the
Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund; many
others are deeply concerned about doing away with full and open
competition.
We have heard it stated today that there is a 20 percent premium
associated with full and open competition, and this study was cited.
But this study does not relate those costs to full and open
competition. The costs identified were not associated
with competition. They were associated to Government regulation
relating to quality assurance, accounting and audit requirements,
management of technical data, engineering, to name a few. Those are the
costs that drive Government procurement. Full and open competition,
from all of the testimony that we have heard in our committee, will
save money in procurement.

I rise in strong support of the Meyers-Collins amendment, and I think
that small business supports procurement reform, but more important,
small business supports competition.
H.R. 1670 is supposed to simplify the procurement by weeding out bids
from firms that have no chance at winning a contract. Fair enough. But
how? In title I, H.R. 1670 eliminates full and open competition in
favor of competition whenever it is feasible or appropriate or
efficient. Who decides feasibility? An agency functionary. Who decides
what is efficient? The same bureaucrat, the same people who gave us
$600 hammers.
Mr. Chairman, abandoning full and open competition is irresponsible.
I have letters from the inspectors general from the Department of
Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs urging Congress not to
go back, to turn its back on full and open competition. They say that a
change is unnecessary and will be confusing as to the level of standard
for competition.
H.R. 1670 also proposes to streamline the pre-qualification process.
But is there any language laying out the process? No. Once again, it is
all left to the procurement bureaucracy to devise.
Read the bill. There are no procedures, no standards, nothing.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow the same weeding out of
capable bidders, but inside of a statutory framework. It brings us back
to current law. This amendment will allow agencies to eliminate
unsuitable proposals early in the competition through preliminary
evaluations. The amendment will meet the goals of H.R. 1670 in a way
that is fair to everyone, particularly small business.
Agencies will have an opportunity to establish their needs for
performance, and firms wishing to do business with the Government will
have their opportunity.
I urge my colleagues not to be misled with the
cries of easing the burden on the contracting system. Businesses do
not regularly bid on projects they have no hope of winning. Bid
proposals cost time and money. Businesses are not in the habit of
wasting their time and money on projects that have no chance for
success.

I ask my colleagues, are we in favor of letting the bureaucrats run
off and just do their own thing? That is not what I have heard in this
House over the last 9 months.
H.R. 1670, in its current form, says let us give full authority to
the bureaucracy; we will just trust them to do the right thing. Mr.
Chairman, I just cannot do that. I know what happens to small
businesses when agencies have too much power. Rights are trampled.
Ridiculous fines are levied. Jungles of arcane regulations appear.
Many of my colleagues in the freshman class know this, too. It is a
part of why they are here. That is not what I fought for when we passed
the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments this year, and this is not
what the Contract With America was all about, and that is why I support
this amendment.
This amendment will ensure small business is not run over by the
regulatory train of procurement streamlining. Let us streamline
procurement, yes, but let us not hand over total discretionary
authority to the bureaucracy.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas was allowed to proceed
for 30 additional seconds.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that
this amendment is the same amendment that was attempted as a place
holder in the DOD appropriation, or the authorization, I believe. If
you voted for the Collins amendment then, vote for the Collins-Meyers
amendment now. It is the right thing to do for small business.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.

[[Page H 8872]]

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers-
Collins amendment. The Meyers-Collins amendment responds to the
concerns of the small-business community and saves taxpayers' dollars
by preserving the current standard and practice of full and open
competition in Federal contracting.
The Meyers-Collins amendment responds to concerns of the small-
business community and saves taxpayers' dollars by rejecting the bill's
grant of sweeping authority for contracting officers to limit
competition, such as when they believe that competition is not
appropriate or feasible.
Where are they going to make this decision? Behind locked doors? Who
is going to oversee their decision process? The Meyers-Collins
amendment helps small businesses and saves taxpayers' dollars by
maintaining statutory standards that help protect businesses from
arbitrary treatment by contracting bureaucratic officers. The Meyers-
Collins amendment saves taxpayers' dollars and helps small businesses
by rejecting the bill's issuance of multiple blank checks to career
regulation writers to shape the Federal contracting process to their
convenience.
Mr. Chairman, full and open competition is 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 it
purchases. The full and open competition standard has been in law for
over a decade. It was enacted as part of the Competition and
Contracting Act of 1984, a bill that responded to the fraud, waste and
abuse characterizing Federal procurement at that time.
We all remember the DOD spare parts horror stories and the
investigation of influence peddling, the Ill Winds scandal.
H.R. 1670 weakens full and open competition and could return us to
those days of scandals. The simple fact is this: The case for changing
the full and open competition standard has not been made in any
credible or coherent fashion. The issue was not even raised at the
February hearing of the committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
The DOD inspector general and the IG of Veterans' Affairs agree
completely with this point, and I quote from the DOD inspector
general's testimony:

It is not clear what statutory shortcomings the proposed
changes are intended to fix. We have not seen any analysis or
demonstration of a problem that supports moving away from
full and open competition.

This is the IG saying,

Don't, do not do it.

{time} 1845

The so-called section 800 panel, which provided the analytical basis
for last year's FASA bill, considered and explicitly rejected moving
away from full and open competition. They said do not do it, it will
cause problems, it will waste taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Chairman, competition in Federal contracting dates back to the
revolutionary war. Competition in contracting has been around that long
for one simple reason: It is fair, it is honest, and it works well.
Full and open competition saves 25 percent, according to GAO in our
contracting pursuits in their recent report. Maybe even more
importantly competition maintains Federal procurement integrity and
guarantees fair play by guaranteeing that contracts are awarded on
merit; that they are awarded on merit, not favoritism and backroom
decisions.
It is easy, very easy, to understand why government bureaucrats would
support a retreat from full and open competition. Deciding who can
compete on any given contract is a very powerful position. Deciding who
can compete on over $200 billion in taxpayers' funds in Federal
contracts is a very powerful person.
Doing business with a few well-known businesses is easier than
considering qualified bidders. That is why the small business community
is so opposed to this bill. Small businesses make up the heart of our
economy, generating 85 percent of all new jobs and providing
extraordinary technological innovations. Barring small businesses from
the Federal acquisition system is unfair and it makes absolutely no
economic sense.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Maloney] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Maloney was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude by saying
the other side of the aisle has spent a great deal of time in this
Congress debating the necessity of having risk assessment placed on our
bureaucrats, of overseeing them and limiting what they are doing in
health and safety, on food inspection, on the environment. We have to
have risk assessment, we have to have standards, yet in this bill they
hand the bureaucrats a completely blank slate to determine what the
standards are. There is no legislative authority. There are no clear
guidelines. I tell Members it is a disaster, and we will be back here
changing it after dollars are wasted in fraud, waste and abuse.
Full and open guarantees competition and the best price for
government goods, saving taxpayers' dollars. I congratulate the
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] and the gentlewoman from Illinois
[Mrs. Collins] on their joint bipartisan effort on this bill and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words 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 removes the
fundamental reforms included in H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition
Reform Act.
The current system has confronted industry vendors with a maze of
redtape, often amounting to a step-by-step prescription that increases
staff and equipment needs and leaves little room for the exercise of
good business judgment, initiatives, and creativity. H.R. 1670 would
remove these unneeded prescriptions and move the system closer to a
more commercial-like process by allowing industry sellers and
government buyers to offer and acquire respectively maximum value for
the taxpayer.
Unfortunately, the gentlewoman's amendment would counter this drive
to streamline and simplify the process. Instead, her amendment strips
the fundamental reform included in H.R. 1670 and adds more requirements
and more micromanagement to the already arcane procurement codes.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1670 would enhance competition for government
contracts, focused on the government's requirements, improved
communications between government buyers and industry sellers, and
reduce the Federal Government's operating costs by increasing its
reliance on the private sector for commercial products.
NFIB is neutral on this issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues, to
vote against this amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHRYSLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
I have listened to this debate and I cannot believe we are talking
about the same bill. I have heard a lot about scandals. The fact is the
scandals occurred under the present system, and what we are trying to
do is change the present system.
We clearly spell out, if you have read the bill, that they shall
obtain full and open competition that provides open access and that is
consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the Government's
requirements. Open access is defined on page 21:

When used with respect to a procurement means that all
responsible sources are permitted to submit sealed bids or
competitive proposals on the procurement.

Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is spell out that the Government
must note its requirements, apply certain weights to them based on the
type of procurement, and than everyone can submit their procurement.
What is holding small business up is also holding big business up, and
that is shelves of regulations, shelves of bureaucracy to go through.
This tries to simplify the system to protect the taxpayers, No. 1, and
to provide for the responsible bidders to gain a contract that they can
actually fulfill, No. 2.

[[Page H 8873]]

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Collins amendment.
Mr. CHRYSLER. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult situation where we are posited
between two committee chairmen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger]; the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, and the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] the chairwoman
of the Committee on Small Business. Both of these chairmen have as
their goal the streamlining of the acquisition process because it is
good for the Government and it is good for businesses of all types. I
think, however, we have to take a closer look at the reason for the
Collins-Meyers amendment, and that is to ensure that small businesses
have a stake in the procurement process.
Mr. Chairman, we can go through the different organizations that are
for and against this bill, but I think probably the most compelling
reason for the Collins-Meyers amendment is by the inspector general of
the Department of Defense, a person who is in a civil service position.
This is a nonpolitical position. I would quote briefly from the remarks
from the letter that is opposed to the underlying bill and
it states as follows:

It says, under the definition section, the word competitive
procedures would have an added definition of ``open access.'' We
disagree with the changes. The revised definition of competitive
procedures would allow the contracting officer to limit competition on
the basis of efficiency. From our point of view, a definition for open
access is not needed because under the current statutes all responsible
sources are permitted to submit bids or proposals.
He also goes on and he says,

Subsections (b)(1), et cetera, conforming amendments to
provide for full and open competition, that provides open
access and is consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill
the Government's requirements.

The inspector general says we disagree with the changes because we
believe this is a further attempt to limit the use of full and open
competitive procedures.
Mr. Chairman, back in 1984, this body looked at the situation and it
passed the Competition in Contracting Act in 1984, which established
the current standard of full and open competition, the standard to
which the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] attempts to restore
under her amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the public trust. In one sense the
Government cannot be as selective as the private sector with whom it
does business. Everybody deserves an opportunity to compete for a
Government contract. The examples are there. Prior to the act, there
was a bid for a flame holder for the F-100 engine for the Air Force.
The bid came in at $5,000, depending upon the size of the buy. When the
Air Force restricted the purchase of the prime contractor, the cost
jumped to $16,000 per flame holder.
And, again, a divergent nozzle segment for the F-100. The bid went
from $2,400, when there was essentially sole sourcing, down to $1,000
per unit from the same contractor when this type of competition was
allowed.
Mr. Chairman, the small business people of this country are very much
concerned that they have a stake, that they have the ability to compete
in the procurement process. In the area which I represent, in the
northern part of Illinois, over 6,000 different contracts have been
signed by businesses with the Federal Government over the past 10
years. We are not talking about an inside-the-beltway type of thing. We
are dealing literally with tens of thousands of small businesses that
want to get involved in selling to the Federal Government.
The Collins-Meyers amendment strengthens a good bill. It strengthens
the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. It is not a
weakening amendment. Members of this body voted overwhelmingly a few
months ago to adopt the Collins amendment to the DOD authorization
bill. Members of this body are already on record in being in favor of
advocating small businesses becoming involved with the procurement
process. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of this body
to back the Collins amendment. It is good for the United States of
America, and it is good for small business.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, despite my high regard for the ranking Democrat on this
committee and what I know to be her intent, and from her perspective
improving this bill, I think it is only the responsible thing to do to
put on the record how the Democratic White House, the people who have
worked on reinventing government, on attempting to streamline
government, the people who, in fact, on a day-to-day basis, were vested
with the responsibility of carrying out the contractual obligations of
the United States receiving bids, granting contracts, and, in fact,
carrying out the laws that we entrust with them.
The Department of Defense, the executive branch, really need to be
heard from on this bill. I think the most important sentence in the
statement of administration policy, which is dated today, September 13,
1995, says, the very first sentence, the administration supports House
passage of H.R. 1670 as reported by the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee.
So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand the good intent of this
amendment, the fact is that this amendment would change the legislation
as reported by the committee and, thus, the Clinton administration does
not support this amendment.

{time} 1900

Mr. Chairman, I am going to explain in the White House's words why
they do not support this amendment.
In a letter from the Defense Department, which explains the support
for H.R. 1670 and the opposition of this amendment, the Department of
Defense explains that it will add significant bureaucratic burden
without furthering the goal of acquisition streamlining. The Defense
Department supports the concept that Government can no longer afford
the time and the administrative burden associated with the requirement
that every potential Government source must be allowed to compete even
when not all of those sources have a realistic chance of receiving the
contract. Thus DOD supports the enactment of the broad generic
authority to downselect that is not hampered by excessive procedural
detail. This will leave the executive agency free to implement the
authority in a flexible manner, enhancing the effectiveness of the
authority. In addition, allowing agencies to limit the number of
offerers in the competitive range to three, the contracting officer
determines the such action is warranted by considerations of efficiency
which similarly enable
agencies to expedite the procurement process and allow offerers that
do not have a real chance of receiving the award to save time and money
by being removed sooner rather than late in the process. That is a
realistic, rational approach to Government procurement reform.

So I agree with the administration. I think we need to continue
procurement reform. The statement of administration policy, of Clinton
administration policy, says that this is the one bill that continues
the procurement reform that they have consistently supported. That is
why, and I state again for emphasis, the Clinton administration
supports House passage of this very bill before us as reported by the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight without amendment.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has
expired.
(On request of Mrs. Collins of Illinois and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Moran was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman did not
read on this some statement that he has before him, right on down under
title I it says, even though it does say supports passage of the bill,
it says, however,

[[Page H 8874]]
the language in title I has raised concerns about the Government's
commitment to vigorous competition. With those concerns being raised,
it seems to me the Government has not said it does not want full and
open competition. It raises that concern, the concern is there. It is
stated on the same piece of paper that the gentleman just got through
reading from, and that has to be taken into consideration.
I favor the bill as is written with one exception, that it does not
contain full and open competition. Full and open competition would make
this bill much better. It makes it workable. It erases the concern that
the Government has, that the administration has, on this piece of
legislation. It is a worthy amendment that betters this bill. It does
not weaken it in any way. It is an amendment that should be passed by
this House of Representatives tonight.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the chairman that we hand
out the statement of administration policy to all of the Members. They
can reach their own conclusion as to what it says, but I would also ask
the Democratic Members of this House particularly to call the White
House and to ask them their position both on this amendment as well as
on passage of the bill.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, September 13, 1995.

