U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

! ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2007

110–201 

Calendar No. 420 

ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT 

CONTRACTING ACT OF 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 680 

TO ENSURE PROPER OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN 

FEDERAL CONTRACTING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

OCTOBER 22, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTE:\SEALS\CONGRESS.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. LANDY, Chief Counsel 

TROY H. CRIBB, Counsel 

TIMOTHY J. DINAPOLI, GAO Detailee 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMY L. HALL, Minority Professional Staff Member 

DAVID A. DRABKIN, Minority GSA Detailee 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 1 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 7 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 7 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 23 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 23 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 26 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
Calendar No. 420 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–201 

ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING ACT 

OF 2007 

OCTOBER 22, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 680] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 680), to ensure proper oversight 

and accountability in Federal contracting, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same reports favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 680 is to provide for improved oversight and 

accountability in federal contracting. The bill creates new mechanisms for strengthening the federal government’s acquisition workforce and requires changes in policies and procedures necessary to 

improve the overall performance of the federal government’s acquisition system. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

TODAY’S ACQUISITION SYSTEM

The U.S. government’s acquisition system is the largest in the world. The U.S. government spends in excess of $400 billion annually on the purchase of goods, services and real property—an 

amount that exceeds the gross domestic product of most countries 

in the world. The U.S. government buys at least one of just about 

every product available in the market (‘‘off-the-shelf’’ products), as 

well as goods and services that are developed specifically for use 

by the government in providing services for the American citizen. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

1The President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency is comprised primarily of Presidentiallyappointed Inspectors General. 2The Acquisition Advisory Panel (also referred to as the SARA Panel or the 1423 Panel) was 

authorized by Section 1423 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, enacted as title XIV 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136, Nov. 23, 

2003). 

To ensure integrity in the acquisition process, federal acquisition 

law is premised on the principles of competition and transparency. 

Over the past several years, though, it has become apparent to this 

Committee, and to many others within and outside government, 

that the current system faces a number of significant challenges 

that have called into question the government’s capacity to meet 

current and future acquisition needs efficiently. Systemic problems 

include shortages of trained acquisition personnel; the absence of 

effective competition and the lack of transparency in too many acquisitions; poor planning and oversight of contracts by agencies; 

and the frequent inability, or unwillingness, of agencies to hold 

contractors accountable for poor acquisition outcomes. These deficiencies are all too evident in the government’s response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in the post-conflict reconstruction efforts 

in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in everyday government programs. 

Such problems cause the American people to question the ability 

of the federal government to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. The 

Committee unequivocally shares the views of the Comptroller General of the United States expressed before the Committee on July 

17, 2007 that the government should have a zero tolerance policy 

for waste and mismanagement, whether in times of surplus or deficit, and that much more can and should be done to minimize misuse of funds. While the Committee believes that the majority of 

contracting is done properly, even a small percentage of waste results in a loss of billions of dollars every year. It is critical that 

Congress and the Executive Branch continuously strive to improve 

the acquisition system. 

S. 680, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 

2007, draws on lessons learned by the Committee through its own 

oversight of federal acquisition, the extensive analysis of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), numerous reports of Inspectors General and auditors across the federal government, and, as 

described below, the report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel. This 

extensive body of work leads the Committee to conclude, as has the 

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency,1 that acquisition 

management is one of the top management challenges facing the 

federal government. Many government operations on GAO’s ‘‘HighRisk List’’—those suffering from severe mismanagement or highly 

vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse—directly relate to acquisition, including contract management at the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA); DOD weapons acquisitions; the 

transformation of DHS; and the management of interagency contracts. The Comptroller General testified before the Committee 

that the government, as a whole, faces serious and systemic acquisition challenges. 

In 2003 Congress created the Acquisition Advisory Panel,2 which 

was tasked with the review of laws, regulations, and governmentwide acquisition policies regarding the use of commercial practices, 

performance-based contracting, the performance of acquisition 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

3 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and 

the United States Congress (‘‘Acquisition Advisory Panel Report’’). January 2007. 4The exact number of the government’s acquisition workforce is difficult to determine with 

precision because it is made up of individuals from a variety of different career series throughout the government and because the government as a whole has not settled on a single definition of which employees are members of the acquisition workforce. 5Federal Acquisition Institute, Annual Report on the Federal Acquisition Workforce, Fiscal 

Year 2006. May 2007; Federal Procurement Data System, Trending Analysis Report for the Last 

5 Years. 

functions across agency lines of responsibility, and governmentwide 

acquisition contracts. The Panel was comprised of 14 members reflecting considerable experience and expertise in federal acquisition 

issues. Over a period of 18 months, the Panel held 31 public meetings, received testimony from more than 100 witnesses, and reviewed countless reports published by the GAO and agency Inspectors General, among others. In January 2007, the Panel issued its 

final report, which made 91 recommendations to improve the government’s acquisition of services.3 The Committee carefully reviewed the Panel’s report and heard testimony from the Panel’s 

Chairman on July 17, 2007. S. 680 reflects a number of the Panel’s 

recommendations and requires the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to report on further actions taken to implement the 

Panel’s recommendations. 

THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

The acquisitions made daily across the government are accomplished by the federal government’s acquisition workforce, which 

numbers between 130,000 and 180,000 employees, most of whom 

work in the DOD.4 While it is not known exactly how many employees are in the acquisition workforce as a whole, it is clear that 

in certain segments of the acquisition workforce the government is 

understaffed. For example, the number of contract specialists, the 

career series from which the vast majority of the government’s contracting officers is drawn, has actually decreased since 1991, when 

there were over 33,000 contract specialists who awarded and managed approximately $150 billion per year in government contracts. 

In 2006 there were just under 28,000 contract specialists who 

awarded and managed over $400 billion.5

During the 1990s, the government reduced the size of its workforce as a whole, including acquisition personnel. In the acquisition 

arena, agencies accomplished this reduction by offering buy-outs 

and by decreasing efforts to recruit and train new members of the 

acquisition workforce. While the government has recently increased 

its recruitment of acquisition personnel, there is today a critical 

lack of acquisition employees with 5–15 years of experience. Further, the government is facing the possibility that as much as 50 

percent of its more experienced workforce—those with more than 

15 years of experience—will reach retirement eligibility in the next 

4 years. Unless we act now to reinvigorate the workforce, the government will not have enough trained and experienced personnel 

to replace them. 

Rapid changes in acquisition trends have also strained the workforce. Coinciding with the decrease in acquisition personnel has 

been the increase in reliance on services provided by the private 

sector. Today, more than half of the government’s contract spending is for services, which cover the gamut from professional, manVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 

6 Acquisition Advisory Panel Report, p. 3. 

agement, and administrative support services, to engineering and 

information technology services, to military base and logistical support, to housekeeping and facility maintenance.6 Indeed, the government could not function without the significant contribution 

made by the private sector each and every day. At the same time, 

the increased reliance on contractors requires that the government 

retain sufficient in-house expertise to manage and oversee contractors. The government must also have the proper policies, processes 

and tools in place to ensure that contractors do not perform inherently governmental functions, and to mitigate the risk of organizational or personal conflicts of interests. 

The nature of how the government buys goods and services has 

changed significantly since the early 1990s. At that time, the government purchased the majority of its needs using the lowest 

priced, technically acceptable offer, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘low bid.’’ In the mid-1990s the government recognized that ‘‘low 

bid’’ was in many cases actually costing it more in terms of performance and the total cost of ownership of the goods and services 

it purchased. Senator John Glenn once quipped that when he sat 

on top of the rocket as he was about to be launched into space it 

gave him no comfort in knowing the rocket was the product of the 

low bidder. The government now makes extensive use of ‘‘best 

value’’ approaches for purchases, in which differences in price, technical performance and other capabilities are evaluated by government personnel when determining which approach makes the most 

overall sense for the government. In other trends, agencies have 

made greater use of government purchase cards (i.e., commercial 

credit cards) for smaller dollar purchases, and have increasingly relied on contracts awarded by other agencies to obtain goods and 

services. However, many members of the acquisition workforce 

were not prepared for these changes in approaches. Lack of training in these methods of acquisition, coupled with poor internal controls, has contributed to instances of fraud, waste and abuse. 

The Committee believes that the government must begin investing in the acquisition workforce in order to reinvigorate the federal 

acquisition system. Toward that objective, the bill focuses much attention on this important issue by establishing an executive-level 

position to help coordinate the government’s acquisition workforce 

efforts; promoting a governmentwide intern program; establishing 

a contingency contracting corps; reemphasizing the need for training; and encouraging agencies to use the resources available to 

them to recruit and retain a highly skilled workforce. Other provisions of S. 680 require the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OFPP) to develop uniform policies aimed at preventing and mitigating organizational and personal conflicts of interest, as well as 

ensuring that federal employees perform inherently governmental 

work. 

COMPETITION

Principles of federal contracting have long recognized the benefits of robust competition—an ability to find out what is available 

to meet a particular governmental need and choosing the best solution, to motivate the private sector to develop new or innovative 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
5 

7 CICA, as enacted, is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(1) (applicable to DOD) and at 41 U.S.C. 

§ 253(a)(1) (applicable to other executive agencies); CICA’s competition requirements are implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. part 6, and agency supplemental 

regulations. 8Pub. L. No. 103–355 (Oct. 13, 1994). FASA is codified in various sections of Title 10 of the 

United States Code for military agencies and Title 41 of the Code for civilian agencies. 

goods or services, to provide incentives to contractors to become 

more efficient and effective, and to ensure that the government 

pays reasonable prices for the goods and services it needs. The 

Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) established that the 

government’s policy is to award contracts on the basis of ‘‘full and 

open competition’’—that is, all responsible contractors are afforded 

the opportunity to compete for government contracts.7 Since the 

passage of CICA the processes by which the government buys 

goods and services have changed for the better, but it is obvious 

that the government does not always obtain effective competition 

in its acquisitions. In particular, agencies recently have made 

greater use of indefinite delivery (or task order) contracts in which 

the agencies negotiate the basic terms and conditions up-front and 

then subsequently place orders for specific goods and services. The 

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) encouraged 

the use of these contract types as a means of simplifying the acquisition process, but the volume and size of task orders far exceeds 

what was envisioned a decade ago.8 Too often, the Committee has 

learned of task orders that were not fully competed between contract holders, were awarded to a single contractor, or were outside 

the scope of the underlying contract. Today, it is not uncommon for 

a task order worth tens, or even hundreds, of millions of dollars to 

be awarded to a single contractor. S. 680, while recognizing that 

task order contracts are sometimes necessary, reemphasizes the 

use of competition as the mainstay of the government’s acquisition 

system. Additionally, the bill improves the use of task order contracting by: 

• requiring agencies to better define their requirements and 

evaluation procedures; 

• providing an opportunity for contractors to receive a postaward debriefing; 

• enabling contractors to protest the award of task orders 

meeting certain criteria; • requiring additional guidance when agencies make use of 

tiered evaluations; and 

• providing agencies more flexibility when determining when 

to record certain financial obligations on task order contracts. 

