[House Report 113-410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-410

======================================================================



 
        CONTRACTING DATA AND BUNDLING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2014

                                _______
                                

 April 9, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Graves of Missouri, from the Committee on Small Business, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4094]

    The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4094) to direct the Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration to develop and implement a plan to 
improve the quality of data reported on bundled and 
consolidated contracts, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................1
  II. Purpose of the Bill and Summary.................................3
 III. Background and the Need for Legislation.........................4
  IV. Hearings........................................................6
   V. Committee Consideration.........................................6
  VI. Committee Votes.................................................6
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4094........................7
VIII. Unfunded Mandates..............................................14
  IX. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur14
   X. Oversight Findings.............................................14
  XI. Statement of Constitutional Authority..........................14
 XII. Congressional Accountability Act...............................14
XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................15
 XIV. Statement of No Earmarks.......................................15
  XV. Statement of Duplication of Federal Programs...................15
 XVI. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings............................15
XVII. Performance Goals and Objectives...............................15
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........15


                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Contracting Data and Bundling 
Accountability Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PLAN FOR IMPROVING DATA ON BUNDLED AND CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTS.

  Section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(s) Data Quality Improvement Plan.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later than the first day of fiscal 
        year 2016, the Administrator of the Small Business 
        Administration, in consultation with the Small Business 
        Procurement Advisory Council, the Administrator of the Office 
        of Federal Procurement Policy, and the Administrator of the 
        General Services Administration shall develop a plan to improve 
        the quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated 
        contracts in the Federal procurement data system.
          ``(2) Plan requirements.--The plan shall--
                  ``(A) describe the roles and responsibilities of the 
                Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the 
                Directors of the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged 
                Business Utilization, the Small Business Procurement 
                Advisory Council, the Administrator of the Office of 
                Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of the 
                General Services Administration, the senior procurement 
                executives, and Chief Acquisition Officers in 
                implementing the plan described in paragraph (1) and 
                contributing to the annual report required by 
                subsection (p)(4);
                  ``(B) make necessary changes to policies and 
                procedures on proper identification and mitigation of 
                contract bundling and consolidation, and to training 
                procedures of relevant personnel on proper 
                identification and mitigation of contract bundling and 
                consolidation;
                  ``(C) establish consequences for failure to properly 
                identify contracts as bundled or consolidated;
                  ``(D) establish requirements for periodic and 
                statistically valid data verification and validation; 
                and
                  ``(E) assign clear data verification 
                responsibilities.
          ``(3) Committee briefing.--Once finalized and by not later 
        than 90 days prior to implementation, the plan described in 
        this subsection shall be presented to the Committee on Small 
        Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate.
          ``(4) Implementation.--Not later than the first day of fiscal 
        year 2017, the Administrator of the Small Business 
        Administration shall implement the plan described in this 
        subsection.
          ``(5) Certification.--The Administrator shall annually 
        provide to the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and 
        Entrepreneurship of the Senate certification of the accuracy 
        and completeness of data reported on bundled and consolidated 
        contracts.
          ``(6) GAO study and report.--
                  ``(A) Study.--Not later than the first day of fiscal 
                year 2018, the Comptroller General of the United States 
                shall initiate a study on the effectiveness of the plan 
                described in this subsection that shall assess whether 
                contracts were accurately labeled as bundled or 
                consolidated.
                  ``(B) Contracts evaluated.--For the purposes of 
                conducting the study described in subparagraph (A), the 
                Comptroller General of the United States--
                          ``(i) shall evaluate, for work in each of 
                        sectors 23, 33, 54, and 56 (as defined by the 
                        North American Industry Classification System), 
                        not fewer than 100 contracts in each sector;
                          ``(ii) shall evaluate only those contracts--
                                  ``(I) awarded by an agency listed in 
                                section 901(b) of title 31, United 
                                States Code; and
                                  ``(II) that have a Base and Exercised 
                                Options Value, an Action Obligation, or 
                                a Base and All Options Value; and
                          ``(iii) shall not evaluate contracts that 
                        have used any set aside authority.
                  ``(C) Report.--Not later than 12 months after 
                initiating the study required by subparagraph (A), the 
                Comptroller General of the United States shall report 
                to the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
                Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and 
                Entrepreneurship of the Senate on the results from such 
                study and, if warranted, any recommendations on how to 
                improve the quality of data reported on bundled and 
                consolidated contracts.
          ``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
        definitions shall apply:
                  ``(A) Chief acquisition officer; senior procurement 
                executive.--The terms `Chief Acquisition Officer' and 
                `senior procurement executive' have the meanings given 
                such terms in section 44 of this Act.
                  ``(B) Federal procurement data system definitions.--
                The terms `Base and Exercised Options Value', `Action 
                Obligation', `Base and All Options Value', and `set 
                aside authority' have the meanings given such terms by 
                the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the 
                Federal procurement data system on October 1, 2013, or 
                subsequent equivalent terms.''.

