U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–232 

Calendar No. 383 

BRIDGE CONTRACT TRANSPARENCY AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2018 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 2413 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROPRIATE USE OF BRIDGE CONTRACTS 

IN FEDERAL PROCUREMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

APRIL 18, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

ELLIOTT A. WALDEN, Counsel 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

STACIA M. CARDILLE, Minority Chief Counsel 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

THOMAS J.R. RICHARDS, Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

Calendar No. 383 

115TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 115–232 

BRIDGE CONTRACT TRANSPARENCY AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2018 

APRIL 18, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2413] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 2413) to provide for the appropriate use of bridge contracts in Federal procurement, and for other 

purposes, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 5 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 6 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 2413, the Bridge Contract Transparency and Accountability 

Act of 2018, increases oversight of the use of bridge contracts by 

requiring the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy (OFPP) to submit a series of reports to Congress on the policies, practices, and uses of bridge contracts across the Federal Government. Additionally, the bill directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FARC) to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to include a common definition for ‘‘bridge contracts,’’ 

2 

1 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–16–15, Sole Source Contracting: Defining and Tracking Bridge Contracts Would Help Agencies Manage Their Use (Oct. 2015), https://www.gao.gov/ 

assets/680/673110.pdf [hereinafter GAO–16–15]. 2See NDAA FY2018, Pub. L. No. 115–91, § 851, Improvement of Planning for Acquisition of 

Services [hereinafter NDAA FY2018]. 3Letter from Senators Johnson & McCaskill to the Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, U.S. Gov’t Accountability (Apr. 14, 2015) (on file with Committee staff). 4GAO–16–15, supra note 1, at 27–8. 5 Id. at 4. 6 NDAA FY2018 defines ‘‘bridge contract’’ as ‘‘(A) an extension to an existing contract beyond 

the period of performance to avoid a lapse in service caused by a delay in awarding a subsequent contract; or (B) a new short-term contract awarded on a sole source basis to avoid a lapse 

in service caused by a delay in awarding a subsequent contract.’’ 7GAO–16–15, supra note 1, at 6. 8 Id. at 10. 9 Id. at Highlights; pp. 10–16. 10 Id. 

and directs agencies to develop policies and procedures to minimize 

the need for bridge contracts. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Bridge contracts are executed to prevent gaps in service when an 

existing contract is near expiration but there is still a need for the 

goods or services being rendered and the follow-on contract is not 

ready to be awarded.1 Despite their usefulness in some situations, 

bridge contracts are not defined in the FAR. 

Bridge contracts have come under increasing scrutiny in recent 

years. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(NDAA FY2018) included provisions to encourage agencies to avoid 

the use of bridge contracts and to increase oversight when situations arise requiring their use.2

In 2015, Committee Chairman Ron Johnson and now-Ranking 

Member Claire McCaskill asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the use of bridge contracts by Federal agencies.3 The resulting report found that, when used too frequently, 

bridge contracts reduce competition and can result in the Government paying more than it should for needed services and supplies.4

Because no formal definition for ‘‘bridge contracts’’ exists in the 

FAR, GAO defined bridge contracts as ‘‘an extension to an existing 

contract beyond the period of performance (including option years), 

or a new, short-term contract awarded on a sole-source basis to an 

incumbent contractor to avoid a lapse in service caused by a delay 

in awarding a follow-on contract.’’ 5 This definition is similar to the 

one subsequently adopted in the NDAA FY18.6

The GAO report also found the lack of a formal definition and 

guidance for bridge contracts in the FAR contributed to agencies 

having limited or no insight into their use of bridge contracts.7

GAO noted that, ‘‘without a definition for bridge contracts, and 

strategies for tracking and managing their use, agencies are not 

able to fully identify and monitor the risks related to these contracts, and therefore may be missing opportunities to increase competition.’’ 8 GAO also found the lack of a formal definition may be 

a contributing factor to explain why some of the bridge contracts 

they reviewed varied greatly in duration.9 For example, despite 

bridge contracts being intended as ‘‘short-term’’ fixes, 6 of the 29 

bridge contracts GAO studied in-depth were three years or more in 

duration.10

When a contract is awarded outside of the competitive process, 

such as when an incumbent contractor is granted a sole-source conVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:55 Apr 19, 2018 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR232.XXX SR232
3 

tract, heightened oversight is necessary to ensure the Government 

is getting the best value. This bill will implement GAO’s recommendation that the OFPP amend the FAR to provide for a 

standardized definition of ‘‘bridge contracts.’’ The bill also increases 

oversight of the bridge contract award process by requiring the 

heads of executive agencies to report to the OFPP annually until 

2025 on their agencies’ use of bridge contracts, and provide public 

notice within 30 days of entering into a bridge contract to increase 

transparency on the frequency and use of bridge contracts. The 

OFPP is required to summarize the executive agency reports into 

a singular report on the Government-wide use of bridge contracts, 

which is to be submitted annually to Congress until 2025. Finally, 

the bill directs executive agencies to implement policies that will 

minimize the use of bridge contracts. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Ranking Member Claire McCaskill (D–MO) introduced S. 2413, 

the Bridge Contract Transparency and Accountability Act of 2018, 

on February 8, 2018. The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Chairman Ron 

Johnson (R–WI) joined as a cosponsor on February 13, 2018. 

