[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 52 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2353-H2357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL CONTRACTOR FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2000
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3582) to restrict the use of mandatory minimum personnel
experience and educational requirements in the procurement of
information technology goods or services unless sufficiently justified.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3582
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contractor
Flexibility Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. APPROPRIATE USE OF PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE AND
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE PROCUREMENT OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOODS AND SERVICES.
(a) Amendment of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued in accordance
with sections 6 and 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405 and 421) shall be amended to
address the use of personnel experience and educational
requirements in the procurement of information technology
goods and services.
(b) Content of Amendment.--The amendment issued pursuant to
subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, provide that
solicitations for the procurement of information technology
goods or services shall not set forth any minimum experience
or educational requirement for proposed contractor personnel
in order for a bidder to be eligible for award of a contract
unless the contracting officer first--
(1) determines that the needs of the agency cannot be met
without any such requirement; and
[[Page H2354]]
(2) explains in writing the basis for that determination.
(c) GAO Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the regulations required by subsection (a) are
published in the Federal Register, the Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress an evaluation of--
(1) executive agency compliance with the regulations; and
(2) conformance of the regulations with existing law,
together with any recommendations that the Comptroller
General considers appropriate.
(d) Definitions.--As used in this Act:
(1) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has
the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Information technology.--The term ``information
technology'' has the meaning given that term in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) to explain the legislation before
us.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) yielding me this time.
I rise today in support of a piece of legislation I think is very
important, H.R. 3582, the Federal Flexibility Act of 2000, legislation
which will address an ongoing problem in Federal information technology
contracts.
I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Horn), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology for his assistance in moving this important
legislation forward.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3582 is necessary because Federal contracting
officers frequently write into IT contracts minimum personnel
requirements that hamper the ability of contractors to find qualified
personnel to perform the contract. Oftentimes, this means government
contractors cannot hire personnel who they believe can successfully
perform the work, but instead they search for just simply qualified
resumes. This is a burden on the information and technology industry,
it is a burden on the American taxpayer, and it contributes to the
chronic worker shortage faced by the technology industry because the
Federal Government is the largest purchaser of IT products in the
world, spending about $28 billion on goods and services each year.
The Fed-Flex Act would require Federal agencies to justify the
minimum personnel requirements frequently written into government
contracts. Federal agencies have been experiencing something called
``credential creep'' in the way they write contracts. The problem has
become so significant that the Virginia Secretary of Technology, Don
Upson, found in a report issued by his office this past September, that
minimum personnel requirements are the second largest contributor to
the IT workforce shortage in my home State of Virginia. This report was
titled ``A Study of Virginia's Information Technology Workforce.'' It
strongly recommended that both the government and private sector
companies objectively evaluate alternative forms of training and focus
on investments in training rather than on degrees or resumes. The
nationwide shortage of IT workers is estimated at 364,000, and it is
estimated at over 24,000 in the Northern Virginia region alone for the
information technology worker shortage.
Now, what these minimum personnel requirements mean for the
government is that a Bill Gates or a Michael Dell cannot perform work
with the government on most contracts. Since neither one of them holds
a college degree, many Federal agencies would not allow them to perform
IT work for the government. When Federal agencies write credential
creep into contracts, they hinder the ability of Federal contractors to
hire qualified personnel to get the job done, and they increase the
total cost of the contract to the government and, therefore, the
American taxpayer.
In this era of serious labor shortages in nearly every sector of our
economy, this practice drives up prices and it limits the flexibility
of offers. The government will get better results if it issues
performance-based statements of work and leaves it up to the offeror to
propose how they will satisfy that requirement. The government should
hold the winning offeror accountable for the quality of the cake, not
dictate the ingredients that go into the recipe.
Another recent workforce study released by the Information Technology
Association of America found that U.S. companies anticipate a demand
for 1.6 million IT workers in the next year. According to that study,
about 50 percent of the applicants for these jobs would not have the
skills required to perform the jobs, meaning that up to 850,000 of
these slots go unfilled. The private sector knows it has to adapt to
address this shortage and invest in the training that will allow them
to get the job done. Let us make sure the Federal Government is not the
stumbling block to reaching that goal. The Fed-Flex Act requires
agencies to realize that key skills are what matters the most to
mission accomplishment within the agencies, not how those skills are
acquired.