Further, this bill limits the length of contracts awarded noncompetitively based on urgency to 270 days, which should be sufficient time for agencies to meet urgent needs while developing a 

more robust competition strategy. 

TRANSPARENCY

Transparency in the government’s actions is essential to increasing the American people’s confidence in the federal acquisition system. While CICA established ‘‘full and open competition’’ as the key 

principle underlying federal acquisition, the law recognized that 

there were times when such competition was neither practicable, 

feasible, nor desirable. Consequently, CICA enabled agencies to 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
6 

award contracts using ‘‘other than full and open competition,’’ provided that the agencies justify their rationale for doing so. Contracts awarded using ‘‘other than full and open competition’’ are 

commonly, though often incorrectly, referred to as either sole 

source or no bid contracts, and are the subject of much criticism 

today. These contracts are sometimes important tools to respond to 

critical and urgent needs of the government and the government’s 

rationale for using other than full and open competition should be 

able to withstand public scrutiny. While the government’s justification for using such contracts is available to the public under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552), the inability of the 

public and the Congress to see the justifications supporting these 

actions in a timely fashion contributes to a lack of trust and confidence in government contracting. S. 680 therefore requires agencies to publish, on their websites and at FedBizOpps, their justification and approval documents supporting the use of other than 

full and open competition. 

S. 680 also directs agencies to improve the quality of data made 

available to the public. Currently, it is unclear who is responsible 

for ensuring that the data on government contracts are both accurate and timely; thus information that is available is not always reliable. S. 680 requires agencies to ensure that the information 

maintained and subsequently included in the government’s Federal 

Procurement Data System is both accurate and timely. 

ACCOUNTABILITY

Throughout the bill, the Committee has included provisions intended to improve accountability in the acquisition process. Too frequently, the complexity and vastness of the federal acquisition system diffuses responsibility for actions among many participants, 

limiting the ability to hold agencies, companies, and individuals accountable for results. For example, by establishing and empowering 

a new Associate Administrator for Workforce Programs, the Committee intends to hold the Associate Administrator responsible for 

the success of the acquisition intern program and improvement in 

the agencies’ workforce plans. Similarly, public reporting of justification and approval documents and an enhanced right for contractors to protest the issuance of task orders will serve as incentives to sound contracting practices. By tying award fees to successful outcomes, the Committee expects that contractors will be rewarded for tangible achievements, not simply for efforts. 

Additionally, S. 680 improves accountability for the management 

of interagency contracts by requiring OMB to submit to Congress 

a comprehensive report on interagency acquisitions, and, in consultation with the heads of each agency, assess whether the current and planned interagency contracts are cost-effective or redundant with other contracts. Over the past ten years, the explosive 

growth in interagency contracting vehicles has come, at times, at 

the expense of adherence to sound contracting policies and procedures. The Committee finds that information on the extent and nature of interagency contracting is incomplete and unreliable, the 

OMB and OFPP exert only nominal influence over interagency contracting, and agency heads are often unaware of the problems that 

affect their contracts until it is too late. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
7 

Other provisions in S. 680 aimed at improving accountability include requirements for the development of new rules to provide additional oversight of purchase cards use, limit the use of tiering of 

subcontractors, create a governmentwide definition of lead system 

integrator, and ensure proper use of cost-reimbursement contracts. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 680 was introduced by Ranking Member Collins on February 

17, 2007. The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. S. 680 was cosponsored by Chairman Lieberman, Senator Carper, Senator Coleman, Senator McCaskill and Senator Akaka. 

The Committee held a hearing on July 17, 2007, entitled ‘‘Federal Acquisition: Ways to Strengthen Competition and Accountability.’’ Testimony was received from: The Honorable David M. 

Walker, Comptroller General, United States Government Accountability Office; Marcia G. Madsen, Chair, Acquisition Advisory 

Panel; and Stan Z. Soloway, President, Professional Services Council. 

The Committee considered S. 680 on August 1, 2007. A managers’ amendment in the nature of a substitute was approved by 

voice vote. The Committee then ordered the bill reported favorably 

by voice vote. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 2. Table of contents 

Section 3. Definitions 

Section 3 provides definitions for the purposes of this Act. ‘‘Assisted acquisition’’ is defined as a procedure by which an agency 

needing supplies or services (the requesting agency) obtains them 

from another agency (the servicing agency). The definition makes 

clear that assisted acquisition includes support acquired under contract actions governed by the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535), the 

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (41 U.S.C. § 251 

et seq.), the Clinger-Cohen Act (division E of P.L. 104–106) (which 

authorized the establishment of governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs)) and the Government Management Reform Act 

(P.L. 103–356) (which created certain acquisition-related franchise 

funds). The Committee does not intend this definition to include 

what is known as ‘‘direct order direct bill’’ arrangements where an 

agency is authorized to place orders directly against another agency’s contract vehicle, for example the GSA Multiple Award Schedule Program or agency indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity 

(IDIQ) contracts, where an agency is delegated direct order authority by the agency awarding the contract. 

A ‘‘multi-agency contract’’ is defined as any contract made available for use by more than one agency. This definition includes all 

contracts, whether single award or multiple award, and regardless 

of whether the contract is IDIQ or definite delivery/definite quantity. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
8 

Title I—Acquisition Workforce 

Section 101. Federal acquisition workforce 

Section 101 requires a number of important changes intended to 

improve the federal government’s acquisition workforce. The Committee believes that the foundation for success of the government’s 

acquisition system is its acquisition workforce. Further, the Committee believes that the acquisition workforce requires immediate 

and long-term attention to ensure there are sufficient numbers of 

trained and experienced acquisition workforce members to plan, 

award and administer acquisition programs across all agencies. Reinvigorating the federal acquisition workforce will be a long-term 

endeavor. Section 101 represents a first step toward ensuring that 

the government’s acquisition workforce is managed to succeed in 

supporting the varied missions of federal agencies. 

Throughout this section the terms ‘‘acquisition’’ and ‘‘contracting’’ are used. The use of both terms is intentional, since contracting 

(i.e., the negotiation of contracts) is a subset of acquisition (i.e., the 

entire process of acquiring and managing goods and services, from 

planning to negotiation to oversight). It is the Committee’s intent 

that the focus on the acquisition workforce include not only contracting specialists and contracting officers but also program managers and other members of the acquisition team. In this regard, 

the Committee reiterates its belief that the acquisition workforce, 

in the broadest sense, includes not only the contracting officers who 

negotiate and award contracts, but also those personnel who define 

the requirements, manage programs, monitor contractor performance, and pay for the goods and services received. 

Subsection 101(a) creates a new Senior Executive Service position in OFPP, the Associate Administrator for Workforce Programs 

(to be located at the Federal Acquisition Institute) to oversee all 

governmentwide acquisition workforce activities. It is not the intent of the Committee in creating this position to replace the responsibilities vested in each agency’s Chief Acquisition Officer 

(CAO) or Senior Procurement Executive. Rather, the Committee established this position to provide a governmentwide perspective on 

the acquisition workforce and to ensure that the acquisition workforce is adequately staffed and appropriately trained. This provision implements a recommendation of the Acquisition Advisory 

Panel. 

Subsection 101(b) requires the establishment of a governmentwide Acquisition Intern Program. The newly created Associate Administrator for Workforce Programs will manage and oversee this 

program. As written, this section does not require the creation of 

a new program, but rather encourages the Associate Administrator 

to give strong consideration to using and building upon existing 

programs. This provision sets a goal of including a minimum of 200 

interns per year in the program, but it is the Committee’s view 

that OFPP should seek to include a sufficient number of interns to 

significantly contribute to meeting the acquisition personnel needs 

of agencies, as identified in the succession plans required under 

Subsection 101(h). 

Subsection 101(c) creates a Contingency Contracting Corps. Since 

9/11, GAO has done numerous reviews, agency Inspectors General 

have issued a number of audits, and the Committee has heard a 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
9 

great deal of testimony regarding the difficulties the government 

encounters when responding to emergency and contingency situations. The Committee finds that the lack of a sufficient number of 

trained contracting officers and acquisition specialists available to 

support the contingency mission contributes to these difficulties. 

Section 101(c) requires the Administrator to develop a voluntary 

corps of trained, equipped and deployable acquisition workforce 

members ready to respond when needed, much like the military reserve. The salary of each member of the Corps is to be paid by the 

agency which employs the member, not by the agency to which the 

member is deployed during a contingency operation. Expenditure of 

funds to train and equip the Corps is authorized. The Committee 

expects that lessons learned by DOD and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency will guide the creation and deployment of the 

Corps. 

Subsection 101(d) requires the head of each executive agency, 

after consultation with the Associate Administrator for Workforce 

Programs, to establish and operate acquisition and contracting 

training programs. The Committee expects that, to the extent practicable, training across the government will be uniform and that 

agencies will leverage existing training and education resources. 

Subsection 101(e) requires the Administrator to issue policies to 

promote the development of performance standards for training 

and to evaluate the acquisition and training programs required 

under subsection 101(d). Since poor training and education lead to 

poor acquisition outcomes, the Committee believes that the establishment and use of governmentwide metrics for the training and 

education of the acquisition workforce are critical to preventing future fraud, waste and abuse. It would be appropriate for these 

metrics to be utilized as part of the Human Capital initiative under 

the President’s Management Agenda Scorecard Program. 

