79–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–402 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION SAVINGS ACT OF 2017 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOWDY, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3071] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 3071) to require executive agencies to 

consider equipment rental in any cost-effectiveness analysis for 

equipment acquisition, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 1 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 3 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 4 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 4 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 4 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 4 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 4 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 4 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 4 

Unfunded Mandates Statement .............................................................................. 4 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 5 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 5 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 5 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 3071, the Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017, requires 

the federal government to analyze the cost effectiveness of renting 

2 

1Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–12–281R, Air Force and Interior Can Benefit From Additional Guidance When Deciding Whether to Lease or Purchase Equipment (2012). 2 48 C.F.R subpart 7.4 (2017). 

3Gov’t Accountability Office, supra note 1. 4 78 Fed. Reg. 42524 (July 16, 2013) (request for information). 

5Letter from Christine L. Wehrman, CEO/Executive Vice President, American Rental Association, to the Honorable Daniel Tangherlini, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration (June 14, 2012). 

equipment compared to buying or leasing such equipment and to 

revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement this 

requirement. This bill also requires the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) to submit a report to Congress two years after enactment on agency decisions to acquire equipment by purchase, lease, 

or rental. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In 2012, the GAO reported that agencies annually spent more 

than $200 billion on average purchasing or leasing equipment, with 

purchasing accounting for almost all of this spending.1 Current 

rules encourage agencies to assess the cost and effectiveness of options to obtain equipment, but this analysis is limited to comparing 

only purchasing versus leasing.2 Notably, the GAO found that 

agencies often fail to perform the lease-versus-purchase analysis.3

Beginning in 2013, there was an attempt to prompt a policy 

change to reemphasize the need for cost effectiveness analysis and 

consideration of the rental option. On July 16, 2013, the General 

Services Administration (GSA) issued a Request For Information 

(RFI) to examine whether there was a distinction between leasing 

and renting of equipment that should be considered in the FAR directed cost effectiveness analysis.4 However, GSA did not pursue 

further action after the RFI. 

H.R. 3071 makes clear that agencies should consider a range of 

options for obtaining equipment, to include purchasing, leasing, 

and renting, by directing a change to the FAR. H.R. 3071 reemphasizes the need to perform cost effectiveness analysis and include in 

this analysis the rental option. This policy change is a significant 

opportunity for cost savings in obtaining equipment. 

Renting equipment can provide a more cost effective and flexible 

alternative to buying or even leasing, which becomes clear after 

analyzing these acquisition options. In purchasing equipment, the 

purchaser makes a long-term investment and assumes the total 

cost of ownership for the equipment. This is appropriate in many 

cases. 

However, there may be short-term needs that can be met with 

acquisition solutions without assuming the total cost of ownership 

that purchasing equipment requires. Instead of purchasing, leasing 

or renting may offer better solutions. 

It is important to consider the distinct attributes of leasing and 

renting in considering equipment acquisition options.5 In the case 

of leasing, there are defined leasing periods—which can be years— 

and leases are specific to a particular piece of equipment. Leasing 

may also require capital to finance the lease whereas renting typically does not. Further, the costs of maintenance, insurance, and 

storage are typically the responsibility of the lessee and not the lessor. In contrast to leasing, renting equipment may provide for a 

temporary period with no fixed duration and is generally more 

3 

6Letter from Dalton Pratt, Director, Fleet Operations Division, Texas Department of Transportation, to John W. McClelland, Vice President Government Affairs and Chief Economist, 

American Rental Association (May 19, 2017). 7 Id. 

8Dye Management Group, Inc., Equipment Management Review Final Recommendation Report (Nov. 2013) (Report for the Mississippi Department of Transportation). 9 Id. at 27. 

flexible. Typically, rental agreements will cover cost of ownership, 

including storage, maintenance, insurance, transport, and licensing. Renting may be a particularly cost effective option when there 

will be low utilization rates for the equipment. 

State and local governments have used the equipment rental option with great success, but the federal government has not widely 

adopted it. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation 

reported savings of $10.8 million due to a rental program implemented by their Fleet Operations Division.6 The Director of the 

Fleet Operations Division reported renting more than 1,200 pieces 

of equipment at a cost of $18.9 million and purchasing 931 assets 

at a cost of more than $40 million.7 In Mississippi, the Department 

of Transportation commissioned a study on its equipment management processes and systems and found renting equipment to supplement their fleet was the most cost effective option.8 The study 

found Mississippi could realize over $13,000 in annual cost savings 

and $180,000 in life-cycle cost savings per bulldozer unit.9

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On June 27, 2017, Representative Earl L. ‘‘Buddy’’ Carter (R– 

GA) introduced H.R. 3071, the Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 

2017, with Representatives James Himes (D–CT) and Glenn 

Grothman (R–WI). H.R. 3071 was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee considered 

H.R. 3071 at a business meeting on September 13, 2017, and ordered the bill reported favorably to the House, by voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill. 

Section 2. Cost-effectiveness analysis of equipment rental 

Section 2 directs agencies to consider equipment rental in any 

cost effectiveness analysis for equipment acquisitions conducted 

180 days after enactment, and requires the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) be updated accordingly. In addition, Section 2 requires a GAO report on agency decisions made to acquire equipment by purchase, lease, or renting pursuant to the FAR. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

There were no amendments to H.R. 3071 offered or adopted during Committee consideration of the bill. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 13, 2017, the Committee met in open session and, 

with a quorum being present, ordered the bill favorably reported to 

the House, by voice vote. 

4 

ROLL CALL VOTES

There were no roll call votes requested or conducted during Full 

Committee consideration of H.R. 3071. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill helps ensure the federal 

government makes cost effective decisions in obtaining equipment 

by analyzing various acquisition strategies. As such, this bill does 

not relate to employment or access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goal or objective of this bill is to ensure the federal government makes cost 

effective decisions in obtaining equipment by analyzing various acquisition strategies. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In accordance with clause 2(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision of this 

bill 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 Government Accountability Office to Congress 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. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

section 551 or title 5, United States Code. However, this bill does 

direct a revision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of Section 5(b) of the appendix to title 5, United States 

Code. 

UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT

Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (Pub. L. 113–67) the Committee has inVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:02 Nov 09, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR402.XXX HR402
5 

cluded a letter received from the Congressional Budget Office 

below. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI of the House of Representatives. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, October 4, 2017. 

Hon. TREY GOWDY, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3071, the Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3071—Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017 

H.R. 3071 would amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require agencies to consider equipment rental in any analysis performed prior to acquiring a piece of equipment. The bill also would 

require a report within two years by the Government Accountability Office on equipment acquisitions. According to the General 

Services Administration, agencies are already required to consider 

purchasing or leasing when evaluating the acquisition of equipment. This bill would clarify that renting equipment is an acceptable method for acquiring equipment. Because H.R. 3071 would not 

materially change how agencies acquire equipment, CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 3071 would have no significant effect on 

the federal budget. 

H.R. 3071 could affect direct spending by agencies not funded 

through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 

6 

apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending 

by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 3071 

would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3071 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 3071 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

Æ