                      II. Purpose and Bill Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 4094, the ``Contracting Data and 
Bundling Accountability Act of 2014,'' is to improve the 
quality of data on contract bundling and consolidation 
currently reported pursuant to the Small Business Act (the 
Act).\1\ The Act defines contract bundling as ``consolidating 2 
or more procurement requirements for goods or services 
previously provided or performed under separate smaller 
contracts into a solicitation of offers for a single contract 
that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small-business 
concern.''\2\ In contrast, it defines a consolidated contract 
as one that satisfies ``2 or more requirements of the Federal 
agency for goods or services that have been provided to or 
performed for the Federal agency under 2 or more separate 
contracts lower in cost than the total cost''\3\ of the new 
contract. The safeguards Congress has enacted to protect small 
business concerns against unjustified contract bundling and 
consolidation are triggered only if a contract is properly 
identified as bundled or consolidated. However, the inability 
of federal agencies to properly identify contracts as bundled 
or consolidated, let alone justify or mitigate the 
consolidation and bundling, is obvious from the data currently 
reported to Congress and through publicly available data 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Originally, title II of the Act of July 30, 1953, c. 282, 67 
Stat. 232 was designated as the Small Business Act of 1953. A plethora 
of amendments in subsequent Congresses led to a rewrite in 1958. Pub. 
L. No. 85-536, Sec. 1, 72 Stat. 384 (1958). The Act is codified at 15 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 631-657s.
    \2\15 U.S.C. Sec. 632(o)(2). A contract may be unsuitable for award 
to small businesses due to the diversity, size, or specialized nature 
of the elements of the performance specified; the value of the 
contract, places of performance, or a combination of these factors. Id.
    \3\15 U.S.C. Sec. 657q(a)(2). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 4081 
attempted to reconcile these provisions and improve the definition of 
bundling. The key distinction between contract bundling and contract 
consolidation is that consolidation may occur without regard to whether 
the contract is suitable for award to a small business. Therefore, a 
contract may be consolidated but not bundled, but all bundled contracts 
are consolidated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4094 employs a three step process to improve the 
quality of data available on contract bundling and 
consolidation. First, it directs the Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) to work with other parties to 
develop a data quality improvement plan. Second, it provides 
the affected agencies one year to implement the plan. Third, it 
requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study 
the effectiveness of the data quality improvement plan, and 
report to Congress on ways to further improve the quality of 
data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. Better 
data quality should lead to improved identification of 
unjustified contract bundling or consolidation, which in turn 
should deter such procurement practices. Furthermore, in those 
situations in which bundling and consolidation are justified, 
the higher quality data will enable procurement officials to 
mitigate adverse effects on small businesses through 
subcontract participation or the issuance of alternative 
contracts. H.R. 4094 will ensure that bundled and consolidated 
contracts that are justified are properly mitigated to ensure 
that opportunities for small business participation are 
maintained at the subcontract level or through the use of 
alternative contracts.

                       III. Need for Legislation

    The Committee has a long history of oversight with respect 
to contract bundling. Throughout several Congresses, the 
Committee has held a number of hearings on contract bundling, 
submitted letters objecting to various procurement strategies 
that bundle contracts, and met with procurement officials to 
express concerns about contracting strategies which led to 
bundled contracts. This concern is rooted in the belief that 
contract bundling and consolidation undermine the goal of 
Section 15(a) of the Act to ensure that ``a fair proportion of 
the total purchases and contracts for property and services for 
the government in each industry category are placed with small-
business concerns,'' and of ``maintaining or mobilizing the 
Nation's full productive capacity.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, in 1997 Congress determined that contract bundling 
jeopardized the aims of the Act, and enacted legislation 
requiring that agencies ``avoid unnecessary and unjustified 
bundling of contract requirements that precludes small business 
participation in procurements as prime contractors.''\5\ To 
prevent such bundling, the 1997 legislation established a 
process for assessing whether bundling was justified, and, if 
so, how it should be mitigated.\6\ In 2010, Congress 
established a similar process for contract consolidation.\7\ 
Unfortunately, seventeen years after the first bundling 
legislation was passed, Committee hearings and recent GAO 
reports indicate that the prohibitions against unjustified and 
unmitigated contract bundling and consolidation are observed 
only in the breach.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-135, 
Sec. 411, 111 Stat. 2592, 2617 (1997) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 631(j)).
    \6\Id. at Sec. 413, 111 Stat. 2618 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 644(e)).
    \7\The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act), Pub. L. No. 111-
240 Title I, Part III Sec. 1313, 124 Stat. 2504, 2538 (2010).
    \8\Bungling Bundling: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Contracting 
and Workforce of the House Comm. On Small Business, 113th Cong. 113-041 
(2013); GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated 
Contracts (2013) (GAO-14-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In part, the lack of adherence to statutory requirements 
may be attributed to the failure to properly identify bundled 
and consolidated contracts. Whether the contract is bundled or 
consolidated, agencies will not examine justifications and 
benefits, nor consider mitigation strategies as required by 
law, unless the contract is properly identified as bundled or 
consolidated.\9\ Without this simple act of recognition, none 
of the other carefully crafted protections for small business 
are worth the paper upon which they are written. Therefore, 
while recognizing that significant problems remain in the 
processes by which SBA and small business concerns may 
challenge contracts identified as bundled or consolidated, this 
legislation focuses on ensuring that contracts are first 
identified as bundled or consolidated, thereby triggering the 
protections in the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\The justification and mitigation requirements will be further 
discussed in Section VII of this report, but may be found in 
Sec. Sec. 15(a) and 44 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The data available on the occurrence of contract bundling 
is scant and severely compromised. While all contracts that are 
bundled or consolidated are supposed to be tracked as such by 
the SBA and the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), these 
sources often conflict and neither is comprehensive. As the 
Committee's oversight has documented, the occurrence of 
bundling and consolidation is seriously underreported.\10\ As 
discussed in Section VII of this report, tens of billions of 
dollars in contracts are not being reported as bundled and 
consolidated. For example, the Subcommittee on Contracting and 
Workforce raised the issue of why strategic sourcing vehicles--
contracts attempting to leverage the government's buying power 
by expanding the scope of contracts while limiting the number 
of vendors--are not being identified as bundled or 
consolidated.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Committee Memorandum, ``Bungling Bundling: How Contract 
Bundling and Consolidation Remain Challenges to Small Business 
Success'' 4-5 (2013), available at http://smallbusiness.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/10-10-2013_hearing_memo.doc.pdf.
    \11\Putting the Strategy in Sourcing: Hearing Before the Subcomm. 
on Contracting and Workforce of the House Comm. on Small Business, 
113th Cong. 113-023 at.19-20 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Potential issues with the poor quality of data on contract 
bundling and consolidation may be caused by gaps or loopholes 
in the way in which that data is collected. The responsibility 
for identifying contracts as bundled or consolidated rests with 
the agency conducting the procurement, with SBA backstopping 
agency efforts. SBA has 58 Procurement Center Representatives 
specifically tasked with reviewing contracts to determine if 
they are suitable for award to small business, if they contain 
bundling or consolidation, and whether the bundling or 
consolidation is justified and mitigated.\12\ However, with 
over 20 million procurement actions occurring each year, SBA is 
unable to catch contracts that the agency fails to 
identify.\13\ Since identifying contracts as bundled or 
consolidated imposes upon the agency additional reporting 
requirements and can reduce the agency's grade on its annual 
SBA report card, agencies have little incentive to make that 
identification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(l).
    \13\See, e.g., FPDS.
    \14\SBA Procurement Scorecard Methodology (2012) available at 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/ default/files/files/
Scorecard_Grade_Calculation_Methodology_FY12_FINAL_2013-06-24.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4094 addresses the problems with the data available 
for contract bundling and consolidation. First, it requires 
that SBA, working with the Small Business Procurement Advisory 
Committee, the Administrator of the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy, and the Administrator of the General 
Service Administration, develop a plan to improve the quality 
of data reported on consolidated and bundled contracts. This 
plan must address the roles and responsibilities of all 
parties; make changes to underlying policies, regulations, and 
training; establish consequences for the failure to properly 
identify contracts; establish requirements for periodic and 
statistically defensible data verification and validation; and 
assign clear data verification responsibilities. The agencies 
have until fiscal year 2017 to develop and implement the plan, 
which is in keeping with the time frames provided to the 
Committee for changes to the underlying data systems. A year 
after the new plan in place, GAO will audit contracts pulled 
from industries susceptible to consolidation and bundling, in 
order to assess whether the identification of contracts has 
improved. GAO also will suggest additional steps for 
improvement.
    As agencies currently face few consequences for failing to 
properly identify bundled and consolidated contracts, this 
legislation is a necessary prerequisite to implementing the 
protections already present in the Act. Improving the labeling 
of consolidated and bundled contracts will provide small 
businesses with tangible benefits. It will make it easier for 
small businesses to challenge these contracts, and to obtain 
subcontracts on contracts that are bundled or consolidated. 
Furthermore, improved data will give the Committee and Congress 
the information it needs to continue formulating sensible 
procurement reforms that limit unjustified bundling and 
consolidation.