Subsection 101(f) requires each Chief Acquisition Officer (subject 

to the authority, direction, and control of the head of the agency) 

to carry out the powers, functions and duties of the agency head 

to establish and operate the acquisition and contracting training 

programs required under subsection 101(d). The Committee recognizes that this training crosses a number of functional areas including the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Information Officer and others. However, having the 

responsibility for this important program dispersed across a number of areas makes management of the program and consistency of 

the training difficult to achieve. The Committee expects that the 

CAO will coordinate all training within the agency to make sure 

that its acquisition workforce satisfies established training requirements. 

Subsection 101(g) requires the Administrator to collect and maintain standardized information on acquisition and contracting training of the acquisition workforce. The Committee notes that the Acquisition Advisory Panel outlined in its report the difficulty it had 

in determining who was in the acquisition workforce, as well as 

what competencies, skills, and training are needed by individual 

acquisition employees. This does not require the Administrator to 

create a new system for the collection of the required data, as the 

Administrator already manages a system, the Acquisition Career 

Management Information System (ACMIS). This subsection does 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
10 

9Public Law 108–136, § 1412, Nov. 24, 2003. 10Public Law 108–136, § 1413(b), Nov. 24, 2003. 

require that the Administrator ensure that the system allows both 

the President and the Congress to know who is in the Acquisition 

Workforce and what competencies and skills they have. 

Subsection 101(h) requires each agency to develop an Acquisition 

Workforce Succession Plan. Each Chief Acquisition Officer, in consultation with the agency’s Chief Human Capital Officer and the 

Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce Programs, will 

be responsible for developing the agency’s plan. While this subsection requires a particular focus on program managers and warranted contracting officers, the plans should not be limited to these 

specific categories, and the Committee expects that agencies will 

tailor their plans to cover the competencies and skills they need to 

accomplish their specific missions. For example, it is well known 

that there is a shortage of cost and pricing analysts across the government both at the operational level and in the policy arena. The 

Committee expects that the CAOs will address these specific immediate needs and also look toward the future to predict critical 

shortage areas. 

Subsection 101(i) authorizes appropriations in the amount of 

$5,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to pay for some 

of the costs associated with implementing provisions of this section. 

The Committee recognizes that $5,000,000 per year for two years 

is not sufficient to pay for all of the requirements to recruit, train, 

educate and retain a governmentwide acquisition workforce and expects additional funds to be budgeted and obtained at the agency 

level. The funds authorized are available until expended. 

Subsection 101(j) makes permanent the Acquisition Workforce 

Training Fund. The fund was established pursuant to the Services 

Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (SARA) 9 and helps fund civilian 

agencies’ acquisition workforce training programs by requiring 

agencies to contribute five percent of the fees the agencies collect 

for managing certain governmentwide contracts, including GSA’s 

Multiple Award Schedule contracts. This fund was to expire on November 24, 2008; subsection 101(j) eliminates this sunset. The 

Committee believes the fund provides a much needed way of enabling the workforce to acquire the necessary skills and capabilities 

to operate effectively in today’s changing acquisition environment. 

Subsection 101(k) requires the Administrator to ensure that a 

sufficient number of acquisition workforce members are trained in 

the proper application of the Brooks Architect and Engineering Act 

(Brooks A&E Act). The Committee has heard concerns from the Architect and Engineering community that A&E services, particularly 

mapping and surveying services, are not being acquired consistent 

with the requirements of the Brooks Act. The Committee believes 

that by ensuring that a sufficient number of acquisition workforce 

members are trained on the proper application of the Brooks Act, 

and by the guidance required under Section 313, the problem will 

be resolved. 

Subsection 101(l) extends for 3 years the direct-hire authority for 

members of the acquisition workforce. Under SARA, agencies are 

allowed to directly recruit and appoint highly qualified individuals 

to certain acquisition positions.10 The authority expired on SepVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
11 

11Pub. L. No. 107–107, § 803, (Dec. 28, 2001). 

tember 30, 2007. This authority, when used in combination with 

other existent personnel flexibilities, is an important tool in meeting personnel needs identified in acquisition workforce succession 

plans of the agencies. 

Subsection 101(m) adds a requirement that a Chief Acquisition 

Officer appointed under Section 16(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act has an extensive management background. 

The appointed individual does not have to be a contracting expert 

or a certified program manager, but should be someone who has 

substantial management expertise and whose primary duties are 

acquisition. In those agencies where acquisition represents a major 

part of the agency’s mission, appointing an individual who has experience in purchasing and program management, in addition to 

management experience, would be optimal. 

Subsection 101(n) requires the Administrator, in coordination 

with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to 

utilize all existing authorities, including the reauthorized directhire authority, to recruit members of the acquisition workforce. 

This provision also encourages the Administrator to consider the 

recruitment of individuals retiring from private sector positions, 

consistent with existing law and conflict of interest rules. The Committee believes that there are individuals who may be willing to 

serve their government, particularly in the area of acquisition, 

upon retirement from the private sector and that this segment of 

the population could be a valuable resource for recruiting acquisition personnel. The Committee would like to see the Administrator 

work with the OPM Director to develop best practice guidelines, 

particularly addressing successful recruitment strategies and ways 

to alleviate conflict of interest concerns. 

Title II—Competition and Accountability 

Section 201. Requirement for purchase of property and services pursuant to multiple award contracts 

Section 201 requires the Administrator to issue regulations to require competition on all multiple award task or delivery order contracts. The section also requires publication on the FedBizOpps 

website notice of all sole source task or delivery orders over the 

simplified acquisition threshold. In practical effect this section extends to civilian agencies the requirement for competition established under Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2002 that was specific to DOD’s acquisition of services under multiple award contracts.11 Section 201 expands the 

competition requirement to include property (i.e., supplies and 

equipment). Section 201 also establishes a new requirement for 

posting notice of sole source task or delivery orders as recommended by the Acquisition Advisory Panel, and requires agencies to publish the justification and approval documents supporting 

the issuance of a task or delivery order made to a contractor that 

had not been awarded on a competitive basis. The Committee has 

heard concerns that the requirement to post justification and approval documents might result in the disclosure of information otherwise protected from release under the Freedom of Information 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
12 

and Privacy Acts (5 U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a). This section does not 

relieve an agency from its responsibilities to comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, nor 

was it the intent of the Committee to change the requirements for 

the release of personal or proprietary data. 

Section 202. Statement of work for certain task or delivery orders 

Section 202, based on recommendations of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, creates a new requirement for both civilian and defense 

agencies that a task or delivery order must include a statement of 

work that clearly specifies the tasks to be performed or the property to be delivered under the order. For a task or delivery order 

in excess of the threshold for the use of simplified procedures for 

commercial items, the statement of work must be made available 

to all eligible contractors and must set forth a clear statement of 

agency requirements, provide a reasonable time for response, disclose significant factors and subfactors the agency plans to use in 

evaluating offers, and, if the order is to be awarded on a best value 

basis, include a statement documenting the basis for selection. A 

post-award debriefing shall be available to all unsuccessful offerors. 

The Committee expects these post-award debriefings to be substantive, as the Committee has learned that substantive postaward debriefings benefit both the government and private sector 

by improving the understanding of why the government made the 

decisions it made and how the private sector may improve future 

offers. The Committee recognizes that this new requirement adds 

work to an already stressed acquisition workforce. However, given 

the number of actions and dollars being awarded through the use 

of task and delivery orders and the length of performance under 

those task and delivery orders, these changes are necessary to provide needed transparency to the use of task and delivery orders. 

Section 203. Protests of task and delivery orders 

Section 203 creates a new right for an interested party to protest 

the award of a task or delivery order exceeding a certain threshold. 

The Committee sets an initial threshold of $5,000,000, but provides 

that the Administrator, upon finding that the threshold is unduly 

burdensome, may increase the threshold to an amount no higher 

than $25,000,000. The Committee is aware of concerns that more 

orders will be protested, at a cost to both the government and the 

private sector. Nonetheless, the Committee finds, as did the Acquisition Advisory Panel, that the use of task and delivery order contracts has expanded significantly beyond that which was anticipated when Congress originally authorized their use under FASA. 

In that regard, the Panel recommended that protests be permitted 

on task and delivery orders exceeding $5 million. Similarly, the 

Committee believes that providing contractors an opportunity to 

protest awards in which agencies failed to follow appropriate processes will result in more competitive and accountable procurements. Further, based on feedback from the private sector, GAO, 

and other experts, the Committee does not anticipate a surge in 

protests as a result of the addition of this right. The committee expects that both GAO and the Court of Claims will ensure that an 

active motion practice will be used in dealing with protests under 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
13 

this section and will actively dismiss frivolous protests either on its 

own motion or the motion of parties before the forum. 

Section 204. Publication of justification and approval documents 

Section 204 requires that justification and approval documents 

for making other than full and open competitions be published on 

both the agency’s website and FedBizOpps. Currently these documents are available under the Freedom of Information Act; however, the Committee has learned that the process for obtaining 

these documents can be cumbersome, expensive and time consuming. Providing transparency into the decisionmaking process to 

conduct an other than full and open competition will provide greater insight to the public of what the government is doing and why. 

This should improve the confidence the American public has in how 

the government is spending its tax dollars. As previously discussed 

in section 201, the Committee heard some concerns that the requirement to post the justification and approval documents might 

result in the disclosure of information otherwise protected from release under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. The language of the section does not relieve an agency from compliance 

with the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Privacy 

Acts, nor is it the intent of the Committee to change the requirements for the protection of personal or proprietary data. 

Section 205. Limitation on length of certain non-competitive contracts 

Section 205 limits to 270 days the length of a contract awarded 

through less than full and open competition under the exception for 

urgent and compelling circumstances. The Committee believes this 

timeframe should be sufficient for agencies to obtain the goods and 

services needed to meet urgent needs, while also allowing sufficient 

time for agencies to conduct a robust competition. The Committee 

understands that there are some requirements that cannot be 

planned for in advance and that the government needs flexibility 

to respond in those circumstances. At the same time, it is rare that 

the urgent and compelling circumstances will continue to exist for 

an extended period of time. It is the sense of the Committee that 

the government should replace contracts awarded under other than 

full and open competition with competitively awarded contracts as 

soon as possible. Recognizing the unpredictability of disasters, the 

Committee has included an exception process as a safeguard that 

would allow the head of an agency, under exceptional circumstances, to extend the contract beyond 270 days. The Committee intends that the exception clause be used only when absolutely necessary. 