Recently, there has been ongoing debate about solving the labor
shortage in the United States by lifting the cap on H1-B visas. I am a
strong supporter of lifting this visa cap, and I am an original
cosponsor of my colleague's, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), H.R. 3982, the HI-TECH Act, which raises the cap to 200,000
for H1-Bs. But we all know this is a short-term solution. We need to
recognize the new types of training employees receive and encourage
American businesses to hire employees who have received less
traditional methods of training. We also need to encourage our Federal
Government to be a leader in solving the workplace shortage and not
remain behind the curve as is so often the case.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3582 recognizes the investment that firms make in
their employees every day. Many IT firms spend a significant amount of
time and dollars training their employees to be up to speed on the
latest products and services. The Fed-Flex Act would require agencies
to justify the use of such minimum mandatory personnel requirements
before imposing such requirements on a particular solicitation for IT
services. The Fed-Flex Act would require agencies to justify the use of
such minimum mandatory personnel requirements before imposing such
requirements in a particular solicitation for IT services. Where the
contracting officer determines that the agency's need cannot be met
without such requirement, the legislation would not preclude such
requirements. Moreover, the legislation would not preclude the agencies
from evaluating the advantages that may be associated with a particular
employee's experience or education, including participation in an in-
house training and certification program. This bill continues the many
successes of recent procurement reforms and redirects government to
focus on products, not process.
Recently, a study released by the American Association of Community
Colleges indicated that 20 percent of community college attendees are
pursuing degrees to work on technology issues. With the worker shortage
we face in the Nation, it is of great concern to me that the Federal
Government could prevent these highly motivated young people from
pursuing a technology career. Credential creep is a Federal Government-
wide problem. We have fallen behind in recruiting IT workers for the
Federal workforce and training Federal workers to take part in the
information technology revolution. Yet, the government demands a
college degree for entry level positions that might be filled by
individuals who have received another form of job training that may be
superior. I believe that Federal flexibility is important to address
the immediate need within the government, but I am also committed to
working closely with my friends in the workforce community to look at
credential creep problems as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to the many organizations that
support H.R. 3582. Fed-Flex is supported by ITAA, American Electronics
Association, Contract Services Association, Professional Services
Council, and CapNet. I would like to quote from a letter sent over by
Harris Miller, the President of ITAA. ``The Federal Contractor
Flexibility Act is a home run
[[Page H2355]]
for practical, efficient, and effective government contracting.'' I
would also like to submit a copy of the ITAA letter for the Record.
May 2, 2000.
Rep. Tom Davis.
Dear Congressman Davis: On behalf of the 26,000 direct and
affiliate members of the Information Technology Association
of America (ITAA), I write to urge quick passage of the
Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of 2000. We applaud you
for sponsoring this common sense bill. This is legislation
that recognizes a critical demand for appropriately skilled
high tech workers is one of the most vexing problems facing
employers today--both in and outside of government. At the
same time, it realizes that key skills--and not how they are
acquired--are what matters most to mission accomplishment
within agencies.
A few weeks ago, ITAA released Bridging the Gap: IT Job
Skills for a New Millennium, a major national study on the
workforce issue. We found that U.S. companies anticipate a
demand for 1.6 million IT workers in the next 12 months.
Because roughly fifty percent of applicants will not have the
skills required to perform these jobs, over 850,000 IT
positions will go begging. Our study suggests that in the
private sector, this demand pressure has caused hiring
managers to revisit the issue of ``what it takes'' to get the
job done.
At one time, the federal government's preference for
contractor staff with certain years of experience and a
college degree was understandable. Unfortunately, what made
sense five to ten years ago does not make sense in today's
environment. Indeed, so much has changed in information
technology that today's college graduates or those from
community colleges are very prepared to take on immediate
responsibilities at federal agencies. Talented people with
skills in database design, programming, web development and
other technical areas have invaluable skills that the federal
agencies need today, not three or more years from now.