The Committee considered S. 2413 at a business meeting on February 14, 2018. During the business meeting, an amendment was 

offered by Ranking Member McCaskill and Chairman Johnson to 

modify elements of the annual reporting requirement on the use of 

bridge contracts. The amendment modifies the reporting requirement to consider only the number of bridge contracts entered into 

in the previous fiscal year and clarifies that the annual reporting 

requirement should provide a description of the number of bridge 

contracts that were entered into as a result of a bid protest. Both 

the amendment and the legislation, as amended, were ordered reported favorably by voice vote en bloc with Senators Johnson, 

Portman, Paul, Lankford, Enzi, Hoeven, Daines, McCaskill, 

Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, Harris, and Jones being present. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that the bill may be cited as the ‘‘Bridge 

Contract Transparency and Accountability Act of 2018.’’ 

Sec. 2. Revisions to Federal procurement regulations 

Subsection (a) requires the OFPP Administrator to submit a report, no later than 180 days after enactment, to Congress on the 

current Government-wide polices, practices, and uses of bridge contracts. 

Subsection (b) directs the FARC to amend the FAR to add a common definition of ‘‘bridge contracts.’’ Subsection (b) also directs the 

OFPP Administrator to issue guidance on the use of bridge contracts to agencies. 

Sec. 3. Agency transparency and reports 

Subsection (a) directs the OFPP Administrator to issue guidance, 

which includes an interim definition of bridge contracts to use until 

4 

the FAR is amended, to executive agencies to use in their collection 

of information on their use of bridge contracts. 

Subsection (b) details the report that each executive agency is required to submit annually until 2025 on their use of bridge contracts to the OFPP Administrator. These reports are required to 

provide information such as, but not limited to, the common definition for bridge contracts used by that executive agency, how many 

bridge contracts were entered into during the previous fiscal year, 

an explanation as to why each bridge contract was entered into, 

the cost of each bridge contract, and the number of bridge contracts 

entered into because of a bid protest. Each executive agency must 

make this report publicly available on their website. On a quarterly 

basis, each executive agency will submit a list of bridge contracts 

issued during the prior quarter to the OFPP, which the Administrator will compile into a single report and send to Congress. 

Subsection (c) directs the OFPP Administrator to submit an annual report to Congress until 2025 on the use of bridge contracts 

by executive agencies, including any legislative recommendations to 

enhance oversight of bridge contracts. 

Subsection (d) requires executive agencies to provide public notice within 30 days of entering into a bridge contract. 

Sec. 4. Agency policies 

Subsection (a) directs executive agencies to adopt policies designed to minimize the use of bridge contracts. 

Subsection (b) outlines elements that executive agencies must include in their bridge contract policies, including that the Chief Acquisition Officer must approve any bridge contract that lasts longer 

than six months, and the head of the executive agency must approve any bridge contract that lasts longer than one year. Subsection (b) also carves out exceptions to said policies for service contracts necessary for contingency operations, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, national security emergencies, and pursuant 

to international agreements. 

Sec. 5. Definitions 

This section defines ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’ and 

‘‘executive agency.’’ ‘‘Appropriate congressional committees’’ are the 

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 

the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee, and the House Appropriations 

Committee. ‘‘Executive agency’’ has the same definition as found in 

41 U.S.C. § 133. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

5 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 5, 2018. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

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. 2413, the Bridge Contract 

Transparency and Accountability Act of 2018. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2413—Bridge Contract Transparency and Accountability Act of 

2018 

S. 2413 would require federal agencies to report annually to the 

Congress on their use of bridge contracts to acquire goods and services. Bridge contracts are generally considered noncompetitive extensions between the end contract of a contract and the competitive 

award of a follow-on agreement. Specifically, the bill would direct 

the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) to report on governmentwide policies, and practices for the use of bridge contracts. 

In addition, the bill would require the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to provide guidance to agencies on when to use 

bridge contracts. 

CBO is unaware of a standard definition of bridge contracts or 

any comprehensive information on the use of such contracts. In fiscal year 2017, the government acquired almost $400 billion in services and supplies through contracts, including bridge contracts. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that using 

noncompetitive contracts for extended periods could result in greater costs to the government. 

Considering the cost of similar governmentwide reporting requirements and recent GAO reports on such contracts, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $7 million over the 

2018–2022 period to collect information and prepare reports on the 

contracts. In general, CBO expects costs at each of the 26 major 

agencies would total about $65,000 per year for two years or approximately $2 million annually in total. In subsequent years costs 

would decline as the reporting process became standardized. 

Enacting S. 2413 could affect direct spending by some agencies 

because they are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, 

fees, and other collections to cover operating costs. Therefore, payas-you-go procedures apply. Because most of those agencies can 

make adjustments to the amounts collected as operating costs 

change, CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by 

those agencies would be negligible. Enacting S. 2413 would not affect revenues. 

6 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 2413 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 2413 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

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

Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any provision 

of current law, it would make no changes in existing law within the 

meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 

Æ