Section 206. Prohibition on award of certain large task or delivery 

order contracts for services 

Section 206 prohibits the award of single award task or delivery 

order contracts for services in excess of $100,000,000. The section 

provides for an exception if certain conditions are met, but the exception process is intended to be used only where appropriate, not 

routinely. This section applies to the underlying contract, not to individual task or delivery orders. The Committee intends that task 

and delivery order contracts for services adhere to the original statVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
14 

utory intent of FASA, which requires multiple awards for advisory 

and assistance services. Further, the Committee intends that agencies, by awarding contracts to multiple contractors, will issue subsequent task and delivery orders consistent with applicable competition requirements, including those established under Section 

201 of this bill. 

Section 207. Guidance on use of tiered evaluations of offers for contracts and task orders under contracts 

Section 207 requires the Administrator to issue guidance on the 

proper use of tiered evaluations for offers under contract solicitations and for task or delivery orders under indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contracts. Under a tiered, or cascading, evaluation 

an agency solicits and receives offers from both small and other 

than small business concerns, establishes a tiered order of precedence for evaluating offers, and, if no award can be made at the 

first tier evaluated, then moves on to the next lower tier, and so 

forth, until an award can be made. The Committee is aware that 

such a process has resulted in complaints from offerors of all sizes 

about the cost of submitting bids under such a process. The Committee is also aware that DOD finalized guidance for its personnel 

on the use of tiered evaluations on August 2, 2007 in response to 

direction provided under section 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109–163). The Committee expects that in implementing this section the Administrator 

will give full consideration to DOD’s guidance, making appropriate 

changes for implementation through the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

Section 208. Guidance on use of cost-reimbursement contracts 

Section 208 requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations 

in the FAR on the proper use of cost-reimbursement type contracts. 

The Committee believes that cost reimbursement type contracts are 

an important tool and when used properly result in good value for 

the taxpayer. On the other hand, the Committee has heard testimony that cost-reimbursement contracts too often suffer from the 

lack of clearly defined requirements and insufficient oversight, and 

may be used by agencies in situations in which a fixed-price type 

contract would be more appropriate. Section 208 requires that, at 

a minimum, the regulations to be promulgated will address when 

a cost-reimbursement type contact is appropriate, what acquisition 

plan findings would support use of a cost-reimbursement type contract, and the acquisition workforce resources that should be in 

place to ensure that a cost-reimbursement type contract can be 

properly awarded and managed. 

Section 209. Preventing conflicts of interest 

Section 209 requires the Administrator to create new uniform, 

governmentwide policies aimed at preventing and mitigating organizational and personal conflicts of interest. The nature of the government workplace has changed significantly over the past decade, 

and now it is not uncommon to find government employees and 

government contractors working side-by-side in delivering services 

to the American people. Sometimes contractors are even retained 

by the government to oversee other contractors. It does not appear 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
15 

12GAO, Defense Acquisitions: DOD Has Paid Billions in Award and Incentive Fees Regardless 

of Acquisition Outcomes. GAO–06–66. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2005. 13GAO, NASA Procurement: Use of Award Fees for Achieving Program Outcomes Should Be 

Improved. GAO–07–58. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2007. 

that the policies addressing conflicts of interest have kept pace 

with these changing dynamics. The Comptroller General testified 

before the Committee in July 2007 that there is a need to reconsider the current independence and conflict-of-interest rules relating to contractors. Additionally, the Acquisition Advisory Panel 

made several recommendations intended to address the risk of organizational conflicts of interests. Section 209 is a first step towards addressing these issues. 

Section 210. Linking of award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes 

Section 210 requires the Administrator to develop guidance and 

implementation instructions to ensure that award and incentive 

fees in government contracts are tied to actual performance under 

the contract. The Committee has learned of a number of situations 

where companies who performed marginally or unsatisfactorily received full award or incentive fees. For example, over the past 

three years GAO has reported that the DOE, DOD and NASA were 

not making appropriate and effective use of award fees. On December 19, 2005, GAO reported that DOD frequently paid contractors 

the majority of potential award fees for work where performance 

was described as ‘‘expected, good, or satisfactory’’ and offered contractors one or more opportunities to earn initially unearned fees.12

GAO concluded that such practices undermined the effectiveness of 

fees as a motivational tool, marginalized their use in holding contractors accountable for acquisition outcomes, and served to waste 

taxpayer funds. Similarly, GAO reported on January 17, 2007, that 

NASA personnel were not consistently following agency guidance 

when using award fees.13 The Committee finds that both the government and the contractor community would be better served by 

having consistent requirements throughout the government on the 

appropriate use of award fees, including the linkage of award fees 

to program outcomes. Further, the Committee understands that 

DOD has revised its policies and guidance to reflect GAO’s recommendations. The Administrator is urged to give full consideration to DOD’s policies and guidance when developing guidance for 

use by all agencies. Further, nothing in this section is intended to 

establish a right to award or incentive fees by the contractor in the 

resulting regulations. 

Title III—Accountability and Administration 

Section 301. Recording of obligations on task order contracts 

Section 301 changes the current fiscal practice that requires an 

agency to obligate the full amount of the minimum guarantee, or 

termination liability, whichever is more, for each recipient, upon 

award of a task or delivery order contract. This section allows the 

head of an executive agency to defer recording the obligation until 

the issuance of the first task or delivery order issued to each company under the contract. It does require that, except in exceptional 

circumstances, the minimum guarantee be obligated during the 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
16 

14GAO, Defense Contracting: Use of Undefinitized Contract Actions Understated and 

Definitization Time Frames Often Not Met. GAO–07–559. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2007. 15GAO, Iraq Contract Costs: DOD Consideration of Defense Contract Audit Agency’s Findings. 

GAO–06–1132. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2006. 

same fiscal year of the initial award. This will assist agencies in 

budgeting their contract dollars more effectively and will help 

agencies avoid the situation where an agency is compelled to issue 

a task or delivery order in order to obligate the funds before they 

expire, even when the agency does not yet need the goods or services. 

Section 302. Definitizing letter contracts 

Section 302 requires the unilateral definitization of undefinitized 

contracts within 180 day after award or before 40 percent of the 

work has been completed (or within 180 day after award or before 

50 percent of the funds under the contract have been obligated, in 

the case of military contracts), whichever comes first. The section 

further provides for disputes resulting from a unilateral 

definitization to be handled through the Contract Disputes Act 

process. 

To meet urgent needs, federal agencies can authorize contractors 

to begin work and incur costs before reaching a final agreement on 

contract terms and conditions, including price. Such agreements 

are called letter contracts or undefinitized contract actions. The 

Committee is concerned that despite existing regulatory guidance 

on definitizing contracts, there have been multiple examples where 

contracts were not definitized in a timely fashion, and the government’s ability to manage the contract to a successful conclusion 

was hampered, in some cases severely. For example, at the Committee’s July 17 hearing, the Comptroller General testified that his 

office found that DOD failed to definitize, within required timeframes, 60 percent of the 77 contract actions GAO reviewed.14 The 

Comptroller General noted that the use the failure to do so can 

carry risk to the government and potentially waste taxpayer dollars. For example, GAO reported that DOD contracting officials 

were less likely to remove costs questioned by auditors if the contractor had incurred these costs before reaching agreement on the 

work’s scope and price.15 The Committee understands that 

undefinitized contracts are sometimes an important tool in responding to exigent situations and does not intend to limit the use 

of undefinitized contracts under appropriate circumstances, but believes that allowing these contracts to go on undefinitized puts an 

unacceptable level of risk on the government. 

Section 303. Preventing abuse of interagency contracts and assisted 

acquisition services 

Section 303 establishes a number of requirements aimed at 

eliminating the redundancies in interagency contracts and assisted 

acquisition services and ensuring that agencies make proper use of 

interagency contracts. According to the Advisory Acquisition Panel, 

about 40 percent of the government’s contract spending in fiscal 

year 2004 was done under interagency contracts. It is not the Committee’s intent to eliminate either interagency contracting or the 

provision of assisted acquisition services. However, the committee 

firmly believes that the use of these contract vehicles requires efVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
17 

16GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO–05–207 Washington, D.C.: January 2005. 

fective management to make sure the government maximizes its 

benefits from using them. Unfortunately, GAO and some agency Inspectors General have found that agencies too often sacrifice adherence to sound contracting practices for expediency. In that regard, 

GAO placed management of interagency contracting on its highrisk list of government programs and activities in January 2005.16

Further, the DOD Inspector General has continued to identify 

problems in DOD’s use of interagency contracts. The Committee believes that agencies should be able to achieve desired efficiency 

without abandoning good stewardship. 

Subsection 303(a) requires the Director of OMB to submit a report to Congress on interagency acquisitions and to issue guidelines on their proper use, including procedures to maximize competition and minimize fraud, waste and abuse. The Director is also 

required to institute training requirements related to proper use of 

interagency contracts. 

Subsection 303(b) requires that the FAR be revised to require 

that all assisted acquisitions be supported by a written agreement, 

a determination that they represent the best procurement alternative and adequate, auditable documentation. 

Subsection 303(c) requires the senior procurement executive for 

each executive agency to provide annual reports to OMB on compliance with the guidelines established under subsection 303(a). 

Subsection 303(d) requires the Administrator to provide a report 

to Congress on the number of interagency contracts, the level of activity in Intergovernmental Revolving Funds, and the number of 

enterprise-wide single agency contracts. This report is to be made 

available to the public. The Committee intends that the report will 

not include those contracts awarded by an agency for use only 

within that agency. The Committee expects that the Administrator, 

in preparing the report, will review the acquisition plan for each 

interagency contract for such things as: the overall quality of the 

plan, the business case that supported the award of the contract, 

whether the impact the contract would have on the government’s 

buying power was evaluated, and whether there was consideration 

of the costs faced by industry in competing for multiple contracts. 

Subsection 303(e) requires the Administrator of the General 

Services to review existing contracts under the Multiple Award 

Schedules (MAS) Program, in light of the entire inventory of interagency contracts, to determine whether unnecessary duplication exists. The Committee recognizes that the GSA MAS Program is a 

key tool for achieving best value in acquiring goods and services. 