The agencies that do have specific needs should by all
means be able to request certain skills sets and experience,
but your legislation will eliminate the situation we find
today where old boilerplate language with outmoded
requirements is commonly used and reused in thousands of
contracts. As you have mentioned your comments, it is more
than ironic that some of the foremost leaders of the IT
industry, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Larry Ellison, would
be precluded from most Federal contracts since they did not
complete their four year degree!
The Federal Contractor Flexibility Act is a homerun for
practical, efficient and effective government contracting. We
ask that all Members of Congress support its speedy passage
into law.
Very truly yours,
Harris N. Miller,
President.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3582 will help ensure that contracts are
performance based rather than process driven. I am dismayed to hear
that the administration is not ready to support the legislation at this
time, and while I applaud OMB and my friend Dee Lee's commitment to
performance-based contracting, I believe that the law does not need a
clarification on these minimum personnel requirements. Additionally,
the letter from OMB concerns me because it recognizes the problem but
it does not support the legislative fix that gives it the authority it
needs to ensure the problem is corrected.
In my conversations with local Chambers of Commerce in Northern
Virginia, and national procurement organizations, I have heard many
instances where these personnel requirements have hampered companies'
ability to work with government. I have also been presented with
evidence that these minimum personnel requirements have been used at
various government agencies to favor incumbent contractors rather than
promoting open competition. I have even heard of an instance where the
contract employees who unpack computers at some agencies are required
to hold college degrees.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert the rest of my comments in the Record at
this time. I just want to urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation. I want to thank my colleague next door, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his leadership on this issue in cosponsoring
this, and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for
helping to bring this to the floor so expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, in the new economy, we are all learning new management
techniques and the government can not be last to the table in this
effort. Earlier this year, the Department of Labor issued two advisory
opinions that threatened to harm the operation of the engine driving
our economy, the technology sector. Many of you may be familiar with
both the telecommuting and stock options decisions. While we should
have those problems solved in the short-term through clarifying
Congressional legislation that even the Labor Department has now
recognized as necessary, we need to ensure that the government does not
continue to impede the development of IT products and services through
its own contracting and management processes.
Mr. Speaker, I have also received contract examples from the
Departments of Defense and Treasury, and the General Services
Administration that include minimum personnel requirements. The Defense
Department includes these cumbersome requirements for entry-level IT
positions that include such basic tasks as data-entry, and they do not
give contractors any opportunity to apply for a waiver. The Treasury
contract includes these requirements but then says a company may apply
for a waiver after contract award although the waiver requires a
significant amount of paperwork to get approved. The GSA requirement is
on an IDIQ contract that would affect several companies at the same
time and drive-up costs of all of the competing bids.
Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation. I know it will provide important relief to Virginia and
government contractors across the nation. It will also provide a
tremendous cost-savings to the government.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of the Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of
2000 which was introduced by our friend, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Davis), and I want to commend the gentleman for his hard work on
this bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, and he did a
great job with it.
{time} 1445
I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), his
neighbor, who also was the primary Democratic sponsor of this
legislation.
As has been pointed out, this bill would restrict Federal departments
and agencies from using mandatory minimum personnel and experience
requirements for contractor personnel in the procurement of information
technology goods and services, unless there is some justification for
such a restriction.
Currently, Federal information technology procurement officers can
require contractors to use employees who, at a minimum, have a college
degree. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) pointed out, Bill
Gates and Michael Dell would not qualify under the current
restrictions.
It is obvious I think to all of us that the Federal agencies
oftentimes dictate more stringent educational requirements than are
necessary to do the job. H.R. 3582 would require Federal agencies to
justify those minimum requirements, but it would not preclude them from
including such requirements if the contracting officer determined that
the agency's needs could not be met without the requirements.
The legislation also would not preclude agencies from evaluating an
employee's experience or education, including their participation in
in-house training or other certification programs. But most
importantly, this legislation will increase the number of information
technology workers eligible to assume government contractor information
technology jobs, and it would alleviate the current shortage of labor
in this field.