                              IV. Hearings

    In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Contracting and 
Workforce held two hearings that examined agency compliance 
with the current laws on contract bundling and consolidation. 
The first, held on June 13, 2013, was titled ``Putting the 
Strategy in Sourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Small 
Business Contractors.'' During the hearing, witnesses testified 
that federal efforts at strategic sourcing were encouraging the 
use of bundling and consolidation without identifying, 
justifying these contracts or mitigating their effects. On 
October 10, 2013, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Bungling Bundling: How Contract Bundling and Consolidation 
Remain Challenges to Small Business Success.'' At this hearing, 
witnesses testified that contracting officers still do not 
recognize bundling and consolidation, and that there are no 
consequences for agencies that fail to comply with the current 
statutory requirements.
    Furthermore, during the 112th Congress, issues related to 
contract bundling were addressed by the Committee at multiple 
hearings held to consider federal government contracting at 
both the full and subcommittee levels. One hearing, conducted 
by the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce entitled 
``Construction Contracting: Barriers to Small Business 
Participation'' on February 9, 2012, focused specifically on 
contract bundling and consolidation in federal procurement for 
construction services.

                       V. Committee Consideration

    The Committee on Small Business met in open session, with a 
quorum being present, on March 5, 2014 and ordered H.R. 4094 
reported to the House by a voice vote at 2:30 pm. During the 
markup, one amendment was offered and adopted.
    Amendment Number One filed by Ms. Chu (D-CA) requires the 
SBA to present the Committee with the data quality improvement 
plan required in H.R. 4094 prior to implementing the plan. The 
amendment passed by voice vote at 2:30 pm.

                          VI. Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report the legislation and amendments 
thereto.

                        Amendment to H.R. 4094 
                    Offered by Ms. Chu of California

    Page 3, insert after line 17, and redesignate provisions 
accordingly:
          ``(3) Committee briefing.--Once finalized and by not 
        later than 90 days prior to implementation, the plan 
        described in this subsection shall be presented to the 
        Committee on Small Business of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and 
        Entrepreneurship of the Senate.''.

             VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4094


Section 1. Short title

    This Section designates the bill as the ``Contracting Data 
and Bundling Accountability Act of 2014.''

