[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 40 (Monday, March 3, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H932-H933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE AND SMART FEDERAL PURCHASING ACT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 856) to require the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget conduct a review to determine the impact of the lowest price
technically acceptable source selection process on national security,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 856
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 ``Safe and Smart Federal
Purchasing Act''.
SEC. 2. REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE LOWEST PRICE
TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS
ON NATIONAL SECURITY.
(a) Review.--The Director shall review the procurement
management practices of Defense and Civilian agencies to
determine whether the provisions of section 15.101-2 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation have created any national
security risk.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Director shall submit a report on the results
of the review under subsection (a) to--
(1) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Defense and civilian agency.--The term ``Defense and
Civilian agency'' has the meaning given the term ``agency''
in section 133 of title 41, United States Code.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the lowest price technically acceptable, LPTA, is a
source selection method outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
This process uses price as a determining factor for a contract rather
than other technical or operational factors.
Following legislative work done by the House Oversight Committee
during the 115th Congress, constraints were placed on agency use of the
LPTA in the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
These constraints recognize that the LPTA criteria are not always
appropriate for agencies seeking complex or technically innovative
services.
For instance, this can result in agencies sacrificing long-term value
for short-term savings. We also do not want the LPTA to be used in a
manner that jeopardizes national security.
This bill requires the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to evaluate this source selection process to determine whether
agencies are
[[Page H933]]
using the LPTA in an appropriate manner.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Oversight Committee colleague, Mr. Donalds,
for his leadership on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Safe and Smart Federal
Purchasing Act of which I am a proud cosponsor.
The bill would require the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to review the procurement management practices of Federal
agencies to determine whether the use of acquisition procedures focused
exclusively on cost, known as the lowest price technically acceptable,
poses any national security risk.
Since our committee reported this bill last Congress, I appreciate
that the majority sought and incorporated feedback from the
administration. When Federal agencies purchase goods and services, they
aim to achieve the best value for the American people.
In the words of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, ``best value''
means that the acquisition should provide ``the greatest overall
benefit in response to the requirement.''
Under the LPTA procedures, price is the determining factor in
awarding a contract with no consideration given to other factors. This
contrasts with the more frequently used tradeoff approach, which looks
at the bigger picture and considers additional factors beyond just
cost, perhaps assessing elements like quality and performance or a
bidder's technical or managerial expertise.
This bill, and the tradeoff approach to Federal contracting,
understands that focusing on contract price alone can actually increase
the overall cost to the Federal Government and the American people.
For example, cutting costs in the short-term can lead to expensive
project delays, or might result in taxpayer dollars flowing to
adversarial nations that threaten U.S. security interests. If no
consideration is given to the strength and integrity of a bidder's
supply chain, cutting costs in the short term could lead to inferior
products or disastrous supply shortages at critical moments. I believe
this is a thoughtful, commonsense approach to contracting.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Donalds), a rising star.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss without thanking Chairman
Comer for the time on the floor today, and I might have to ask the
chairman to introduce me everywhere going forward. I greatly appreciate
that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, the Safe and Smart
Federal Purchasing Act.
For background, lowest price technically acceptable is the source
selection method outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or
FAR.
Simply put, the LPTA FAR standard prioritizes price above everything
else.
Focusing on price, instead of other technical or operational factors
in Federal procurement, can result in agencies cutting corners, long-
term value being sacrificed, or in its worse aspects, even potential
risks to America's national security.
In my view, the use of the LPTA may not always be appropriate when
Federal agencies purchase innovative technologies and technical
services, and agencies should have the flexibility to pay more for a
superior solution if the circumstances are appropriate.
I will say to the American people that, obviously with all of the
things that we are talking about in Washington around the Department of
Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE, going through and trying
to cut costs, we do have to be mindful that we are getting the best
products for the Federal Government to use because that actually does
yield great results for the American people.
Moreover, we, as Congress, have an obligation to fully understand the
impacts of utilizing the LPTA.
One example of when the LPTA may not be appropriate relates to the
procurement of Chinese drones.
Chinese drone maker, DJI, is the world's largest manufacturer of
personal and professional drones, and Federal agencies to this day
utilize DJI drones, which present a large national security risk.
Why would Federal agencies procure Chinese drones when there are
higher-quality American drones currently available on the market?
That is when the lowest price technically acceptable FAR standard may
come into play.
To provide some additional context, Chinese state-backed DJI
aggressively dropped its prices in 2015 and now DJI drones account for
more than 75 percent of the global drone marketplace, offering its
products in over 100 countries. While a wide range of innovative
American drone products are available, in many cases, the LPTA slides
the Federal procurement preference scale away from American drones in
favor of these Chinese drones merely because they are cheaper.
To emphasize, all companies in China are required by Chinese law to
give the Communist Chinese Party access to all their information upon
request.
In fact, in August 2017, Homeland Security Investigations issued an
intelligence bulletin warning that DJI was providing critical
infrastructure and law enforcement data to the Chinese Government.
Today, the lowest price technically acceptable does not account for
national security implications, so my bill would simply require an
evaluation of potential national security concerns associated with the
LPTA FAR standard.
Instead of just looking at the initial price tag and procuring the
cheapest product and service, it is vitally important that the United
States Government understand the national security implications
associated with its own Federal procurement policies.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Connolly, for co-leading
this bipartisan initiative with me, and I urge my colleagues to support
this commonsense piece of legislation.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe this is a
commonsense approach to contracting. We can't just take a mindless
approach to the lowest cost winning every bid. It can jeopardize
national security and at the end of the day, it can actually cost more
than if we had gone a different way.
I thank my friend from Florida for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 856, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, the Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing Act is
measured and targeted legislation that can inform future congressional
work on Federal procurement, a policy area we know is ripe for reform
and taxpayer savings.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my House colleagues to support this
commonsense, bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 856.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________