Today, we take the first step by eliminating these arbitrary
experience and educational requirements for the private IT sector
contractors. But I look forward to working with my colleagues so that
we can eliminate these same requirements for our Federal employees.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan
measure. Again, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn), our subcommittee chairman; as well as the gentleman from Indiana
(Chairman Burton); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), our
ranking member, for their work on this bill.
I urge swift passage of H.R. 3582.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of H.R.
3582, the Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of 2000.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the lead sponsor, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis), for introducing this
[[Page H2356]]
bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation.
It would require Federal agencies to justify the use of minimum
education and experience requirements in their solicitations for
information technology services, which have virtually no relation to
whether the individual can perform the required work.
Mr. Speaker, under current regulations, Bill Gates, as has been
mentioned, would not be allowed to perform IT work for the Federal
Government. That is right. The richest, and many would say one of the
smartest, men in the world is not allowed to contract with the Federal
Government under current law. Why? Because many Federal agencies
currently put in place minimum education requirements in solicitations
for IT services, and Mr. Gates does not hold a college degree.
This can be blamed on the fact that many agencies are now writing
``credential creep'' into contracts, hindering the ability of Federal
contractors to hire qualified personnel who can get the job done.
Frequently, these same agencies will require contractors to use
employees who have a minimum of a college degree or even more stringent
education requirements.
Additionally, Federal agencies dictate to companies the amount of
experience employees must have working on certain IT systems. In this
era of serious labor shortages in the information technology
marketplace, this practice drives up prices and limits the flexibility
of offers.
As a representative from Montgomery County, Maryland, which has many
high-technology industries and research institutions, I understand the
importance of skilled workers to our growing economy. However, I also
understand that there currently exists a serious shortage of technology
workers in not only the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area but
throughout the Nation as well.
Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 3582 will enable the Government to get
better results by issuing performance-based statements of work and
leave it up to the job seeker to propose how he or she will get the job
done. The Government's requirement should be on the merit and success
of the job, not on dictating how the job is accomplished.
Finally, H.R. 3582 recognizes the investment that firms make in their
employees today by not precluding agencies from evaluating the
advantages that may be associated with a particular employee's
experience or education, including participation in in-house training
and certification programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is a common sense piece of legislation. I urge
support of its passage.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), the primary Democratic cosponsor of the
resolution.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank and
acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for
his Federal management reform efforts. He is doing a very fine job on
the Committee on Government Reform, and I congratulate him. And also,
certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their efforts. In many areas, this is
a committee that can work together and this is certainly an example of
good, bipartisan constructive legislation.
I especially want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis) and his fine staff for their terrific work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this ought to be a no-brainer. But it is designed to
address something that for years has gone on. It is a classic example
of the right hand not only not letting the left hand know what they
were doing, but they were working at cross purposes. If we ask people
working in the Federal Government, particularly in Labor or Commerce or
HHS, they will say that one of the most serious problems today is the
fallout from the new economy of people working in the old economy
having their jobs replaced by automation or by competition from
overseas.
Mr. Speaker, while 80 percent of them get jobs, and better paying
jobs, there are 20 percent of them who do not, who are left by the
wayside of the new economy highway. And these people want to work hard,
they have got the will and the ability, but they do not have the
opportunity.
In many cases, it is because they do not have a 4-year college
degree. They do not have the preparation, the skills with computers. We
are not providing sufficient opportunity for them. And then there are
other people who cannot afford a 4-year college degree. They do not
need a 4-year college degree.
On the other hand, we have the Federal Government here saying that if
one wants to bid for Federal contracts, they have to have a 4-year
college degree on many of these information technology contracts.
They do not have to. They do not need it. In fact, all this bill does
is to say that if a contracting officer can justify these higher
standards, then fine, go ahead with it. But if they cannot justify
requiring these college degrees and these higher certifications, then
do not require it. Allow companies to hire people that can perform the
work. Put the emphasis on the quality product, not the process.