Section 2. Plan for improving data on bundled and consolidated 
        contracts

    There are currently four means to track bundling and 
consolidation of contracts. The first of these is Sec. 15(p) of 
the Act which requires that SBA create and administer a 
database that tracks each bundled contract, and that this serve 
as the basis of an annual report to Congress.\15\ Second, DoD 
is required to identify and report on contracts that are 
consolidated.\16\ Third, FPDS is configured to report bundled 
and consolidated contracts pursuant to Sec. 15(p) and Sec. 44 
of the Act, and 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2382 note. Finally, SBA's 
Procurement Center Representatives (PCRs) track bundled and 
consolidated contracts using SBA Standard Form 1970 (SF 
1970).\17\ Unfortunately, none of these systems are able to 
accurately capture consolidation or bundling, because the 
contracts are not properly identified in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\15 U.S.C. Sec. 644 (p).
    \16\National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. 
L. No. 108-136, Tit. VIII, Sec. 801, 117 Stat. 1392, 1540 (2003), 
codified at 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2382 note.
    \17\SBA, S.O.P. 60-02-7 at 47 (2004); see also GAO, Improvements 
Needed to Help Ensure Reliability of SBA's Performance Data on PCRS 
(2011) (GAO-11-549R).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regardless of which method is used to track bundling, once 
a contract is identified as bundled, SBA and the contracting 
agency have certain responsibilities to small businesses 
pursuant to the Act. In the case of a bundled contract 
exceeding a regulatorily-set threshold, the contracting agency 
is required to provide the SBA and the agency's internal small 
business advocates with a statement explaining why the 
underlying requirements cannot be met without bundling the 
contract, and ``why the agency has determined that the bundled 
contract [is] necessary and justified.''\18\ Once that 
justification is made, the head of the contracting activity 
(HCA)\19\ must determine that ``the anticipated benefits of the 
proposed bundled contract justify its use'' and mitigate the 
effect on small businesses, usually through increased 
subcontracting opportunities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(a). The current substantial bundling 
thresholds are $8 million for the Department of Defense (DoD), $6 
million for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 
the General Services Administration (GSA) or the Department of Energy 
(DOE), or $2.5 million for any other agency. 48 C.F.R. Sec. 7.105. The 
criteria for a justifying the decision to bundle may include: (1) 
measurable cost savings (exclusive of administrative and personnel 
costs); (2) quality improvements; (3) reduction in acquisition cycle 
times; (4) better terms and conditions; or (5) other benefits. 15 
U.S.C. Sec. 644(a).
    \19\The HCA is usually the head of a regional office, so an agency 
will have multiple HCAs.
    \20\15 Sec. 644(e)(3). If the SBA determines that a contract was 
bundled but not identified as such, or objects to justification or 
mitigation strategy, the SBA can delay the procurement while SBA and 
the agency negotiate, although the agency ultimately will make the 
decision regarding the award. Id. at Sec. 644(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, whether a contract is identified as consolidate 
using an agency process, SBA process, or DoD specific process, 
once the identification of a consolidated requirement occurs, 
specific agency-level actions are triggered. Before an agency 
can issue a consolidated contract for more than $2 million, the 
Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) or Senior Procurement Executive 
(SPE) must certify that the agency has conducted market 
research; identify ``alternative contracting approaches that 
would involve a lesser degree of consolidation of contract 
requirements;'' determine, in writing, that the consolidation 
is ``necessary and justified;'' identify any negative effects 
on small businesses due to the acquisition strategy and ensure 
``that steps will be taken to include small business concerns 
in the acquisition strategy.''\21\ In contrast to the bundling 
requirements, this requires that a more senior agency official 
make the certification, and applies to contracts above $2 
million--smaller contracts than those covered by bundling 
rules.\22\ While the agency is not required to provide this 
document to SBA, the agency must coordinate it with their 
internal small business advocates.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\15 U.S.C. Sec. 657q(c)(1). The CAO and SPE are senior officials 
responsible for the acquisition programs of an agency. 41 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1702.
    \22\15 U.S.C. Sec. 657q(c)(1).
    \23\Id. at Sec. 644(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The aforementioned protections are triggered only once 
consolidation or bundling is identified. Misidentification or 
failure to identify contracts as bundled or consolidated 
thereby undermines protections for small business. This 
identification problem also makes the reporting required by 
Congress a Sisyphean task.
    The SBA is required to report annually to the Committee on 
the bundling activity of the preceding year.\24\ This report is 
generated using data in FPDS, using a database SBA is required 
to maintain to track the results of bundled contracts, and 
using the SF 1970s generated by the PCRs. Despite these three 
sources of data, the data reported to the Committee is 
seriously flawed. For example, the SBA's FY 2011 and FY 2012 
Bundling Report was only filed in February of this year.\25\ 
However, the data in the report for that period varied 
significantly from the FPDS bundling and consolidation data, 
with SBA in each case underreporting bundling.\26\ However, the 
FPDS data also to be appears unreliable. For example, contracts 
challenged as bundled or consolidated at the GAO under a bid 
protest cannot be found in the reports.\27\ Likewise, in FY 
2012, FPDS states that only four agencies bundled contracts 
during FY 2012--DoD, Agency for International Development, the 
Peace Corps, and the Department of the Treasury--and that they 
only bundled 11 contracts, albeit contracts worth over $2.2 
billion\28\ Finally, a review of the SF 1970s for this period 
identified over $2 billion in contracts the Committee considers 
bundled. None of these procurements are listed in FPDS, 
including a $1.2 billion bundle at the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Id. at Sec. 644 (p).
    \25\SBA, Report to Congress: Contract Bundling for Fiscal Years 