However, the Committee has received reports that duplicative 

schedules exist within the MAS program. The review required by 

this subsection is to ensure that duplications are identified and either mitigated or eliminated in order to reduce the cost to the 

agencies that use the MAS Program and ultimately to the taxpayer. 

Subsection 303(f) requires the Administrator of OFPP to take a 

number of actions to improve the use of interagency contracts. Specifically, subsection 303(f) requires the Administrator to: 

• issue regulations requiring that the acquisition plan supporting the award of a multi-agency contract include a busiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
18 

ness case analysis justifying the award and administration of 

the contract; • review, in consultation with the Administrator of General 

Services, all multi-agency contracts and determine whether 

each contract is cost effective and whether any duplication exists; and • review all interagency contracts that have been awarded 

and any that are proposed for award, to approve both the 

award and the exercise of options for all interagency contracts. 

The Committee believes that OFPP needs to take a more 

proactive leadership role in ensuring the appropriate use of interagency contracts. The Committee remains concerned that agencies 

may be using interagency contracting vehicles for convenience at 

the expense of sound contracting practices, and that the fee-forservice environment in which assisted interagency acquisitions operate may contribute to decisions that are not in the government’s 

best interests. The Committee expects that OFFP will work with 

the agencies to ensure that duplication is minimized or eliminated 

and that only those contracts that provide the best overall value for 

the government and adhere to sound contracting practices, whether 

awarded and managed by GSA or another agency, are permitted to 

continue in operation. The Committee does not know what the correct number of contracts is to obtain the best value governmentwide, but the Committee does believe that the current proliferation 

of interagency contracts is suboptimal. The Committee recognizes 

that the optimal number of interagency contracts will be dependent 

on a number of factors, including the level of government spending, 

the size and complexity of the particular market, and purchasing 

and selling practices in the various markets. For this reason, the 

Committee believes that the guidance should identify the factors 

that should be considered in determining whether to permit a new 

award or allow an option to be exercised on an existing award, and 

should require the agency to document its assessment in its acquisition plan. 

Subsection 303(g) requires the head of each executive agency, in 

consultation with the Administrator, to review all IDIQ contracts 

awarded by the agency to determine whether those contracts are 

cost-effective and whether any are redundant. The review required 

in this section is for the specific purpose of determining whether 

agency resources should be expended in awarding and managing 

these contracts, or if contracts available from other agencies offering the same or similar goods and services should be utilized to 

meet the agency’s requirement. The required review will fully 

evaluate the cost to the agency of awarding and managing the contract (the fully burdened cost). In calculating the fully burdened 

cost, the agency must consider all of the acquisition-related costs, 

not just the salaries of the contracting office staff. The Committee 

also expects agencies to keep in mind that multiple contracts drive 

up the cost of the private sector in competing for those contracts, 

often to the detriment of smaller businesses. The Committee does 

not intend to limit the flexibility of an agency to fashion an acquisition solution that meets its needs, but it does intend that agencies 

not award new contracts or exercise the options on existing contracts of their own unless their needs cannot be reasonably and effectively met by the use of another agency’s contract. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
19 

17Pursuant to Section 807 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108–375), effective September 28, 2006, the Federal Acquisition Regulation definition of the micro-purchase threshold changed. The micro-purchase threshold for supplies, equipment and some services has increased from $2,500 to $3,000. The threshold for contracts involving construction, alteration or repair of public buildings or public works, including 

painting and decorating, subject to the Davis-Bacon Act remained at $2,000. The micro-purchase 

threshold for contracts the principal purpose of which is to furnish services through the use of 

service employees subject to the Service Contract Act of 1965 is $2,500. 

Subsection 303(h) requires OMB to modify the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS–NG) to collect and 

publish complete and reliable order-level data on interagency contracts. The current data resident in FPDS–NG do not allow for an 

accurate assessment of the use of interagency contract vehicles. 

Subsection 303(i) makes it clear that for purposes of this subsection a contract awarded by any agency or activity within DOD 

is not to be considered an interagency contract when it is used by 

another agency or activity of DOD. 

Section 304. Purchase card waste elimination 

Section 304 requires action by OMB, GSA and the Internal Revenue Service to further improve the government’s use of purchase 

cards. The program has grown from its inception in 1994 to processing almost $18 billion last year, about half of that amount in 

‘‘micro-purchases.’’ 17 The Committee believes that the purchase 

card program is an important tool in meeting the government’s requirements in a cost effective and timely fashion. The Committee 

has long believed, however, that agency disciplines on use of purchase cards need to be strengthened to prevent waste, fraud, and 

abuse. A Committee hearing on April 28, 2004 (‘‘Government Purchase Cards: Smarter Use Can Save Taxpayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars’’) exposed serious deficiencies in controls on purchase cards across the government. More recently, the Committee 

held a hearing on July 19, 2006 on purchase card use at the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS Purchase Cards: Credit 

Without Accountability’’) and further examined purchase card use 

by the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a hearing on 

December 6, 2006 (‘‘Hurricane Katrina: Stopping the Flood of 

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse’’). The Committee believes that opportunities exist to discipline the use of purchase cards by leveraging the 

government’s buying power, ensuring that payments are not made 

to individuals who fail to meet their tax obligations, and improving 

accountability. 

Subsection 304(a) requires the Director of OMB and the Administrator of General Services to issue guidance on how executive agencies can better manage purchase card transactions and to negotiate 

point of sale discounts when using the government purchase card 

for micro-purchases. It also requires agency reports on compliance 

with the OMB guidance and a report by OMB to Congress on its 

progress on improving the purchase card process and in obtaining 

and implementing point of sale discounts. 

Subsection 304(b) requires that GSA, in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service, develop procedures to apply the Federal 

Payment Levy Program to purchase card payments. The Committee is aware of the concerns raised by the banking industry concerning this requirement. However, the Committee feels strongly 

that purchase card payments, which total between $6 billion and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
20 

$9 billion annually, should not go to individuals or companies that 

do not meet their federal tax obligations. 

Subsection 304(c) requires GSA to submit an annual report on all 

first and business class travel undertaken by federal travelers. This 

provision responds to findings by the Committee and GAO that 

agencies have made improper use of first and business class travel. 

Section 305. Lead system integrators 

Section 305 requires the Administrator to develop a governmentwide definition of lead system integrators, conduct a study on their 

use by the government, and then issue guidance on the appropriate 

use of lead system integrators. The Committee believes that the 

use of lead system integrators can be an effective approach when 

developing and implementing complex solutions. As the Committee 

has learned firsthand during its oversight of the Coast Guard’s 

Deepwater program, however, using a lead systems integrator does 

not inevitably result in good acquisition outcomes. Nor does it alleviate the government’s responsibility to clearly define its requirements, maintain the in-house capacity to evaluate the contractor’s 

proposed solutions, and provide effective oversight. The Committee 

finds that there is no clear guidance available to agencies on how 

best to decide whether or not to use a lead system integrator, or 

how to maximize the effectiveness of this approach. Consequently, 

Section 305 addresses these current shortfalls and provides a basis 

for making more effective and appropriate use of lead system integrators in the future. 

Section 306. Limitation on tiering of subcontractors 

Section 306 requires the Administrator of OFPP to develop guidance on how to properly minimize tiering of subcontractors to ensure that every layer of subcontractor adds value or serves a legitimate purpose in responding to a government requirement. The 

Committee is very concerned about instances, particularly in the 

response to Hurricane Katrina and in support of operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, where multiple tiers of subcontractors are paid 

on a contract when they provide little or no value to the government. The Committee does not intend to impose an absolute limit 

on tiering, but does intend that non-value added tiering be eliminated. The Committee is aware that DOD is in the process of finalizing regulations required by Section 852 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109–364) to ensure 

that pass-through charges on contracts, subcontracts, or task or delivery orders are not excessive in relation to the cost of work performed. OFPP should consider that guidance as it develops governmentwide guidance. 

Section 307. Responsibility of contractors that are serious threats to 

national security 

Section 307 enables a contracting officer to consider whether a 

contractor may pose a national security threat when determining 

whether a contractor is responsible when awarding a federal contract, and requires the Administrator of OFPP to issue guidance to 

implement this section. This Committee has heard concerns that it 

is sometimes difficult for contracting officers to determine how to 

factor into a responsibility determination concerns that a company 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
21 

may pose a threat to national security. The Committee firmly believes that agencies should be able to make a determination that 

a company is not responsible for purposes of award of a federal contract when there is reasonable and compelling evidence that the 

company may pose a national security risk. Finding a company 

‘‘non-responsible’’ for award of a contract is an action not to be 

taken lightly by the government. By the same token, government 

officials must have the means to deny a contract when there is reason to believe that the company may pose a threat to national security. This section requires OFPP to issue guidance to help executive 

agencies determine when a company may pose a national security 

threat and be denied a contract on that basis. It is not the Committee’s intent that individual contracting officers be tasked with the 

additional burden of having to determine whether a company is or 

is not a serious threat to national security, and in fact the Committee believes that such a decision should be made at the highest 

levels of the agency. 

Section 308. Required certification of program managers for Department of Homeland Security Level One programs 

Section 308 requires that program managers for Level One pro- grams in DHS (programs with an estimated value over $100 million) be properly certified. The Committee is concerned that DHS 

program managers without proper certifications have been assigned to these large programs, potentially contributing to poor acquisition outcomes. The Committee recognizes that a properly certified program manager does not in and of itself guarantee satisfactory program performance. However, assigning a properly certified 

program manager to a program means that the individual is 

trained, educated, and has the necessary competencies and skills to 

manage major programs at DHS. 

Section 309. Elimination of one-year limitation on interest due on 

late payments to contractors 

Section 309 eliminates the limitation on payment of interest due 

beyond one year under the Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C. 3901). 

Currently, agencies that fail to make timely payment on proper invoices are required to pay interest on those late payments, but only 

for the first twelve months. The Committee believes this limitation 

may provide a disincentive for agencies to make timely payments 

owed to the providers of goods and services once the one-year timeframe has passed. 