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies.)--H.R. 1670--Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995--(Clinger
(R) PA and 16 cosponsors)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 1670 as
reported by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
H.R. 1670 makes a number of important steps to simplify the
procurement process, reduce bureaucracy, and make it easier
for the Government to select suppliers committed to good
performance. In particular, the Administration supports the
provisions that authorize simplified procedures for use in
commercial product acquisitions, streamline ``procurement
integrity'' requirements, and eliminate statutorily mandated
layers of review that slow down the procurement process
without adding value.
The Administration will continue to work with Congress to
address concerns with:
Title I, which redefines ``full and open competition'' and
authorizes ``procedures other than competitive procedures''
where competitive procedures are ``not feasible or
appropriate''. The Administration appreciates the Committee's
intent to authorize the streamlined competitive methods the
Administration has sought without micromanaging in statute.
The Administration agrees with the conclusion embodied in
Title I that significant reforms of the way in which
competitions are conducted are needed. These would include
(1) authorizing innovative ``two-phase procedures'' allowing
elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full
competitive proposals, and (2) allowing reduction of the
competitive range, after receipt of proposals, in order to
conduct an efficient procurement. However, the language in
Title I has raised concerns about the Government's commitment
to vigorous competition. The Administration therefore
recommends consideration of its proposal to authorize the
aforementioned streamlined procedures in statute.
Title IV, concerning bid protests. While Title IV has been
improved since its introduction, it still does not go far
enough to reduce excessive litigation, intrusive discovery
techniques, and adversarial relations between suppliers and
the government customer. The Administration would support an
amendment that would reduce the litigation burden associated
with Federal procurement. The Administration also continues
to have concerns about consolidation of claims and protests
into a single forum. Finally, the Administration has a
constitutional concern with the manner in which Appeals Board
judges would be appointed. These officials should be
appointed by the heads of the agencies in which the Boards
are located--the Department of Defense and the General
Services Administration--respectively.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions, if I could, to the
chairman of the committee and the author of this legislation to try to
clear up, I think, some comments that have been made perhaps in haste,
or misunderstanding, on the floor.
First of all, as I read the bill and I read this amendment, if this
amendment fails, is not the standard in the bill still full and open
competition?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Absolutely, and that is one of the changes that has been
made, frankly, since we last considered this measure, the DOD
authorization bill. There was a concern that we were eliminating the
language which has been relied on so long and so--for so many years,
and so we put that language back in. Full and open competition is still
the standard, and what we have done is say everybody, access to
everybody can come in. We have not changed that in any way.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I think within their own
committee's report, it says the section would amend to define the terms
``open access'' and ``competitive procedures'' as the operative
elements of the new competition standard. According to the new
definition, open access would be achieved when all responsible sources
are permitted to submit offers under competitive procedures, and then
they define competitive procedures. Competitive procedures would be
defined as those under which an agency enters into a contract pursuant
to full and open competition that provides open access and is
consistent with the Government's needs to efficiently fulfill its
requirements. That is the concern of small business.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask the gentlewoman from Kansas then are there any
notice provision that she has eliminated in her amendment, and I would
ask both, as I understand it, what notice provisions now will not go
out to small businesses under this that would have gone out, that would
go out, if this amendment passes?
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I just know that in the competition
requirements, in the contracting requirements, they have eliminated the
competition requirements. They have eliminated four pages.
At the end of that they say standards for determining when the
competitive procedure is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth
in the Federal acquisition regulation.
In other words, the bureaucrats decide what is feasible and what is
appropriate, and that is what scares small business.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask, if I can, the author of this bill the
standards for notice, if I can, for the procurements in this. Are they
changed at all.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Not in any respect.
Everybody is going to be fully aware of what is out there.
Mr. DAVIS. Now let me put sole source to one side just for one
second. Can anyone bid on the procurement regard? Is there any bar to
anyone bidding that is in this bill?
Mr. CLINGER. There is no bar to anybody who is, as my colleague
knows, anyone can get in and bid on these Government procurements.
Mr. DAVIS. And, as I read this, the amendment and the bill, there was
some rhetoric about these decisions were made by Government
bureaucrats. I guess they are talking about Government procurement
officers, behind closed doors, back-door decisions. But, as I read the
sole-source requirements under the bill, they are the same seven
source-sole requirements that currently are in operation that this
amendment does not affect?
Am I correct?
Mr. CLINGER. That is exactly correct. That is exactly correct.
Mr. DAVIS. And I think when we start talking about this, we have to
talk what is the current state of where we are now. Where does the
administration stand on this?
Mr. CLINGER. Well, I think it bears repeating. The administration in
their statement we received tonight supports House passage of H.R. 1670
as reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I
think the gentleman from Virginia indicated some of the reasons behind
that, that determination, which were afforded to the Department of
Defense.
Mr. DAVIS. My comments are simply this, and why I oppose the
amendment:
I understand the intentions of this and the concerns that have been
raised,

[[Page H 8875]]
but I think they are bogus in this case. I think we have--what we are
doing to some extent is we are allowing the Government buyer, if my
colleague will, the contracting officer or procurement officers--to
make some decision, but we are allowing it earlier in the game.
I was a procurement attorney for 15 years, and I can tell the
gentleman many times we would go out there and spent tens of thousands,
sometimes hundreds of thousands, of dollars on a procurement and never
really have had a chance at it at all after that money was spent.
As I understand, if this amendment is defeated, one can still bid on
the procurement. There is no bar to anyone bidding on these
procurements, but they will know earlier in the process, before vast
sums are expended, that they are outside the competitive range. That is
a savings to these small firms, and many of them, I think, would
welcome this.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. One other point.
It has been suggested here that some nameless, faceless bureaucrats
squirreled away someplace are going to be writing regulations that are
going to limit, and restrict, and exclude people from the process. That
is absolutely not true.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Clinger and by unanimous consent, Mr. Davis was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. CLINGER. That is absolutely untrue. What we are saying is that
the procurement officials, very front and center, they are very much on
the front line of the decisions that they make, are going to be given a
little more flexibility, a little more discretion, in how they do these
things. They are going to be answerable for decisions they make, and,
in fact if they exclude people, they have to go on record in writing
why and on the basis on which they excluded those people from the
competition.
So, it is not a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. It is going to be a
very visible procurement officer.
Mr. DAVIS. In fact, as I understand the legislation, the gentleman
has even stricter standards in terms of bid protests, in terms of what
those criteria are going to be.
Mr. CLINGER. Tighten those and make them much stronger.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me just ask why because I understand it is well
intentioned, and I applaud the gentlewoman from Illinois for offering
this the first time in the authorization bill, although it was narrowly
defeated. A lot of the opposition at that time was the fact it was
approach to the authorization bill and was not free-standing. In this
we have made concessions in this to try to accommodate some of the
concerns that were rightfully raised, and I applaud her for that.
But the central issue here is, should the Government in its
procurement operate on a ``one size fits all'' standard, or are we
going to allow the buyer, are we going to allow that agent then who is
trying to get the best price they can for the Government, the
flexibility to do the right thing, the flexibility to make those
determinations, and, once again, the sole criteria is not changed one
iota under the current law, and this amendment does not affect that at
all.
All the rhetoric notwithstanding it says decisions are going to be
made in the back room. The decisions on sole source do not change one
bit under this.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Collins-Meyers amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to listen to this debate as I was
listening to it a few minutes ago from my office. I had to ask myself
if this is 1995. Have we forgotten what it used to be like? Have we
forgotten the fact that there was a time when only a few could really
compete and be successful with government procurement, not only in
Federal Government, but in State government. We had situations where
they did not even make public procurement opportunities. We have had
people fighting now for years so that we can shine some light on the
opportunities that are available, and put in publications and made
public. We have had to take away the opportunity for just a few to
participate
because there were bureaucrats who could literally hand it out to
those they thought should get it. It was a little old comfortable
network of folks who could be successful, and my colleagues know this
procurement game.