2011 and 2012 (2014).
    \26\Email from SBA to Committee Staff, September 30, 2013 (on file 
with the Committee).
    \27\See, e.g., CYIOS, Inc., B-402728.3 (2012) (bundling not 
unjustified since SBA did not challenge bundle). Even though the 
contract was bundled, no such contract is found as bundled or 
consolidated in FPDS.
    \28\FPDS Report, October 1, 2013 (on file with the Committee).
    \29\The Committee staff requested copies of SBA's Form 1970s on 
September 16, 2013, and again on September 17, 30, and October 1, 2013, 
for FY 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately, SBA was not able to provide all of 
the requested documents, and the documents provided were often 
incomplete, used the terms bundling, breakout and partial set-aside 
interchangeably, and bore no relationship to the data in FPDS. While it 
is possible that SBA intervened and stopped this bundle, it is 
impossible to know. More disturbing are GAO's findings that SBA failed 
to review the majority of bundled contracts, and that information on 
the Form 1970s and otherwise maintained by SBA was unreliable. GAO, 
Improvements Needed to Help Ensure Reliability of SBA's Performance 
Data on PCRS 2 (2011) (GAO-11-549R).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, DoD is required to report on contracts that are 
consolidated.\30\ These reports have not been filed. However, 
drawing on data from FPDS, DoD reported 144 consolidated 
contracts for FY 2012, worth $265.9 billion--more than half the 
total dollars spent by the entire federal government through 
contracts that year.\31\ Further research showed that $240 
billion of those dollars should have been only entered as $48 
billion.\32\ When the $240 billion error is subtracted from 
$265 billion, and only $48 billion reentered, this reduces the 
total to $73.9 billion.\33\ However, this number is not 
reliable either, as GAO determined that contracts were 
consolidated but not identified as such.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Supra, note 16.
    \31\FPDS Report, October 1, 2013 (on file with the Committee).
    \32\Id.
    \33\Id.
    \34\GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated 
Contracts 22-24 (2013) (GAO-14-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, while there is no Congressional reporting 
requirement, contracts consolidated pursuant to Sec. 44 of the 
Act are identified as such in FPDS. However, despite the fact 
that this provision became law nearly four years ago, agencies 
are not recording contracts as consolidated. This does not 
indicate that consolidated failed to occur outside of DoD. In 
FY 2012, draft RFPs were issued for ten civilian agency 
contracts worth a total of $39.2 billion, it seems incredible 
that none of the ten agencies responsible for those contracts 
reported any bundled or consolidated contracts for that 
period.\35\ Indeed, some of these contracts, such as GSA's $12 
billion integrated professional services contract, called 
OASIS, have been discussed as bundles and consolidations in 
prior Subcommittee hearings, although no bundling or 
consolidation justification has ever been provided.\36\ 
Likewise, strategic sourcing vehicles are noticeable absent 
from any report or data source. Given that strategic sourcing 
involves combining the requirements of numerous federal 
agencies into one contract with a limited number of vendors, 
these contracts meet the definition of a consolidated contract, 
and possibly a bundled contract. When questioned regarding the 
lack of data on consolidation, agencies stated that the lack of 
regulatory guidance excused their failure to report these 
vehicles.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Deltek, Top Ten Civilian Opportunities for FY 2013 (2012) (on 
file with the Committee).
    \36\Committee Memorandum, ``Putting the Strategy in Sourcing: 
Challenge and Opportunities for Small Business Contractors'' (June 10, 
2013) available at http://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
6_13_2013_hearing_memo.pdf.
    \37\GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated 
Contracts 13 (2013) (GAO-14-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Until the data on bundling and consolidation are improved, 
small businesses will have little protection against these 
procurement practices. To improve the data collection and 
reporting of bundled and consolidated contracts, the bill adds 
a new subsection 15(s) to the Act in order to ameliorate this 
problem.
            Subsection (s)--Data quality improvement plan
    Paragraph (1) of the new subsection 15(s) requires that the 
Administrator, in consultation with the Small Business 
Procurement Advisory Council (SBPAC),\38\ the Administrator of 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and the 
Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), 
develop a plan to improve the quality of data reported on 
bundled and consolidated contracts in the federal procurement 
data system no later than the first day of Fiscal Year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\The Small Business Procurement Advisory Council is an 
interagency committee comprised of the Directors of the Offices of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, as defined in Section 
15(k) of the Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(k)), and is chaired by the SBA. 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-355, Tit. 
VII, Sec. 7104, 108 Stat. 3243, 3369 (1994) (FASA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (2) of the new subsection 15(s) provides five 
mandatory elements for the data quality improvement plan. Each 
element is discussed in detail in a subparagraph.
    Paragraph (2)(A) requires that the plan describe roles and 
responsibilities for the SBA Administrator, the Directors of 
the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
(OSDBU), the SBPAC, the OFPP Administrator, the GSA 
Administrator, SPEs, and the CAOs implementing this plan. Each 
of these parties plays a critical role in ensuring that 
improvement in collected and reported data will occur.
    As the agency tasked with reporting requirements under 
Section 15(p) of the Act, the SBA must play a key role in this 
process. Similarly, the OSDBUs are required to ``identify 
proposed solicitations that involve significant bundling of 
contract requirements,''\39\ and thereby play a key role. The 
SBPAC is statutorily required to monitor compliance by the 
OSDBUs, and to ``(4) to identify best practices for maximizing 
small business utilization in Federal contracting that may be 
implemented by Federal agencies having procurement 
powers,''\40\ so consequently are in a position to assist with 