Section 310. Ensuring that federal employees perform inherently 

governmental work 

Section 310 requires the Administrator of OFPP to analyze the 

services being purchased by the government, to issue guidelines to 

ensure that only federal employees perform inherently governmental services, and to report to Congress on the actions taken to 

implement this section. The Committee is concerned that, with the 

changing nature of the federal workplace, guidelines to ensure that 

inherently governmental work is performed by federal employees, 

and not contracted out, may be outdated. The Comptroller General 

testified on July 17, 2007 that he believed there was a need to 

focus greater attention on what types of functions and activities 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
22 

should be contracted out and which ones should not be, and to 

identify the factors that prompt the government to use contractors 

in circumstances where the proper choice might be the use of civil 

servants or military personnel. The Comptroller General’s views 

closely followed those of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, which recommended that OFPP update the principles for agencies to apply 

in determining which functions must be performed by government 

employees and to ensure that agencies ensure that such functions 

be adequately staffed with qualified federal employees. Consequently, the Committee believes that the actions required under 

Section 310 will help mitigate the risk of contractors performing inherently governmental functions. 

Section 311. Report on Acquisition Advisory Panel report implementation 

Section 311 requires the Director of OMB to provide a report to 

Congress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Acquisition Advisory Panel. Section 311 should not be construed as 

mandating the implementation of all of the Panel’s recommendations, but the Committee expects that OMB will discuss the steps 

it is taking, or plans to take, for those recommendations it is implementing, and will provide the rationale for each recommendation 

that OMB does not intend to implement. 

Section 312. Report by the Government Accountability Office 

Section 312 requires GAO to submit various reports to Congress 

to assess further areas within the acquisition system that need improvement. The Committee has been clear on the importance it 

places on the government’s acquisition workforce and the importance of being able to leverage that workforce across the government, as well as leveraging contracting vehicles. Toward those objectives, the Committee mandates that GAO report on: (1) the two 

statutory standards concerning the qualification of acquisition 

workforce members and whether they should be replaced by a single standard, (2) the institutions providing acquisition training and 

education within the government and whether there should be a 

single institution for acquisition training and education, and (3) the 

implementation of provisions concerning the appointment of Chief 

Acquisition Officers. The reports provided by GAO will serve as a 

foundation for further improvements in the government’s acquisition workforce. This section also requires GAO to review the determinations made under subsection 303(g) of this statute relative to 

IDIQ contracts and the implementation of requirements related to 

such determinations. The review of the implementation of subsection 303(g) is intended to stress the importance the Committee 

places on reviewing and eliminating redundant interagency contracts. 

Section 313. Mapping and surveying services 

Section 313 requires OFPP to develop guidance on contracting for 

mapping and surveying services under the Brooks A&E Act. The 

Committee is aware that there may be some confusion over the 

rules applicable to the purchasing of mapping and surveying services. The Committee does not believe the law is ambiguous on the 

requirements, rather that the implementing guidance may not be 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
23 

18GAO, Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation, 

GAO–05–960R, Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005. 

as clear as it could be. The changes to that guidance required in 

this section and the subsequent training of the acquisition workforce on the new guidance should correct the issues surrounding 

the acquisition of mapping and surveying services. 

Section 314. Timely and accurate transmission of information included in Federal Procurement Data System 

Section 314 makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the head 

of each executive agency to ensure that the procurement data reported to Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation 

(FPDS–NG) is timely and accurate. Despite being the government’s 

principal source of data on contracting actions, it is clear that the 

data are not currently being reported in a timely fashion and are 

not always accurate. For example, GAO expressed concerns on September 17, 2005 about whether FPDS–NG had achieved the intended improvements in the timeliness and accuracy of data, as 

well as ease of use and access to data.18 Similarly, the Acquisition 

Advisory Panel found, among other limitations, that the competition data on orders were unreliable and that the system did not 

support efforts to conduct spending analyses or strategic decision 

making. Further, the Panel found that there was no individual specifically assigned responsibility for assuring the accurate and timely submission of data. It is essential to the agency’s management 

of its contract dollars, to the governmentwide effort to leverage its 

buying power, and to the public’s right to transparency, that 

FPDS–NG have timely and accurate data. Consequently, Section 

314 implements one of the Panel’s recommendations. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

[Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that there are no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on State, local, or tribal 

governments. The legislation contains no other regulatory impact.] 

VI. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

OCTOBER 16, 2007. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Chairman, 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 680, the Accountability in 

Government Contracting Act of 2007. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
24 

S. 680—Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007 

Summary: S. 680 would address federal acquisition practices, 

amend rules regarding the use of noncompetitive contracts, and impose additional reporting requirements on federal agencies regarding noncompetitive and sole-source contracts. The bill also would 

authorize appropriations for contract oversight, training, planning, 

and administration. 

Assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized or estimated 

to be necessary, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation 

would result in additional discretionary outlays of $14 million in 

2008 and nearly $70 million over the 2008–2012 period. Implementing the contracting reforms contained in the bill would increase discretionary costs (for contract administration) but also 

could result in lower procurement costs to the federal government 

for goods and services. CBO cannot estimate the net effect of those 

changes in contracting procedures. Any costs or savings realized by 

federal agencies under the bill would depend on future changes in 

the level of discretionary appropriations. 

In addition, CBO estimates that enacting S. 680 would increase 

direct spending by $80 million over the 2008–2012 period and by 

$180 million over the 2008–2017 period because it would authorize 

federal agencies to defer the recording of obligations on certain 

types of contracts. 

S. 680 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and 

would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 680 is shown in the following table. The cost of 

this legislation falls within all budget functions. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Federal Acquisition Workforce: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................. 5 5 5 5 5 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 4 5 5 5 5 

Regulations and Reports: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................. 12 10 8 8 8 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 10 10 8 8 8 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................. 17 15 13 13 13 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 14 15 13 13 13 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 1

Delay in Recording Obligations: 

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. 20 20 20 20 20 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 0 20 20 20 20 

1 CBO estimates that enacting S. 680 would increase direct spending by $20 million a year over the 2009–2017 period. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2008, that the amounts 

authorized or estimated to be necessary will be appropriated for 

each fiscal year, and that spending will follow historical patterns 

for similar activities. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

Federal Acquisition Workforce. Title I would authorize the appro- priation of $5 million for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for a 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
25 

new Acquisition Workforce Training Fund. That amount would be 

used by the General Services Administration (GSA) to train personnel and to establish new procurement positions. CBO estimates 

that similar amounts would be needed in subsequent years to continue performing those activities. Assuming appropriation of the 

amounts authorized for 2008 and 2009 and estimated to be necessary for subsequent years for those purposes, we estimate that 

implementing title I would cost $4 million in 2008 and $24 million 

over the 2008–2012 period. 

Regulations and Reports. S. 680 would require government agencies, including the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, GSA, and 

the Government Accountability Office, to prepare program guidance, regulations, and reports on many types of contracts, including 

multiple-award contracting, cost-reimbursement contracts, and 

other acquisition practices. Based on the cost of similar activities, 

CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $10 

million in 2008 and about $45 million over the 2008–2012 period, 

mostly for additional administrative and personnel expenses. 

Federal Contracting Rules. S. 680 would amend various rules on 

using noncompetitive and sole-source contracts, including restrictions on the contract period for noncompetitive contracts and limits 

on the use of sole-source contracts. 

Imposing restrictions on the length of noncompetitive contracts 

and limiting the use of sole-source contracts could increase the 

costs of administering contracts but also could lower procurement 

costs by encouraging the use of other acquisition practices. The circumstances involving the use of such contracts by federal agencies 

and the potential to use alternative types of contracts in those situations varies greatly. CBO does not have sufficient information relating to the use of such contracts to determine the magnitude of 

any costs or savings that could result from implementing those provisions. 

Direct spending 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 680 would increase direct spending by $20 million annually because it would authorize executive 

agencies to enter into contracts for certain types of purchases before receiving appropriations for those acquisitions. 

Specifically, the bill would permit agencies to defer recording obligations on task-order and delivery-order contracts until purchase 

orders for the goods or services have been issued. The new contracting authority authorized by S. 680 could be used with contracts that include federal guarantees for minimum purchases. 

Under existing federal contracting practices, agencies record obligations for acquisitions when they enter into contracts. In order to 

execute such contracts, an agency must have sufficient funds available from current appropriations to liquidate the entire amount of 

the obligation, including minimum-purchase guarantees, which are 

contractual obligations of the government. 

In contrast, S. 680 would authorize an agency to defer recording 

obligations for some of the amounts covered by a contract until 

after that contract has been executed, effectively allowing the agency to incur a contractual obligation in one year and liquidate it 

with funds appropriated in subsequent years. The ability to pay for 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
26 

current obligations with future appropriations constitutes contract 

authority, a form of direct spending. 

Minimum-purchase guarantees are one type of contractual obligation that could be affected by the bill. The Federal Procurement 

Data System shows that the federal government awarded contracts 

that involved task-order or delivery-order provisions worth nearly 

$200 billion in 2005 (the most current information available in that 

system). Many such contracts include minimum-purchase provisions. Although there is no government-wide information on the 

value of minimum-purchase contracts, CBO estimates that minimum-purchase guarantees account for 1 percent, or $200 million, 

of the value of all task-order or delivery-order contracts. The authority to delay recording contract obligations under the bill likely 

would be used infrequently (because the legislation notes that its 

use should be restricted to ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’). Consequently, CBO estimates that direct spending would increase by 

$20 million a year over the 2009–2017 period under this provision 

of the legislation. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 680 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Previous CBO estimates: On March 14, 2007, CBO provided a 

cost estimate for H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, 

as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on 

March 13, 2007. On March 12, 2007, CBO provided a cost estimate 

for H.R. 1362 as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform on March 8, 2007. All three 

pieces of legislation address government contracting but have different provisions, particularly relating to contract management and 

deferral of obligations. The House Oversight and Government Reform version of H.R. 1362 would authorize additional appropriations for contract management. The House Armed Services version 

of H.R. 1362 did not contain that authorization of appropriations. 