In Virginia, we are recognizing that this is one of the prime causes
of the technology shortage. We have a shortage of almost 30,000
vacancies. We cannot fill them. Many of them are in Federal contract
work. This is silly. We have the people, the warm bodies; but we do not
have the preparation, and it does not make sense to require a 4-year
degree.
Mr. Speaker, in this period of unprecedented labor shortage,
certainly we ought to take the initiative. I wish the executive branch
had taken the initiative itself, but this bill is necessary. I am sure
that they are going to enact it because the current practice drives up
prices and limits the competition for Federal contracts. We do not want
that. That does not serve anybody's purposes.
It has already been said, and I do not want to beat up on Bill Gates,
of all people. We keep talking about the fact that he does not have a
college degree. Well, he does not; but he did not need it to be
successful. He is a classic example. And there are any number of others
as well. I think we made our case on that.
The Department of Commerce recently reported that there are more than
600,000 positions in the information technology field that have yet to
be filled. And, in fact, they estimate that over the next 10 years we
are going to need more than 100,000 a year. I saw a figure today of
130,000 a year. We do not have those people. We do not need to be
sending those people through college. We need to be getting them into
community colleges, junior colleges, computer training courses,
whatever gives them the skills that are necessary.
Now, we are going to get a whole lot of flack when we bring up the
H(1)(b) bill. People are going to say we are bringing in laborers from
overseas and taking our jobs and so on. My response is going to be,
look, raising the cap on H(1)(b) visas is a short-term solution. We
have vacancies and we need to fill them and fill them with qualified
people, and bringing these people in that can go to work immediately
with skills just pumps iron into our economic bloodstream. We need to
do this. It makes a lot of sense. But that is not the long-term
solution.
Mr. Speaker, the long-term solution is to train people. And not with
4 years; give them the specific training they need. Give them the
opportunities; give them the access to these information technology
jobs.
If we do, we are going to enable our American workforce to realize
its full potential. If we put these kinds of obstacles in the way, all
we are doing is limiting our potential economically and socially.
So I think I have made my point. This bill needs to be supported
strongly and unanimously, and I trust it will be.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend Melissa Wojciak for her
excellent staff work on H.R. 3582, the Federal Contractor Flexibility
Act of 2000. Melissa is a true professional and put a lot of her heart
into this legislation. That is the kind of people we want on Capitol
Hill.
Let me just note a few things. I completely agree with the two
gentlemen from Virginia, and if that ever makes this bipartisan, I do
not know what does. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) certainly
reflected the
[[Page H2357]]
floor management's views of what is the essence of this particular
legislation.
The fact is, performance-based contracting is a method of acquiring
services that focus on successful results or outcomes rather than
dictating how the work is to be performed.
Now, I also agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) about
the need for education. I have been preaching that for the last 2
years. The community colleges of this Nation, public institutions, and
the State universities of this Nation should be working with Silicon
Valley east, west, south, north, wherever it is, to get the latest
generation of equipment on which they can train people. State budgets
never have enough, and as a former university president in charge of a
State university for 18 years, I can assure my colleagues that is a
true statement across the Nation, that very little money is invested in
the technology that these students need to be exposed to.
They also need to be exposed to logic, to math, to science starting
in the kindergarten. There ought to be concepts of science that a good
public school system has, and that is exactly what is needed.
These are $60,000-a-year jobs, and if that should not wake somebody
up, I do not know what it does wake up. We need more of our own
citizens, and those who have newly arrived here, from Cambodia, the
Vietnamese, the Latin American; and what we need are opportunities for
the children of immigrants as well as opportunities for our own
citizens.
So I completely agree with the gentleman from Virginia on this issue,
and much more needs to be done on that. We cannot just have some fly-
by-night operation that does this for individuals; we need a long-term
investment by the Silicon Valleys, the computer industry, and they need
to quit depending on people from abroad. They need to educate our own
people.
Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner), who is the ranking member on the subcommittee, for all of
his constructive comments during the hearings, during the markup, and
now on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3582.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________