the implementation of the plan. The bill also includes OFPP 
because it has responsibility for all government-wide 
acquisition policy, for ensuring compliance with federal 
procurement regulations, for training of the federal 
acquisition workforce, and for ensuring that FPDS adequately 
collects, develops, and disseminates procurement data.\41\ 
Likewise, the GSA Administrator has the day-to-day 
responsibility for FPDS, including its budget, so is in the 
best position to guarantee that the system collects the correct 
data.\42\ Finally, as the highest-ranking procurement officials 
within each agency, the CAO and SPE are responsible for all 
contracting activity within each agency, including the 
contracting officers, contract reporting systems, and ensuring 
that all acquisition decisions are ``consistent with all 
applicable laws.''\43\ Therefore, the Committee determined that 
all of the aforementioned parties need to be engaged to improve 
the data quality on bundling and consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(k)(5). Unfortunately, despite clear 
statutory direction, many OSDBU do not believe that they play a 
significant role in the review of contracts for bundling or 
consolidation. GAO, Small Business Contract: Action Needed by Those 
Whose Advocates Do Not Report to Agency Heads and Required 17 (2011) 
(GAO-11-418).
    \40\FASA at Sec. 7104, 108 Stat. 3369, as amended by the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, 
Tit. XVI Sec. 1692, 126 Stat. 1632, 2089 (2013).
    \41\41 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1121-22.
    \42\Id. at Sec. 1122.
    \43\41 U.S.C. Sec. 1702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (2)(B) requires that the data quality improvement 
plan address the reasons that the data quality is poor. First, 
it requires that changes be made to policies and procedures on 
the identification and mitigation on contract bundling and 
consolidation. Many agencies misunderstand the rules associated 
with bundling and consolidation.\44\ Agencies questioned by the 
Committee claim that it is unnecessary to report contracts as 
bundled or consolidated if the bundling or consolidation is 
mitigated. Second, it requires that people involved with the 
identification and mitigation receive the necessary training to 
carry out their responsibilities. The educational component is 
key because the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce 
received testimony that contracting officers do not know how to 
identify bundling and consolidation.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated 
Contracts 8 (2013) (GAO-14-36).
    \45\Bungling Bundling: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Contracting 
and Workforce of the House Comm. On Small Business, 113th Cong. 113-041 
(2013) (statement of Juanita Beauford, at 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (2)(C) also addresses an issue raised by 
testimony before the Subcommittee on Contracting and 
Workforce--the lack of accountability.\46\ Currently, there are 
no repercussions if a contracting official fails to identify a 
contract as bundled or consolidated. Therefore, subparagraph 
(C) requires that the data quality improvement plan include 
consequences for the failure to properly identify contracts as 
bundled or consolidated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Id. at 5, 6, 10. (statements of Juanita Beauford, Robert 
Burton, and Margot Dorfman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (2)(D) requires that the responsible parties take 
affirmative actions to review the quality of the data, rather 
than simply relying upon that which is in FPDS. Specifically, 
the legislation requires that the data quality improvement plan 
include requirements for periodic and statistically acceptable 
data verification and validation. As DoD has already 
implemented a similar process for its data, which accounts for 
over seventy percent of the data in FPDS, the Committee 
believes that existing resources are available to complete this 
task.
    Paragraph (2)(E) further addresses the procedures for data 
verification. Specifically, this subparagraph requires that the 
relevant parties assign clear data verification 
responsibilities as part of the data quality improvement plan.
    Subsection (s)(3) is designed to increase the Committee's 
oversight of the data quality improvement plan. It requires 
that at least 90 days before implementing the plan, as 
described in Paragraph (4), the Administrator present the plan 
to the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship of the Senate. Based on the deadlines in 
Paragraph (4), this briefing must occur no later than July 2, 
2016. The Committee also finds that imposing mandatory 
obligations, such as deliverables to Congress, will provide SBA 
with the needed incentives to meet its statutory mandate.
    Subsection (s)(4) establishes the timeline for implementing 
the data quality improvement plan. It requires that the data 
quality improvement plan be implemented no later than October 
1, 2016. The Committee believes that providing SBA and the 
other entities named in subsection (s)(1) with more than a full 
year to develop and implement the plan is sufficient, given 
that the responsibility to collect and report this data has 
existed for up to 17 years. Furthermore, DoD is currently 
undertaking a similar effort with all of its FPDS data, which 
should greatly simplify the process.
    Subsection (s)(5) requires that the Administrator, as part 
of the annual reporting process required by Sec. 15(p) of the 
Act, certify that the data is accurate and complete. This 
certification will require that the Administrator remain 
vigilant in policing the quality of the data submitted. 
Unfortunately, the certification is necessary given the poor 
state of the data currently provided to Congress.
    Subsection (s)(6) establishes a detailed framework for a 
GAO study and report on the effectiveness of the data quality 
improvement plan. The Committee believes that data quality must 
be continually monitored to remain useful, and this study will 
determine whether the parties tasked by this legislation were 
successful in improving the quality of the data.
    Paragraph (6)(A) establishes the timeline and subject 
matter of the study. Specifically, it requires that GAO begin 
the study no later than October 1, 2017. This ensures that the 
data quality improvement plan will have been operational for at 
least one year when GAO begins the study. Further, GAO must 
evaluate the effectiveness of the data quality improvement plan 
and whether contracts entered into after implementation of the 
data quality improvement plan are correctly labeled as bundled 