Yes, we could set up a situation that I hear people talking about on
the floor today where we could have bureaucrats say, ``Oh, I don't
think this person, or that person, or this business is big enough, or
smart enough, or the proposal doesn't look good enough, or it comes
from a strange part of the country.'' We did not know that they had
these kinds of operations there. They could do all of those things and
exclude people from bidding, from participating. They could cut a lot
of small businesses out that could be successful if they only had a
decent chance to compete.
But we do not want to go back to those days. We do not want to allow
any one, or two, or three individuals to decide that they know best
without people having a real opportunity to be evaluated.
We talk about merit day in and day out. Well, I want my colleagues to
know that is what this discussion is about, that is what this debate is
about. It is about whether or not the Federal Government is going to
open up opportunity for everybody.
I hear a lot about suspect for small businesses, but this is the real
test. This is the test of whether or not we are going to let small
businesses, some of whom have not been successful in the past, but they
are willing to continue to spend their money, they are willing to
continue to knock on these doors, they are willing to continue to work
hard to get a piece of this government business. Do not close the door
not, and, please, do not make the argument about it is inconvenient.
Mr. Chairman, I do not care about anybody's proposal for streamlining
government. Of course we want to streamline government. But we do not
ever want to conclude that it is too inconvenient for us to allow small
businesses to compete, to allow those who have not had opportunities in
the past. This is a test of whether or not those who stand up time and
time again talking about how America is made up of small businesses and
how they need, but have the opportunity, to participate, to see where
they really stand for the opportunity for small business to
participate.
{time} 1915

We are talking about opening it up, fair competition. We are talking
about evaluating. We are talking about merit. This is a time to use to
open the doors, not close them, not exclude, not keep out small
businesses and women and others who have not been successful in this
process in the past, because we have had those bureaucrats who can make
decisions and not really evaluate people on their ability to perform.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1670 and encourage
our colleagues to vote for its passage. ``Better,'' ``faster,''
``cheaper'' are more than buzz words, Mr. Chairman. Last Congress we
began efforts to make these words a reality as we began the process of
streamlining the Federal acquisition process. Starting with the
enactment into law of FASA, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act,
H.R. 1670 builds on that initiative.
I would like to address right now, however, two issues that I think
need more clarification. First is the administration's position. My
colleague from Virginia [Mr. Moran] read some excerpts from the
statement of administration policy, and I would like to read some
others, because they bear on the issue of this amendment.

The administration appreciates the committee's intent to
authorize the streamlined competitive methods the
administration has sought without micromanaging in statute.

[[Page H 8876]]
These would include, one, authorizing innovative two-phased procedures
allowing elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full
competitive proposals; and, two, allowing reduction of the
competitive range after receipt of proposals in
order to conduct an efficient procedure.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that efficiency is the only goal, but
it is a valid goal. The other goals are opportunity, and ``better'',
``faster'', ``cheaper'', and I think what we are trying to do here is
to achieve a balance among three good goals.
Let me further read some language from the Department of Defense,
which has a position on the Meyers amendment, which is not going to be
offered today but, nonetheless, which also relates to this amendment.
These defense views were prepared before it was clear that the Meyers
amendment would be withdrawn, and they are in opposition to the Meyers
amendment, making this statement:

The Department of Defense supports the concept that
government can no longer afford the time and the
administrative burden associated with the requirement that
every potential government source must be allowed to compete,
even when not all of those sources have a realistic chance of
receiving the government contract. Thus, DOD supports the
enactment of broad, generic authority to down-select that is
not hampered by excessive procedural detail,'' and so forth.

And it goes on to be more specific about the Meyers amendment.
I would like to say this. As a general matter, though, it is kind of
difficult to parse it all. The administration has suggested its
opposition to these amendments, not because it is opposed to
opportunity, but because it thinks that the reinventing government
idea, which should apply to procurement, requires change. After all, if
it does not, we will never get to a better allocation of scarce
dollars. Change is painful. I think that our colleague, the gentlewoman
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], has been enormously helpful in this
conversation, but my own conclusion, based on my experience with
defense procurement and my effort to parse and understand this complex
material, is that if we are ever to get to a balance among three goals:
Efficiency, ``better'', ``faster'', ``cheaper'', and opportunity, we
ought not to adopt this amendment.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we are still talking about
the administration policy, the statement of administration policy, and
it says right here on this third paragraph,

The administration will continue to work with Congress to
address concerns with title I, which redefines full and open
competition and authorizes procedures other than competitive
procedures where competitive procedures are not feasible or
appropriate.

This tells me that the administration has not signed off on that part
of the bill. It tells me that there is still some concern that has been
raised. Full and open competition has given the administration concern.
They said, ``However, the language in title I has raised concerns about
the government's commitment to vigorous competition.'' Therefore, the
Collins-Meyers amendment is absolutely on time and on target.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the first sentence as
read by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] says, ``The
Administration supports passage of H.R. 1670 as reported by the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.''
In conclusion, just let me say again that I reluctantly oppose this
amendment and I believe that the administration and specifically the
Defense Department are in opposition to this amendment.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield,
I think it is great for you and for others to recite the very first
line in this statement, adding line No. 3, to point out the concerns.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is a very complex
and opaque statement of position, I agree with you, but I have read
other lines on this proposal.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield,
then why are we using this?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Clinger, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Harman was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, in case there is any confusion, I would
like to refer to the letter from the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr.
Longuemare, who does say--

The Department of Defense is strongly opposed to the
proposed amendment and believes that it will add significant
bureaucratic burden without furthering the goal of
acquisition streamlining.

I think that is unequivocal and very clear.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this letter is directed
to the Meyers amendment, not to the Collins amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, they are,
however, very close cousins.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would agree with the
gentleman that they are close cousins, and I would also say to the
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] that her leadership on the
Committee on Small Business is unassailed and it is with great
diffidence that I stand here and suggest that we ought to support the
original text of the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] has expired.
(On request of Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, and by unanimous consent, Ms.
Harman was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, something is in the administration statement that is
really puzzling me. It was just pointed out to me. It says,

The administration agrees with the conclusion embodied in
title I that significant reforms of the way in which
competitions are conducted are needed. These would include,
one, authorizing innovative two-phased procedures, allowing
elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full
competitive proposals; and, two, allowing reduction of the
competitive range after receipt of proposals in order to
conduct an efficient procurement.

Those are not in the bill. Those are not in H.R. 1670 as it stands
right now. So I think that those would have been in had my amendment
been adopted. I decided instead to support the Collins amendment. Mine
was much longer and I thought it may be too complex. But those two
factors that are addressed in the administration's statement are simply
not in the bill.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate my
friend's words, but I do not believe it is a correct statement of the
bill's provisions.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Collins amendment that would open competition for small business, and I
think it is appropriate that our chairman of the Committee on Small
Business is also supporting it.
The Collins amendment retains the current practice allowing all
business to compete for government procurement contracts under full and
open competition. The bill would restrict competition by allowing
agency employees, those so-called terrible bureaucrats, to limit the
companies allowed to compete. The Collins amendment was previously
adopted in this House on the DOD Authorization Act on June 14 allowing
for consideration of procurement reform, and the Collins amendment was
supported by a great many different groups, including the Small
Business Working Group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small
Business Administration, and of course the chair of the Committee on
Small Business, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. There are
also other groups, the Latin American Management Association, the
National Association of Minority Businesses. It is very important that
they have an ability to compete for Government contracts on equal
footing if they can do the job.