Additionally, neither House version contains provisions on deferring the recording of obligations. Our cost estimates reflect those 

differences. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Matthew Pickford and 

David Newman; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 

Elizabeth Cove; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
27 

TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES 

Subtitle A—General Military Law 

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND 

PROCUREMENT 

CHAPTER 137—PROCUREMENT GENERALLY 

§ 2304. Contracts: competition requirements 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) For the purposes of applying subsection (c)(1)—

* * * * * * * 

(3)(A) The contract period of a contract described in subparagraph (B) that is entered into by an agency pursuant to the authority provided under subsection (c)(2)—

(i) may not exceed the time necessary—

(I) to meet the unusual and compelling requirements of 

the work to be performed under the contract; and 

(II) for the agency to enter into another contract for the 

required goods or services through the use of competitive 

procedures; and 

(ii) may not exceed 270 days unless the head of the agency entering into such contract determines that exceptional circumstances apply. 

(B) This paragraph applies to any contract in an amount greater 

than the simplified acquisition threshold (as defined by section 4 of 

the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403)). 

(e) * * * 

(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the head of an agency 

may not award a contract using procedures other than competitive 

procedures unless—

(A) * * * 

(B) the justification is approved—

(i) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(iii) in the case of a contract for an amount exceeding 

$75,000,000, by the senior procurement executive of the 

agency designated pursuant to section 16(c) of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(c)) (without 

further delegation) or in the case of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, acting in his capacity as the senior procurement executive for 

the Department of Defense, the Under Secretary’s delegate 

designated pursuant to paragraph (6)(B)ø; and¿ ; 

(C) any required notice has been published with respect to 

such contract pursuant to section 18 of the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and all bids or proposals received in response to that notice have been considered 

by the head of the agencyø.¿; and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
28 

(D) the justification and approval documents are made publicly available on the Internet website of the agency and 

FedBizOpps. 

§ 2304a. Task and delivery order contracts: general authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) SINGLE AND MULTIPLE CONTRACT AWARDS.— (1) The head of an agency may exercise the authority provided in this section—

* * * * * * * 

(4)(A) No task or delivery order contract for services in an amount estimated to exceed $100,000,000 (including all options) 

may be awarded to a single contractor unless the head of the 

agency determines in writing that— (i) because of the size, scope, or method of performance of 

the requirement, it would not be practical to award multiple task or delivery order contracts; 

(ii) the task orders expected under the contract are so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably 

perform the work; or 

(iii) for any other reason, it is necessary in the public interest to award the contract to a single contractor. 

(B) The head of the agency shall notify Congress within 30 

days of any determination under subparagraph (A)(iii). 

(C) The head of the agency shall post the justification and approval documents related to a determination under subparagraph (A) on the Internet website of the agency and on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Internet website. 

(e) * * * 

(f) * * * 

(g) AUTHORITY TO DEFER RECORDING OBLIGATIONS ON TASK OR

DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS.—

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the head of an agency 

may defer the recording of an obligation, including an obligation in the amount of the guaranteed minimum, under a contract awarded under this section until the issuance of a task or 

delivery order. 

(2) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

must be obligated during the same fiscal year during which the 

contract is awarded unless waived by the head of the agency for 

exceptional circumstances. 

(3) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

may be satisfied by multiple task or delivery orders, but the full 

value of each individual task or delivery order must be obligated when such order is issued. 

ø(g)¿ (h) INAPPLICABILITY TO CONTRACTS FOR ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES.—Except as otherwise specifically provided in 

section 2304b of this title, this section does not apply to a task or 

delivery order contract for the procurement of advisory and assistance services (as defined in section 1105(g) of title 31). 

ø(h)¿ (i) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.—

Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or expand any 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
29 

authority of the head of an agency or the Administrator of General 

Services to enter into schedule, multiple award, or task or delivery 

order contracts under any other provision of law. 

§ 2304b. Task order contracts: advisory and assistance services 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) AUTHORITY TO DEFER RECORDING OBLIGATIONS ON TASK OR

DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS.—

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the head of an agency 

may defer the recording of an obligation, including an obligation in the amount of the guaranteed minimum, under a contract awarded under this section until the issuance of a task or 

delivery order. 

(2) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

must be obligated during the same fiscal year during which the 

contract is awarded unless waived by the head of the agency for 

exceptional circumstances. 

(3) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

may be satisfied by multiple task or delivery orders, but the full 

value of each individual task or delivery order must be obligated when such order is issued. 

ø(f)¿ (g) CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS.—

(1) A task order may not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task order contract under which the order 

is issued. The scope, period, or maximum value of the contract 

may be increased only by modification of the contract. 

(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of section 

2304 of this title and approved in accordance with subsection 

(f) of such section, competitive procedures shall be used for 

making such a modification. 

(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)). 

ø(g)¿ (h) CONTRACT EXTENSIONS.—

(1) Notwithstanding the limitation on the contract period set 

forth in subsection (b) or in a solicitation or contract pursuant 

to subsection (e), a task order contract entered into by the head 

of an agency under this section may be extended on a solesource basis for a period not exceeding six months if the head 

of such agency determines that—

(A) the award of a follow-on contract has been delayed 

by circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at 

the time the initial contract was entered into; and 

(B) the extension is necessary in order to ensure continuity of the receipt of services pending the award of, and 

commencement of performance under, the follow-on contract. 

(2) A task order contract may be extended under the authority of paragraph (1) only once and only in accordance with the 

limitations and requirements of this subsection. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
30 

ø(h)¿ (i) INAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.—This section 

does not apply to a contract for the acquisition of property or services that includes acquisition of advisory and assistance services if 

the head of an agency entering into such contract determines that, 

under the contract, advisory and assistance services are necessarily 

incident to, and not a significant component of, the contract. 

ø(i)¿ (j) ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES DEFINED.—In this 

section, the term ‘‘advisory and assistance services’’ has the meaning given such term in section 1105(g) of title 31. 

§ 2304c. Task and delivery order contracts: orders 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) øSTATEMENT OF WORK.¿ STATEMENT OF WORK AND SELECTION

BASIS.— øA task or delivery order shall include a statement of work that 

clearly specifies all tasks to be performed or property to be delivered under the order.¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A task or delivery order shall include a 

statement of work that clearly specifies all tasks to be performed 

or property to be delivered under the order. 

(2) TASK OR DELIVERY ORDERS IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD

FOR USE OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL

ITEMS.—The statement of work for a task or delivery order in 

excess of the threshold for use of simplified procedures for commercial items under a task or delivery order contract shall be 

made available to each contractor awarded such contract and 

shall—

(A) include a clear statement of the agency’s requirements; 

(B) permit a reasonable response period; 

(C) disclose the significant factors and sub-factors that 

the agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals, including cost, price, past performance, and the relative importance of those and other factors; 

(D) in the case of an award that is to be made on a best 

value basis, include a written statement documenting the 

basis for the award and the relative importance of quality, 

past performance, and price or cost factors; and 

(E) provide an opportunity for a post-award debriefing 

consistent with the requirements of section 2305(b)(5) of 

this title. 

(d) PROTESTS.—A protest is not authorized in connection with the 

issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order øexcept for 

a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, 

or maximum value of the contract under which the order is 

issued.¿ except for— (1) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, 

period, or maximum value of the contract under which the 

order is issued; or 

(2) a protest by an interested party of an order valued at 

greater than the threshold established pursuant to section 

203(c) of the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 

2007. 

* * * * * * * 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
31 

§ 2334. Definitizing of letter contracts 

The head of an agency shall unilaterally determine all missing 

terms in an undefinitized letter contract that have not been agreed 

upon within 180 days after such letter contract has been entered 

into or before the funds obligated under such letter contract exceed 

50 percent of the not-to-exceed cost of the contract. Any terms so determined shall be subject to the contract disputes process. 

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE 

Subtitle III—Financial Management 

CHAPTER 39—PROMPT PAYMENT 

§ 3901. Definitions and application 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an interest penalty under this chapter does not continue to accrue øfor more than 

one year or¿ after a claim for an interest penalty is filed in the 

manner described in paragraph (2)ø, whichever is earlier¿. 

FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

SERVICES ACT OF 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251, et seq.) 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 303. COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS (41 U.S.C. 253). 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PROPERTY OR SERVICES DEEMED AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE

SOURCE; NONDELEGABLE AUTHORITY.—

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3)(A) The contract period of a contract described in subparagraph (B) that is entered into by an executive agency pursuant 

to the authority provided under subsection (c)(2)—

(i) may not exceed the time necessary—

(I) to meet the unusual and compelling requirements 

of the work to be performed under the contract; and 

(II) for the executive agency to enter into another contract for the required goods or services through the use 

of competitive procedures; and 

(ii) may not exceed 270 days unless the head of the executive agency entering into such contract determines that exceptional circumstances apply. 

(B) This paragraph applies to any contract in an amount 

greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (as defined by 

section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 

U.S.C. 403)). 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
32 

(e) * * * 

(f) JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF NONCOMPETITIVE PROCEDURES.—

(1) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(B) the justification is approved—

(i) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(iii) in the case of a contract for an amount exceeding $50,000,000, by the senior procurement executive 

of the agency designated pursuant to section 414(3) of 

this title (without further delegation)ø; and¿; 

(C) any required notice has been published with respect 

to such contract pursuant to section 416 of this title and 

all bids or proposals received in response to such notice 

have been considered by such executive agencyø.¿; and 

(D) the justification and approval documents are made 

publicly available on the Internet website of the agency and 

FedBizOpps. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 303H. TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS: GENERAL AUTHORITY (41 U.S.C. 253h). 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) SINGLE AND MULTIPLE CONTRACT AWARDS.—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4)(A) No task or delivery order contract for services in an amount estimated to exceed $100,000,000 (including all options) 

may be awarded to a single contractor unless the head of the 

executive agency determines in writing that— (i) because of the size, scope, or method of performance of 

the requirement, it would not be practical to award multiple task or delivery order contracts; 

(ii) the task orders expected under the contract are so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably 

perform the work; or 

(iii) for any other reason, it is necessary in the public interest to award the contract to a single contractor. 

(B) The head of the executive agency shall notify Congress 

within 30 days of any determination under subparagraph 

(A)(iii). 

(C) The head of the executive agency shall post the justification and approval documents related to a determination under 

subparagraph (A) on the Internet website of the agency and on 

the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Internet 

website. 