or consolidated.
    Paragraph (6)(B) specifies which contracts GAO shall 
evaluate as part of its study. The Committee determined that it 
was necessary to specify the types of contracts to be examined 
in order to obtain the most relevant data. For example, if GAO 
were to study fuel contracts, which have historically been 
awarded to large businesses, the results would not be 
particularly useful. Likewise, if GAO were to study contracts 
set aside for small businesses, by definition the contracts 
could not be considered bundled. Therefore, the analysis would 
not produce any useful insights.
    Clause (i) specifies that the study shall consist of the 
analysis of at least 100 contracts in each of four broad 
industry sectors. Those sectors are specified by North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, and are 
Construction (NAICS 23), Manufacturing (NAICS 33), 
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 54) and 
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation 
Services (NAICS 56). These sectors were chosen for a number of 
reasons. First, in FY 2013, they accounted for 75 percent of 
the dollars spent by the federal government, but only 19 
percent of the contracts awarded.\47\ This indicates that the 
contracts are larger and more susceptible to bundling and 
consolidation. Second, small businesses are active in each of 
these sectors. During FY 2013, small businesses in NAICS 23 
received 68 percent of the awards and 45 percent of the 
dollars.\48\ During the same time period small business 
participation in NAICS 33 accounted for 27 percent of the 
awards and 10 percent of the dollars.\49\ Similarly, in NAICS 
54, small businesses received 45 percent of the awards and 24 
percent of the dollars; and in NAICS 56, they received 57 
percent of the awards and 24 percent of the dollars.\50\ Given 
the Committee's longstanding interest in bundling, the 
Committee determined that these sectors would provide the best 
insight into data collection improvements arising out of 
compliance with H.R. 4094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\FPDS Report generated by the Committee staff on April 1, 2014 
(on file with the Committee).
    \48\Id. Given the types and kinds of construction projects 
available, if not for the proliferation of bundling and consolidation, 
small businesses could reasonably expect to win a far greater 
percentage of both the dollars and awards in this sector.
    \49\Id.
    \50\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even with the limitations in clause (i), GAO would need to 
start its study with over 80,000 contracts to consider. The 
Committee recognizes the need to further circumscribe the set 
of contracts GAO would review. First, in clause (ii)(I), the 
bill limits the GAO study to contracts awarded by the 24 
largest agencies. While all agencies play a role in creating 
opportunities for small business competition, the activities of 
the National Capitol Planning Commission, which awarded only 
four contracts valued at less than $35,000 in FY 2013, is not 
likely to be probative.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\FPDS Report, ``Awards by Contractor Type'' generated by the 
Committee staff on April 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, per subclause (II), GAO is required to review only 
those contracts exceeding $10 million. While contracts below 
$10 million may be consolidated or bundled, their size alone 
should not preclude small business participation. This will 
greatly limit the number of contracts to be reviewed. For 
example, during October 2012, there were approximately 19,245 
contracts awarded in NAICS 54.\52\ However, only 272 of these 
actions exceed $10 million. If extrapolated, this will mean 
that only one percent of the contracts in the designated 
industry categories would be considered for the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\FPDS Report generated by the Committee staff on April 1, 2014 
(on file with the Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A final limitation is imposed on the scope of the report in 
subclause (III) by excluding contracts set aside for small 
businesses or any subcategory thereof.\53\ Since contracts set 
aside for small businesses are not, by definition, bundled 
contracts, including them in the sample for the study is 
unlikely to be probative of improvements in the database of 
bundled contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\When there are two or more small businesses that can perform 
requirement at a fair and reasonable price, competition on that 
contract is restricted to small business concerns. 48 C.F.R. 
Sec. 19.502. Sections 8(a), 8(m), 31, and 36 of the Act provide the 
ability to restrict competition based the concerns status as a socially 
and economically-disadvantaged small business, woman-owned small 
business, historically underutilized business zone (HUBzone) qualified 
small business, or service-disabled veteran-owned small business, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (7) of the new subsection 15(s) provides 
definitions for terms used in this section. Definitions are 
provided for the following terms: CAO, SPE, and specific types 
of contract actions enumerated in the FPDS.
    The terms CAO and SPE are defined in subparagraph (A) as 
having the same definitions provided in Section 44 of the Act. 
That section cross references the definition set out in 41 
U.S.C. Sec. 1702.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\As previously discussed, CAOs and SPEs are responsible for the 
acquisition programs of their respective agencies. Military departments 
and small agencies do not have CAOs, but instead have SPEs with the 
same responsibilities. Large agencies often have both a CAO and a SPE, 
with the SPE serving as the senior official responsible for procurement 
reporting to the CAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The terms ``Base and Exercised Options Value'' (BEOV), 
``Action Obligation'' (AO), and ``Base and All Options Value'' 
(BAOV) are used in the new 15(s)(5)(B)(II) have the meanings 
given these terms by the OFPP Administrator through FPDS on 
October 1, 2013, or equivalent definitions as the systems 
evolve. That means that BEOV refers to the money obligated 
under a contract for the base period of performance and any 
exercised options, while the BAOV is the total amount that may 
be obligated over the life of the contract, including 
unexercised options. The AO means the amount obligated by an 
agency through a discrete action, such as the exercise of an 
option, modification, or change. An AO is an action that 
accrues toward the ceiling for a base year or option year.

                        VIII. Unfunded Mandates

    H.R. 4094 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. 
L. No. 104-4, and would impose no costs on state, local or 
tribal governments.

  IX. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House, the Committee provides the following opinion and 
estimate with respect to new budget authority, entitlement 
authority and tax expenditures. While the Committee has not 
received an estimate of new budget authority contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to Sec. 402 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, the Committee does not believe that any additional 
appropriation will be required due to the enactment of H.R. 
4094. H.R. 4094 does not direct new spending, but prioritizes 
how resources already allocated under the E-Government Fund, 44 
U.S.C. Sec. 3604, should be spent. Further, the Committee notes 
that DoD is already undertaking a data quality improvement plan 
for all FPDS data, including bundled and consolidated 
contracts. As approximately 70 percent of the records in FPDS 
are generated by DoD, this means that the majority of the 
effort should be directed towards reviewing a small portion of 
the data.

                         X. Oversight Findings

    In accordance with clause (2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules 
of the House, the oversight findings and recommendations of the 
Committee on Small Business with respect to the subject matter 
contained in H.R. 4094 are incorporated into the descriptive 
portions of this report.

               XI. Statement of Constitutional Authority

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
authority for this legislation in Art. I, Sec. 8, cls. 1, 3, 
and 18 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 of the Constitution of the 
United States.

                 XII. Congressional Accountability Act

    H.R. 4094 does not relate to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services or accommodations 
within the meaning of Sec. 102(b)(3) of Pub. L. No. 104-1.

             XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement

    H.R. 4094 does not establish or authorize the establishment 
of any new advisory committees as that term is defined in the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

                     XIV. Statement of No Earmarks

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 4094 does not 
contain any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or 
limited tariff benefits as defined in subsections (d), (e) or 
(f) of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.

            XV. Statement of Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House, no provision of H.R. 4094 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the federal government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the GAO pursuant to Section 21 of Public Law 111-
139, or a program related to a program identified in the most 
recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

                XVI. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House, H.R. 4094 does not direct any rulemaking.

                 XVII. Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House, the Committee establishes the following performance-
related goals and objectives for this legislation:
          H.R. 4094 includes a number of provisions designed to 
        improve the quality of data captured and reported on 
        contract bundling and consolidation, to improve agency 
        compliance with the Small Business Act.

      XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

SMALL BUSINESS ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 15. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (s) Data Quality Improvement Plan.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than the first day of 
        fiscal year 2016, the Administrator of the Small 
        Business Administration, in consultation with the Small 
        Business Procurement Advisory Council, the 
        Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement 
        Policy, and the Administrator of the General Services 
        Administration shall develop a plan to improve the 
        quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated 
        contracts in the Federal procurement data system.
          (2) Plan requirements.--The plan shall--
                  (A) describe the roles and responsibilities 
                of the Administrator of the Small Business 
                Administration, the Directors of the Offices of 
                Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 
                the Small Business Procurement Advisory 
                Council, the Administrator of the Office of 
                Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator 
                of the General Services Administration, the 
                senior procurement executives, and Chief 
                Acquisition Officers in implementing the plan 
                described in paragraph (1) and contributing to 
                the annual report required by subsection 
                (p)(4);
                  (B) make necessary changes to policies and 
                procedures on proper identification and 
                mitigation of contract bundling and 
                consolidation, and to training procedures of 
                relevant personnel on proper identification and 
                mitigation of contract bundling and 
                consolidation;
                  (C) establish consequences for failure to 
                properly identify contracts as bundled or 
                consolidated;
                  (D) establish requirements for periodic and 
                statistically valid data verification and 
                validation; and
                  (E) assign clear data verification 
                responsibilities.
          (3) Committee briefing.--Once finalized and by not 
        later than 90 days prior to implementation, the plan 
        described in this subsection shall be presented to the 
        Committee on Small Business of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and 
        Entrepreneurship of the Senate.
          (4) Implementation.--Not later than the first day of 
        fiscal year 2017, the Administrator of the Small 
        Business Administration shall implement the plan 
        described in this subsection.
          (5) Certification.--The Administrator shall annually 
        provide to the Committee on Small Business of the House 
        of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business 
        and Entrepreneurship of the Senate certification of the 
        accuracy and completeness of data reported on bundled 
        and consolidated contracts.
          (6) GAO study and report.--
                  (A) Study.--Not later than the first day of 
                fiscal year 2018, the Comptroller General of 
                the United States shall initiate a study on the 
                effectiveness of the plan described in this 
                subsection that shall assess whether contracts 
                were accurately labeled as bundled or 
                consolidated.
                  (B) Contracts evaluated.--For the purposes of 
                conducting the study described in subparagraph 
                (A), the Comptroller General of the United 
                States--
                          (i) shall evaluate, for work in each 
                        of sectors 23, 33, 54, and 56 (as 
                        defined by the North American Industry 
                        Classification System), not fewer than 
                        100 contracts in each sector;
                          (ii) shall evaluate only those 
                        contracts--
                                  (I) awarded by an agency 
                                listed in section 901(b) of 
                                title 31, United States Code; 
                                and
                                  (II) that have a Base and 
                                Exercised Options Value, an 
                                Action Obligation, or a Base 
                                and All Options Value; and
                          (iii) shall not evaluate contracts 
                        that have used any set aside authority.
                  (C) Report.--Not later than 12 months after 
                initiating the study required by subparagraph 
                (A), the Comptroller General of the United 
                States shall report to the Committee on Small 
                Business of the House of Representatives and 
                the Committee on Small Business and 
                Entrepreneurship of the Senate on the results 
                from such study and, if warranted, any 
                recommendations on how to improve the quality 
                of data reported on bundled and consolidated 
                contracts.
          (7) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
        definitions shall apply:
                  (A) Chief acquisition officer; senior 
                procurement executive.--The terms ``Chief 
                Acquisition Officer'' and ``senior procurement 
                executive'' have the meanings given such terms 
                in section 44 of this Act.
                  (B) Federal procurement data system 
                definitions.--The terms ``Base and Exercised 
                Options Value'', ``Action Obligation'', ``Base 
                and All Options Value'', and ``set aside 
                authority'' have the meanings given such terms 
                by the Administrator for Federal Procurement 
                Policy in the Federal procurement data system 
                on October 1, 2013, or subsequent equivalent 
                terms.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