[[Page H 8877]]

I think that is what this whole effort is about, to bring more
competition to help to lower the cost to the taxpayers in this bill.
That is why I voted for the bill coming out of committee, and I hope we
can improve it a great deal tonight with the Collins amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond to some of
the prior speakers on the administration policy statement, which just
arrived at the last minute. I might note that it does not address what
the Meyers-Collins amendment is addressing, which is full and open
competition. When it does, it waffles, and I quote title I: ``* * * has
raised concern about the government's commitment to vigorous
competition.''
Mr. Chairman, I would like to underscore and highlight my support of
the statement made by the gentlewoman from Kansas, in that when it does
go into detail it talks about items that were in her amendment that are
not in the amendment that is before the body now.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I agree with the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] that the statement of
administration policy in the letter that we have could be clearer, but
clearly it is authentic, because it is obvious that is written by
Federal bureaucrats.
I love Federal bureaucrats, as the gentlewoman knows I do, they are
my constituents, but it clearly is authentic. If it was not authentic,
it might be easier to read.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield
in order to respond, I am not questioning whether it is an authentic
statement or not. I am saying that it does not address what we are
debating now, which is the Meyers-Collins amendment, which goes to the
heart of procurement reform, the procurement debate, which the Small
Business Administration and so many other small businesses have reached
out to us, and that is preserving full and open competition. It talks
about a lot of other things and a lot of other concerns, but it does
not directly address the concerns that are before us in this particular
amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
did not make the statement or the point that I wanted to make.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green,
has expired.
(On request of Mrs. Collins of Illinois, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Gene Green of Texas was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois
[Mrs. Collins].
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we are at the point, I
believe, where we are going to vote very, very shortly on the Collins
amendment.
I just want to point out that this amendment is the same identical
amendment that we voted on in June of this year. Not a word of it has
been changed. It made good sense then, it makes good sense now. This
bill does not preserve full and open competition.
What it does is put a statutory bait and switch on the House and on
the American public. I think that we cannot do those kinds of things.
We must in fact vote for the Collins-Meyers amendment, because we want
to be fair, we want to do the right thing by small business, we want to
do the right thing by large business, we want to do the right thing by
American business.
We want everybody to have an opportunity to play a part as being
vendors for the American dollar. We are all taxpayers here. Everybody
who pays taxes, everybody who pays taxes one way or the other has a
right to have a small business. They have a right to have a low cost.
They have a right to have the Government accept their bids and to be
looked at carefully.
They do not have the right, they do not have the right to have
somebody just say arbitrarily that we do not want to take your bid. We
do not want your business, because we have to have a deal someplace
else.
Mr. Chairman, it makes good sense, it makes fair sense to vote for
the Collins-Meyers amendment on full and open competition.

{time} 1930

Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Collins amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUTE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points in
closing. We have had a spirited debate. I think it has been a good
debate. I just wanted to make a couple of points as we conclude this
debate.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak before the chairman of the committee,
because I want Members to be left with his remarks. But I do think it
is useful to respond to some of the questions that have been raised
with regard to the language that has come from the White House and from
the Department of Defense.
The bottom line is that the White House opposes this amendment and
supports the bill. I will conclude with the point that I know, because
I have spoken with the White House, that the White House does not
support this amendment. It opposes this amendment.
It does support this bill. It has supported this bill consistently. I
think that is important for all the Members of the House to know, but
particularly for the Democratic Members of the House who wish to
support the continuing commitment to Government reform, and
particularly to procurement reform as is accomplished by this bill.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield further to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a very thorough
debate. We are ready to vote on this matter. It is clear, there is a
significant difference between us on this major issue. I would point
out one thing: The gentlewoman from Illinois said not one word, not one
comma, not one phrase has been changed in this amendment; it is exactly
the same amendment we voted on in June.
That is true. What has changed is the underlying bill to which the
amendment is proposed. We have made significant changes in the
underlying bill which we considered in June. We have accommodated many
of the concerns that were raised by the gentlewoman from Illinois and
by others with regard to the small business concerns. I think we have
addressed those. We did not have, for example, the language ``full and
open competition'' in the bill that we considered in June. That is now
in there. We have made a number of other changes that I think should go
a long way toward addressing it.
What we have not done though is give way on a significant,
significant factor, and that is the factor that we really need to get
flexibility. We need to give these procurement officers who are going
to be very public in their decisions some ability to do the best thing
for the government. The Government, after all, is who we are trying to
assist in getting the biggest bang for the bucks that we spend.
So I would just in closing point out a couple of other things that
need to be pointed out. It was alluded earlier and I want to stress it
again that there was perhaps support of the NIFB. They did support this
measure in June. They no longer do support this measure in September.
The Chamber of Commerce has just informed us that they do not support
this amendment at this particular time because of the fact that we have
made significant progress in addressing those concerns.
In fact, the others who strongly support our bill range from the
American Electronics Association, American Defense Preparedness
Association, Contract Services Association, and, most importantly, Mr.
chairman, most importantly, it has the very strong support of the
Americans For Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, and other
groups that have been real watchdogs in trying to hold down

[[Page H 8878]]
spending to get the biggest bang for their buck.
We feel that this bill is going to enable us to attack that 20
percent premium which we now pay on almost all goods and services that
we deal with in the Federal Government. We really think this is the
best opportunity we have, perhaps in this Congress, to effect the kinds
of savings that we need to do to get to a balanced budget. So I must
reluctantly but firmly urge a ``no'' vote on the Collins amendment. I
really think that it would undercut, perhaps not gut, but seriously
impair the ability for us to get the savings we are after.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the Small Business Association and the White House
Conference on Small Business, as well as the American Chamber of
Commerce, supports this amendment. It is ironic to me that we are
opposing open government, when all we have heard this year is the angry
feelings out there where people feel they do not have access to their
government. I do not believe that this issue has been addressed in the
bill. If it had been, we would not be considering this amendment.
Small businesses will want access to their government. They are not
asking for a handout. They simply want consideration. They do not want
to be barred from submitting bids. It seems to me that the least we can
do is protect our small business people and protect our taxpaying
citizens and allow that their bids be considered.
The good-old-boy network has worked for many years, not because it
has been supported by the general public, but because they never had an
opportunity to get in the door to prove that they can do adequate work.
I think that this amendment will do that.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Kansas.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I
have a letter here from the chamber dated September 12. It says:

Further, a strong case would have to be made to justify the
modification of the standard and practice of full and open
competition that has worked well for more than a decade since
the enactment of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984.
The Chamber believes that increased awards to small business
over the past decade through full and open competition and
the subsequent growth of a number of these companies
demonstrates the effectiveness of this standard.

I think they strongly endorse the principle, Mr. Chairman, and I
think they wrote that letter when they thought it was going to be my
amendment. They were not aware it was going to be another amendment. I
think that is the only reason that they have stated this withdrawal.
They strongly support full and open competition. I think they support
the concept, and I am not at all ashamed to associate their name with
this. We have taken the names off anything printed. But I have been
working with them all along. They knew last week what was in the bill
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and they still felt
that it would be wrong to remove full and open competition.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
I would simply close by saying we owe it to our small businesses, we
owe it to our general business community, to allow them access to their
own government.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully offer what I believe are
two corrections in the debate here. The first is we were informed by
the staff from the majority leader's office that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce has not taken an official position on this amendment, which,
if correct, means, of course, they have not endorsed this amendment one
way or the other.
Second of all, more central to this debate, it is statements that are
starting to be made that the advocates of the amendment say they want
free competition and full competition and fair competition so small
business can enter bids and be considered. All of that remains under
this bill. H.R. 1670 does not change any of that. All that H.R. 1670
changes is that it allows a procurement officer to make an earlier
decision in a process to take certain bids out of consideration so that
a smaller number of bids more likely to be accepted to the Government's
needs will go through and be reviewed further along the line. That is
all that it does.
The point is that everybody can submit a bid, just as they have
always been able to submit a bid. Further, the appellate process for
the purpose of procurement remains in effect. So anyone who believes,
whether they are small business or large business or anyone else, that
their procurement has not been handled fairly, that they were rejected
early in the process without good justification, they can appeal that.
So their rights are protected.
The point is, we are trying to make Federal procurement look like and
function more like private procurement, because we have seen the
strides that business has made in terms of accomplishing its goals,
which, of course, are to get the best possible product at the best
possible price. That ought to be the Government's goal.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Collins amendment.
The way the bill is currently written it would restrict true
competition and would allow agency bureaucrats to limit small
businesses from competing on Government contracts.
I would also like to point out to the rest of my colleagues that a
similar amendment was passed as part of the DOD Authorization Act of
1996 by an overwhelming margin.
The Collins amendment is pro small business and is supported by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Working Group, and the
Small Business Administration.
The Collins amendment would retain the current practice of allowing
all businesses to compete for government procurement contracts under
full and open competition.
I ask my fellow colleagues to support the Collins amendment and allow
for fair and open competition of all business.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
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 182,
noes 239, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 660]

AYES--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--239

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)

[[Page H 8879]]

Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roemer
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 (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--13

Cox
de la Garza
Frost
Herger
Moakley
Mollohan
Myrick
Pelosi
Reynolds
Rose
Sisisky
Tucker
Waldholtz

{time} 2000

Messrs. CREMEANS, WILLIAMS, and WAMP changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. DOYLE, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, and Mr. MASCARA changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. davis

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Davis:
Add at the end of title I (page 36, after line 9) the
following new section:
SEC. 107. TWO-PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES.

(a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Chapter 137 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2305 the following new section:

``Sec. 2305a. Two-phase selection procedures

``(a) Authorization.--Unless the traditional acquisition
approach of design-bid-build is used or another acquisition
procedure authorized by law is used, the head of an agency
shall use the two-phase selection procedures authorized in
this section for entering into a contract for the design and
construction of a public building, facility, or work when a
determination is made under subsection (b) that the
procedures are appropriate for use.
``(b) Criteria for Use.--A contracting officer shall make a
determination whether two-phase selection procedures are
appropriate for use for entering into a contract for the
design and construction of a public building, facility, or
work when the contracting officer anticipates that three or
more offers will be received for such contract, design work
must be performed before an offeror can develop a price or
cost proposal for such contract, the offeror will incur a
substantial amount of expense in preparing the offer, and the
contracting officer has considered information such as the
following:
``(1) The extent to which the project requirements have
been adequately defined.
``(2) The time constraints for delivery of the project.
``(3) The capability and experience of potential
contractors.
``(4) The suitability of the project for use of the two-
phase selection procedures.
``(5) The capability of the agency to manage the two-phase
selection process.
``(6) Other criteria established by the agency.
``(c) Procedures Described.--Two-phase selection procedures
consist of the following:
``(1) The agency develops, either in-house or by contract,
a scope of work statement for inclusion in the solicitation
that defines the project and provides prospective offerors
with sufficient information regarding the Government's
requirements (which may include criteria and preliminary
design, budget parameters, and schedule or delivery
requirements) to enable the offerors to submit proposals
which meet the Government's needs. When the two-phase
selection procedure is used for design and construction of a
public building, facility, or work and the agency contracts
for development of the scope of work statement, the agency
shall contract for architectural/engineering services as
defined by and in accordance with the Brooks Architect-
Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).
``(2) The contracting officer solicits phase-one proposals
that--
``(A) include information on the offeror's--
``(i) technical approach; and
``(ii) technical qualifications; and
``(B) do not include--
``(i) detailed design information; or
``(ii) cost or price information.
``(3) The evaluation factors to be used in evaluating
phase-one proposals are stated in the solicitation and
include specialized experience and technical competence,
capability to perform, past performance of the offeror's team
(including the architect-engineer and construction members of
the team if the project is for the construction of a public
building, facility, or work) and other appropriate factors,
except that cost-related or price-related evaluation factors
are not permitted. Each solicitation establishes the relative
importance assigned to the evaluation factors and subfactors
that must be considered in the evaluation of phase-one
proposals. The agency evaluates phase-one proposals on the
basis of the phase-one evaluation factors set forth in the
solicitation.
``(4) The contracting officer selects as the most highly
qualified the number of offerors specified in the
solicitation to provide the property or services under the
contract and requests the selected offerors to submit phase-
two competitive proposals that include technical proposals
and cost or price information. Each solicitation establishes
with respect to phase two--
``(A) the technical submission for the proposal, including
design concepts or proposed solutions to requirements
addressed within the scope of work (or both), and
``(B) the evaluation factors and subfactors, including cost
or price, that must be considered in the evaluations of
proposals in accordance with section 2305(b)(4) of this
title.
The contracting officer separately evaluates the submissions
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(5) The agency awards the contract in accordance with
section 2305(b)(4) of this title.
``(d) Solicitation to State Number of Offerors To Be
Selected for Phase Two Requests for Competitive Proposals.--A
solicitation issued pursuant to the procedures described in
subsection (c) shall state the maximum number of offerors
that are to be selected to submit competitive proposals
pursuant to subsection (c)(4). The maximum number specified
in the solicitation shall not exceed 5 unless the agency
determines with respect to an individual solicitation that a
specified number greater than 5 is in the Government's
interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives
of the two-phase selection process.
``(e) Requirement for Guidance and Regulations.--The
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, established by
section 25(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 421(a)), shall provide guidance and promulgate
regulations--
``(1) regarding the factors that may be considered in
determining whether the two-phase contracting procedures
authorized by subsection (a) are appropriate for use in
individual contracting situations;
``(2) regarding the factors that may be used in selecting
contractors;
``(3) providing for a uniform approach to be used
Government-wide;
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137
of such title is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 2305 the following new item:

``2305a. Two-phase selection procedures.''.

(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
303L the following new section:
``(a) Authorization.--Unless the `traditional' acquisition
approach of design-bid-build is used or another acquisition
procedure authorized by law is used, the head of an executive
agency shall use the two-phase selection procedures
authorized in this section for entering into a contract for
the design and construction of a public building, facility,
or work when a determination is made under subsection (b)
that the procedures are appropriate for use. The two-phase
selection procedures authorized in this section may also be
used for entering into a contract for the acquisition of
property or

[[Page H 8880]]
services other than construction services when such a determination is
made.
``(b) Criteria for Use.--A contracting officer shall make a
determination whether two-phase selection procedures are
appropriate for use for entering into a contract for the
design and construction of a public building, facility, or
work when the contracting officer anticipates that three or
more offers will be received for such contract, design work
must be performed before an offeror can develop a price or
cost proposal for such contract, the offeror will incur a
substantial amount of expense in preparing the offer, and the
contracting officer has considered information such as the
following:
``(1) The extent to which the project requirements have
been adequately defined.
``(2) The time constraints for delivery of the project.
``(3) The capability and experience of potential
contractors.
``(4) The suitability of the project for use of the two-
phase selection procedures.
``(5) The capability of the agency to manage the two-phase
selection process.
``(6) Other criteria established by the agency.
``(c) Procedures Described.--Two-phase selection procedures
consist of the following:
``(1) The agency develops, either in-house or by contract,
a scope of work statement for inclusion in the solicitation
that defines the project and provides prospective offerors
with sufficient information regarding the Government's
requirements (which may include criteria and preliminary
design, budget parameters, and schedule or delivery
requirements) to enable the offerors to submit proposals
which meet the Government's needs. When the two-phase
selection procedure is used for design and construction of a
public building, facility, or work and the agency contracts
for development of the scope of work statement, the agency
shall contract for architectural/engineering services as
defined by and in accordance with the Brooks Architect-
Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).
``(2) The contracting officer solicits phase-one proposals
that--
``(A) include information on the offeror's--
``(i) technical approach; and
``(ii) technical qualifications; and
``(B) do not include--
``(i) detailed design information; or
``(ii) cost or price information.
``(3) The evaluation factors to be used in evaluating
phase-one proposals are stated in the solicitation and
include specialized experience and technical competence,
capability to perform, past performance of the offeror's team
(including the architect-engineer and construction members of
the team if the project is for the construction of a public
building, facility, or work) and other appropriate factors,
except that cost-related or price-related evaluation factors
are not permitted. Each solicitation establishes the relative
importance assigned to the evaluation factors and subfactors
that must be considered in the evaluation of phase-one
proposals. The agency evaluates phase-one proposals on the
basis of the phase-one evaluation factors set forth in the
solicitation.
``(4) The contracting officer selects as the most highly
qualified the number of offerors specified in the
solicitation to provide the property or services under the
contract and requests the selected offerors to submit phase-
two competitive proposals that include technical proposals
and cost or price information. Each solicitation establishes
with respect to phase two--
``(A) the technical submission for the proposal, including
design concepts or proposed solutions to requirements
addressed within the scope of work (or both), and
``(B) the evaluation factors and subfactors, including cost
or price, that must be considered in the evaluations of
proposals in accordance with section 303B(d).
The contracting officer separately evaluates the submissions
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(5) The agency awards the contract in accordance with
section 303B of this title.
``(d) Solicitation to State Number of Offerors To Be
Selected for Phase Two Requests for Competitive Proposals.--A
solicitation issued pursuant to the precedures described in
subsection (c) shall state the maximum number of offerors
that are to be selected to submit competitive proposals
pursuant to subsection (c)(4). The maximum number specified
in the solicitation shall not exceed 5 unless the agency
determines with respect to an individual solicitation that a
specified number greater than 5 is in the Government's
interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives
of the two-phase selection process.
``(e) Requirement for Guidance and Regulations.--The
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, established by
section 25(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 421(a)), shall provide guidance and promulgate
regulations--
``(1) regarding the factors that may be considered in
determining whether the two-phase contracting procedures
authorized by subsection (a) are appropriate for use in
individual contracting situations;
``(2) regarding the factors that may be used in selecting
contractors;
``(3) providing for a uniform approach to be used
Government-wide;
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such Act is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 303L
the following new item:

``Sec. 303M. Two-phase selection procedures.''.

Mr. DAVIS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, we had published this in the Record. We have
made two modifications from what was published. It will have the
support of the administration and the committee chair on this. One was
expressed by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the other by
the administration. We have addressed those.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on about 98 percent
of the content of his amendment. There was one part of the amendment on
which we had some confusion with the language referring to stipends for
those contractors who were not selected with the award. The gentleman
withdrew that section of the amendment, and we have worked out a
compromise where we will hold hearings on this portion of the
amendment. I am sure we can resolve this problem.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman, as I
understand it, we have stricken the stipend provision, but any existing
provisions in law that would allow a government contracting agent, of
course, would remain in effect; is that correct?
Mr. GILCHREST. Any existing law remains in effect at this time, yes.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. Let me just add that we have had a
coalition of groups that have traditionally been at odds over how
Federal procurements these groups compete on should be phrased. We have
gotten them together and endorsed this. That includes the American
Consulting Engineers
Council, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of
Civil Engineers, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the
Associated General Contractors of America, the Construction Industries'
Presidents Forum, the Design-Build Industry of America, and the
National Society of Professional Engineers.

Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say, I did a Dear Colleague letter
this morning, but this amendment will, where appropriate, allow the
agency buyer to choose between the traditional procurement methodology
and the two-phase design-build selection procedure. It will allow the
agency to develop either in-house or by contract a scope of work
defining the project. The amendment also provides procuring agencies
flexibility to determine the level of preliminary design necessary to
be acquired, using the traditional method. It will provide the agency
flexibility and authority to determine the number of offerors of
competitive proposals in the second phase of the procurement process.
It will require the FAR counsel to determine if the two-phase
procedures are appropriate for use in individual contracting
situations, establish factors that may be used to select contractors,
establish a uniform governmentwide approach, and establish criteria for
awarding stipends. I would urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the
distinguished author of this bill and the chairman of the committee.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend the gentleman on
this amendment. I think it makes a very valuable addition to the bill.
As he says, it does not replace the Brooks Act. It requires an
alternative method of dealing with the Brooks architect-engineers
provision. I think it is a valuable addition, and we are pleased to
support the amendment. I commend the gentleman on that and for his help
on this.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the committee staff and
Mrs. Brown for working with us, and the different groups, I ask
adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

[[Page H 8881]]

The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
The Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:
TITLE II--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

SEC. 201. 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--
``(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. 202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO COMMERCIAL
ITEMS.

(a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2304(e) of title
10, United States Code, as amended by section 101(a), is
further 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--
``(A) 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; and
``(B) shall include in the contract file a written
description of the procedures used in awarding the contract
and the number of offers received.''.
(b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 303(e) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 253), as amended by section 101(b), is further
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--
``(A) 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; and
``(B) shall include in the contract file a written
description of the procedures used in awarding the contract
and the number of offers received.''.
(c) Simplified Notice.--Section 18 of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5) (as redesignated by section
101(c))--
(A) by striking out ``limited''; and
(B) by inserting before ``submission'' the following:
``issuance of solicitations and the''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(6), by striking out ``threshold--''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``threshold, or a contract for
the procurement of commercial items using simplified
procedures--''.

[[Page H 8882]]

SEC. 203. 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. 204. 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).

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
The Clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. 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. 302. 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.--(A) 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 that is not specifically
imposed by statute shall be removed by the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy from the Federal Acquisition
Regulation unless--
(i) written justification for such certification is
provided to the Administrator by the Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council; and
(ii) the Administrator approves in writing the retention of
such certification.
(B)(i) Not later than 210 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, any certification required of
contractors or offerors by a procurement regulation of an
executive agency that is not specifically imposed by statute
shall be removed by the head of the executive agency from
such regulation unless--
(I) written justification for such certification is
provided to the head of the executive agency by the senior
procurement executive; and
(II) the head of the executive agency approves in writing
the retention of such certification.
(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``head of the
executive agency'' with respect to a military department
means the Secretary of Defense.
(iii) The Secretary of Defense may delegate his duties
under this subparagraph only to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
(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:

``SEC. 29. 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.--(1) A
requirement for a certification by a contractor or offeror
may not be included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation
unless--
``(A) the certification is specifically imposed by statute;
or
``(B) written justification for such certification is
provided to the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, and the
Administrator approves in writing the inclusion of such
certification.
``(2)(A) A requirement for a certification by a contractor
or offeror may not be included in a procurement regulation of
an executive agency unless--
``(i) the certification is specifically imposed by statute;
or
``(ii) written justification for such certification is
provided to the head of the executive agency by the senior
procurement executive of the agency, and the head of the
executive agency approves in writing the inclusion of such
certification.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `head of
the executive agency' with respect to a military department
means the Secretary of Defense.
``(C) The Secretary of Defense may delegate his duties
under this paragraph only to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology.''.
(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. 303. 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. 304. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS.

(a) Repeal of Provision Relating to Research, Development,
and Production Costs.--
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), section 21(e) of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(e)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1)(A);
(B) by striking out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1);
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) as
subparagraph (B);
(D) by striking out paragraph (2); and
(E) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(2) Paragraph (1) shall be effective only if--
(A) the President, in the budget of the President for
fiscal year 1997, proposes legislation that if enacted would
be qualifying offsetting legislation; and
(B) there is enacted by October 1, 1996, qualifying
offsetting legislation.
(3) If the conditions in paragraph (2) are met, then the
amendments made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on October
1, 1996.
(4) For purposes of this subsection:
(A) The term ``qualifying offsetting legislation'' means
legislation that includes provisions that--
(i) offset fully the estimated revenues lost as a result of
the amendments made by paragraph (1) for each of the fiscal
years 1997 through 2000;
(ii) expressly state that they are enacted for the purpose
of the offset described in clause (i); and
(iii) are included in full on the PayGo scorecard.
(B) The term ``PayGo scorecard'' means the estimates that
are made with respect to fiscal years through fiscal year
2000 by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office and
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under
section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
(b) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be effective with respect to sales agreements pursuant
to sections 21 and 22 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2761 and 2762) entered into during the period
beginning on October 1, 1996, and ending on September 30,
2000.

SEC. 305. 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--

[[Page H 8883]]

``(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 Defense Board or the Civilian Board 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.
``(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 Defense Board
or the Civilian Board 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, the Defense Board or the Civilian
Board 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. 306. 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

[[Page H 8884]]
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. 307. 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. 308. 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. 309. 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. 310. RAPID CONTRACTING GOAL.

(a) Goal.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as
amended by section 106, is further amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``SEC. 36. 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. 36. Rapid contracting goal.''.
SEC. 311. 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. 312. 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 the item relating to section
2306b the following new item:

``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 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. 313. 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. 314. 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. 315. 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

[[Page H 8885]]
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. 316. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAMS.

(a) Additional Program Authorized for Participation in
Defense Acquisition Pilot Program.--Section 5064 of the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-355;
108 Stat. 3359) is amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Joint standoff weapon unitary variant (jsow-uv).--The
Joint Standoff Weapon Unitary Variant program with respect to
all contracts directly related to the development and
procurement of an air-delivered, standoff weapon that
incorporates a global positioning system-aided inertial
navigation system, a data link capability, and a unitary
warhead.''.
(2) Subsection (c) is amended--
(A) by striking out ``and'' 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) with respect to the program described in subsection
(a)(6)--
``(A) to apply any amendment or repeal of a provision of
law made in the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 to the
pilot program before the effective date of such amendment or
repeal; and
``(B) to apply to a procurement of items other than
commercial items under such program any waiver or exception
applicable under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-355) or the Federal Acquisition Reform
Act of 1995 (or an amendment made by a provision of either
Act) in the case of commercial items before the effective
date of such provision (or amendment), to the extent that the
Secretary determines necessary to test the application of
such waiver or exception to procurements of items other than
commercial items.''.
(b) Defense Acquisition Facility-Wide Pilot Program.--
(1) Authority to conduct facility-wide pilot program.--The
Secretary of Defense may conduct a pilot program, to be known
as the ``defense facility-wide pilot program'', for the
purpose of determining the potential for increasing the
efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process in
facilities.
(2) Scope of program.--At a facility designated as a
participant in the pilot program, the pilot program shall
consist of the following:
(A) All contracts and subcontracts for defense supplies and
services that are performed at the facility.
(B) All contracts and subcontracts performed elsewhere that
the Secretary determines are directly and substantially
related to the production of defense supplies and services at
the facility and are necessary for the pilot program.
(3) Designation of participating facilities.--(A) The
Secretary may designate up to three facilities as
participants in the defense facility-wide pilot program.
(B) Subject to paragraph (7), the Secretary may determine
the scope and duration of a designation made under this
paragraph.
(4) Criteria for designation.--The Secretary may designate
a facility under paragraph (3) only if the Secretary
determines that all or substantially all of the contracts to
be awarded and performed at the facility after the
designation, and all or substantially all of the subcontracts
to be awarded under those contracts and performed at the
facility after the designation, will be--
(A) for the production of supplies or services on a firm-
fixed price basis;
(B) awarded without requiring the contractors or
subcontractors to provide certified cost or pricing data
pursuant to section 2306a of title 10, United States Code;
and
(C) awarded and administered without the application of
cost accounting standards under section 26(f) of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(f)).
(5) Exemption from certain requirements.--In the case of a
contract or subcontract that is to be performed at a facility
designated for participation in the defense facility-wide
pilot program and that is subject to section 2306a of title
10, United States Code, or section 26(f) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(f)), the
Secretary of Defense may exempt such contract or subcontract
from the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data
under such section 2306a or the requirement to apply
mandatory cost accounting standards under such section 26(f)
if the Secretary determines that the contract or
subcontract--
(A) is within the scope of the pilot program (as described
in paragraph (2)); and
(B) is fairly and reasonably priced based on information
other than certified cost and pricing data.
(6) Special authority.--The authority provided under
paragraph (1) may include authority for the Secretary of
Defense--
(A) to apply any amendment or repeal of a provision of law
made in this Act to the pilot program before the effective
date of such amendment or repeal; and
(B) to apply to a procurement of items other than
commercial items under such program--
(i) any authority provided in the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) (or in an
amendment made by a provision of that Act) to waive a
provision of law in the case of commercial items, and
(ii) any exception applicable under this Act or the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) (or
an amendment made by a provision of either Act) in the case
of commercial items,

before the effective date of such provision (or amendment) to
the extent that the Secretary determines necessary to test
the application of such waiver or exception to procurements
of items other than commercial items.
(7) Applicability.--(A) Paragraphs (5) and (6) apply with
respect to--
(i) a contract that is awarded or modified during the
period described in subparagraph (B); and
(ii) a contract that is awarded before the beginning of
such period and is to be performed (or may be performed), in
whole or in part, during such period.
(B) The period referred to in subparagraph (A) is the
period that begins 45 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and ends on September 30, 1998.
(8) Commercial practices encouraged.--With respect to
contracts and subcontracts within the scope of the defense
facility-wide pilot program, the Secretary of Defense may, to
the extent the Secretary determines appropriate and in
accordance with the law, adopt commercial practices in the
administration of contracts and subcontracts. Such commercial
practices may include elimination of Government audit and
access to records provisions; incorporation of commercial
oversight, inspection, and acceptance procedures; use of
alternative dispute resolution techniques (including
arbitration); and elimination of contract provisions
authorizing the Government to make unilateral changes to
contracts.
SEC. 317. 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 310, 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. 318. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.

(a) Acquisition Workforce.--(1) The Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), as amended by
section 317, 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) Government-wide 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

[[Page H 8886]]

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 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
subparagraph (A)(i) or (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
paragraphs (1) and (2), as applicable, shall not apply to any
person employed in the GS-1102 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 paragraph (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 paragraphs (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

[[Page H 8887]]
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
``(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) Additional Amendments.--Section 6(d)(5) of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405), is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``Government-wide
career management programs for a professional procurement
work force'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the development
of a professional acquisition workforce Government-wide'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking out ``procurement by the'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``acquisition by the''; and
(B) by striking out ``and'' at the end of the subparagraph;
and
(3) by striking out subparagraph (C) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
``(C) administer the provisions of section 38;
``(D) 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;
``(E) periodically analyze acquisition career fields to
identify critical competencies, duties, tasks, and related
academic prerequisites, skills, and knowledge;
``(F) coordinate and assist agencies in identifying and
recruiting highly qualified candidates for acquisition
fields;
``(G) develop instructional materials for acquisition
personnel in coordination with private and public acquisition
colleges and training facilities;
``(H) evaluate the effectiveness of training and career
development programs for acquisition personnel;
``(I) promote the establishment and utilization of academic
programs by colleges and universities in acquisition fields;
``(J) facilitate, to the extent requested by agencies,
interagency intern and training programs; and
``(K) perform other career management or research functions
as directed by the Administrator.''.

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weller, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1670) to
revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal Government,
to reorganize the mechanisms for resolving Federal procurement
disputes, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________