(e) * * * 

(f) AUTHORITY TO DEFER RECORDING OBLIGATIONS ON TASK OR

DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS.—

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the head of an executive 

agency may defer the recording of an obligation, including an 

obligation in the amount of the guaranteed minimum, under a 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
33 

contract awarded under this section until the issuance of a task 

or delivery order. 

(2) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

must be obligated during the same fiscal year during which the 

contract is awarded unless waived by the head of the executive 

agency for exceptional circumstances. 

(3) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

may be satisfied by multiple task or delivery orders, but the full 

value of each individual task or delivery order must be obligated when such order is issued. 

ø(f)¿ (g) INAPPLICABILITY TO CONTRACTS FOR ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES.—Except as otherwise specifically provided in 

section 253i of this title, this section does not apply to a task or 

delivery order contract for the acquisition of advisory and assistance services (as defined in section 1105(g) of Title 31). 

ø(g)¿ (h) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.—

Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or expand any 

authority of the head of an executive agency or the Administrator 

of General Services to enter into schedule, multiple award, or task 

or delivery order contracts under any other provision of law. 

SEC. 303I. TASK ORDER CONTRACTS: ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE 

SERVICES (41 U.S.C. 253i). 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) AUTHORITY TO DEFER RECORDING OBLIGATIONS ON TASK OR

DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS.— (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the head of an executive 

agency may defer the recording of an obligation, including an 

obligation in the amount of the guaranteed minimum, under a 

contract awarded under this section until the issuance of a task 

or delivery order. 

(2) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

must be obligated during the same fiscal year during which the 

contract is awarded unless waived by the head of the executive 

agency for exceptional circumstances. 

(3) The amount of the guaranteed minimum under a contract 

may be satisfied by multiple task or delivery orders, but the full 

value of each individual task or delivery order must be obligated when such order is issued. 

ø(h)¿ (i) INAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.— This section 

does not apply to a contract for the acquisition of property or services that includes acquisition of advisory and assistance services if 

the head of the executive agency entering into such contract determines that, under the contract, advisory and assistance services 

are necessarily incident to, and not a significant component of, the 

contract. 

ø(i)¿ (j) ‘‘ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES’’ DEFINED.—In this 

section, the term ‘‘advisory and assistance services’’ has the meaning given such term in section 1105(g) of Title 31. 

SEC. 303J. TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS: ORDERS (41 

U.S.C. 253j). 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
34 

(c) øSTATEMENT OF WORK¿ STATEMENT OF WORK AND SELECTION

BASIS.—øA task or delivery order shall include a statement of work 

that clearly specifies all tasks to be performed or property to be delivered under the order.¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A task or delivery order shall include a 

statement of work that clearly specifies all tasks to be performed 

or property to be delivered under the order. 

(2) TASK OR DELIVERY ORDERS IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD

FOR USE OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS.—

The statement of work for a task or delivery order in excess of 

the threshold for use of simplified procedures for commercial 

items under a task or delivery order contract shall be made 

available to each contractor awarded such contract and shall—

(A) include a clear statement of the executive agency’s requirements; 

(B) permit a reasonable response period; 

(C) disclose the significant factors and sub-factors that 

the executive agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals, including cost, price, past performance, and the relative importance of those and other factors; 

(D) in the case of an award that is to be made on a best 

value basis, include a written statement documenting the 

basis for the award and the relative importance of quality, 

past performance, and price or cost factors; and 

(E) provide an opportunity for a post-award debriefing 

consistent with the requirements of section 303B(e). 

(d) PROTESTS.—A protest is not authorized in connection with the 

issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order øexcept 

for a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is 

issued.¿ except for—

(1) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, 

period, or maximum value of the contract under which the 

order is issued; or 

(2) a protest by an interested party of an order valued at 

greater than the threshold established pursuant to section 

203(c) of the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 

2007. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 318. DEFINITIZING OF LETTER CONTRACTS. 

The head of an executive agency shall unilaterally determine all 

missing terms in an undefinitized letter contract that have not been 

agreed upon within 180 days after such letter contract has been entered into or before 40 percent of the work under such letter contract 

has been completed. Any terms so determined shall be subject to the 

contract disputes process. 

THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT 

POLICY ACT (41 U.S.C. 401, et seq.) 

* * * * * * * 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
35 

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR (41 

U.S.C. 405). 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(l) The Administrator shall designate a member of the Senior Executive Service as the Associate Administrator for Workforce Programs. The Associate Administrator for Workforce Programs shall 

be located in the Federal Acquisition Institute, or its successor. The 

Associate Administrator shall be responsible for— (1) supervising the acquisition workforce training fund established under section 37(h)(3); 

(2) administering the government-wide acquisition intern program established under section 43; 

(3) developing, in coordination with Chief Acquisition Officers 

and Chief Human Capital Officers, a human capital strategic 

plan for the acquisition workforce of the Federal Government; 

(4) reviewing and providing input to individual agency acquisition workforce succession plans; 

(5) recommending to the Administrator and other senior government officials appropriate programs, policies, and practices 

to increase the quantity and quality of the Federal acquisition 

workforce; and 

(6) carrying out such other functions as the Administrator 

may assign. 

SEC. 16. CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICERS AND SENIOR PROCUREMENT 

EXECUTIVES (41 U.S.C. 414). 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF AGENCY CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICERS.— (1) * * * 

(2) Chief Acquisition Officers shall be appointed from among 

persons who have an extensive management background. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 19. RECORD REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) TRANSMISSION AND DATA øSYSTEM¿ ENTRY OF INFORMATION.—øThe information included in the record established and 

maintained under subsection (a) of this section shall be transmitted 

to the General Services Administration and shall be entered in the 

Federal Procurement Data System referred to in section 405(d)(4) 

of this title.¿ The head of each executive agency shall ensure the accuracy of the information included in the record established and 

maintained by such agency under subsection (a) and shall timely 

transmit such information to the General Services Administration 

for entry into the Federal Procurement Data System referred to in 

section 6(d)(4), or any successor system. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 37. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) EDUCATION AND TRAINING.—

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
36 

(3) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE TRAINING FUND.— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(G) Amounts credited to the fund shall remain available 

to be expended only in the fiscal year for which credited 

and the two succeeding fiscal years. 

ø(H) This paragraph shall cease to be effective five years 

after November 24, 2003.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 43. GOVERNMENT-WIDE ACQUISITION INTERN PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Administrator shall establish a government-wide Acquisition Intern Program to strengthen 

the Federal acquisition workforce to carry out its key missions 

through the Federal procurement process. The Administrator shall 

have a goal of involving not less than 200 college graduates per year 

in the Acquisition Intern Program. 

(b) ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAMS.—The Associate Administrator 

for Acquisition Workforce Programs designated under section 6(l) 

shall be responsible for the management, oversight, and administration of the Acquisition Intern Program and shall give strong consideration to utilizing existing similar programs and seek to build 

upon those programs instead of replacing them or creating new programs. 

(c) TERMS OF ACQUISITION INTERN PROGRAM.—

(1) BUSINESS-RELATED COURSE WORK REQUIREMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Each participant in the Acquisition Intern Program shall have completed 24 credit hours of business-related college course work by not later than 3 years 

after admission into the program. 

(B) CERTIFICATION CRITERIA.—The Administrator shall 

establish criteria for certifying the completion of the course 

work requirement under subparagraph (A). 

(2) STRUCTURE OF PROGRAM.—The Acquisition Intern Program shall consist of one year of preparatory education and 

training in Federal procurement followed by 3 years of on-thejob training and development focused on Federal procurement 

but including rotational assignments in other functional areas. 

(3) EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF INTERNS.—Interns participating 

in the Acquisition Intern Program shall be considered probationary employees without civil service protections under chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code. In administering any personnel ceiling applicable to an executive agency or a unit of an 

executive agency, an individual assigned as an intern under the 

program shall not be counted. 

(4) AGENCY MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Chief Acquisition Officer of each executive agency, in consultation with the 

Chief Human Capital Officer of such agency, shall establish a 

central intern management function in the agency to supervise 

and manage interns participating in the Acquisition Intern Program. 

SEC. 44. CONTINGENCY CONTRACTING CORPS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall establish a government-wide Contingency Contracting Corps (in this section, referred 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
37 

to as the ‘Corps’). The members of the Corps shall be available for 

deployment in responding to disasters, natural and man-made, and 

contingency operations both within and outside the continental 

United States. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—Membership in the Corps shall be voluntary 

and open to all Federal employees, including uniformed members of 

the Armed Services, who are currently members of the Federal acquisition workforce. 

(c) EDUCATION AND TRAINING.—The Administrator may establish 

additional educational and training requirements, and may pay for 

these additional requirements from funds available in the acquisition workforce training fund. 

(d) CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT.—The Administrator shall identify 

any necessary clothing and equipment requirements, and may pay 

for this clothing and equipment from funds available in the acquisition workforce training fund. 

(e) SALARY.—The salaries for members of the Corps shall be paid 

by their parent agencies out of existing appropriations. 

(f) AUTHORITY TO DEPLOY THE CORPS.—The Administrator, or the 

Administrator’s designee, shall have the authority to determine 

when members of the Corps shall be deployed, in consultation with 

the head of the agency or agencies employing the members to be deployed. 

(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall provide to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives an 

annual report on the status of the Contingency Contracting 

Corps. 

(2) CONTENT.—At a minimum, each report under paragraph 

(1) shall include the number of members of the Contingency 

Contracting Corps, the fully burdened cost of operating the program, the number of deployments of members of the program, 

and the performance of members of the program in deployment. 

THE SERVICES ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 

2003 (Title XIV of Public Law 108–136) 

SEC. 1413. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE RECRUITMENT PROGRAM. 

(a) DETERMINATION OF SHORTAGE CATEGORY POSITIONS.—For 

purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, United States 

Code, the head of a department or agency of the United States 

(other than the Secretary of Defense) may determine, under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, that certain Federal acquisition positions (as described in section 

37(g)(1)(A) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 

U.S.C. 433(g)(1)(A)) are shortage category positions in order to use 

the authorities in those sections to recruit and appoint highly 

qualified persons directly to such positions in the department or 

agency. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
38 

(b) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The head of a department or 

agency may not appoint a person to a position of employment 

under this section after øSeptember 30, 2007¿ September 30, 2010. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT