39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–410 

CONTRACTING DATA AND BUNDLING ACCOUNTABILITY 

ACT OF 2014 

APRIL 9, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, from the Committee on Small Business, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 4094] 

The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 4094) to direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to develop and implement a plan to improve the quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 1 

II. Purpose of the Bill and Summary ............................................................. 3 

III. Background and the Need for Legislation ................................................ 4 

IV. Hearings ....................................................................................................... 6 

V. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 6 

VI. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 6 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4094 .................................................. 7 

VIII. Unfunded Mandates .................................................................................... 14 

IX. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 14 

X. Oversight Findings ...................................................................................... 14 

XI. Statement of Constitutional Authority ...................................................... 14 

XII. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 14 

XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 15 

XIV. Statement of No Earmarks ........................................................................ 15 

XV. Statement of Duplication of Federal Programs ........................................ 15 

XVI. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ........................................................ 15 

XVII. Performance Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 15 

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 15 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Contracting Data and Bundling Accountability Act 

of 2014’’. 

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

Section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) is amended by adding at 

the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(s) DATA QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the first day of fiscal year 2016, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, in consultation with the Small 

Business Procurement Advisory Council, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration shall develop a plan to improve the quality of data reported on bundled 

and consolidated contracts in the Federal procurement data system. 

‘‘(2) PLAN REQUIREMENTS.—The plan shall— 

‘‘(A) describe the roles and responsibilities of the Administrator of the 

Small Business Administration, the Directors of the Offices of Small and 

Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 

the Administrator of the General Services Administration, the senior procurement executives, and Chief Acquisition Officers in implementing the 

plan described in paragraph (1) and contributing to the annual report required by subsection (p)(4); 

‘‘(B) make necessary changes to policies and procedures on proper identification and mitigation of contract bundling and consolidation, and to training procedures of relevant personnel on proper identification and mitigation 

of contract bundling and consolidation; 

‘‘(C) establish consequences for failure to properly identify contracts as 

bundled or consolidated; 

‘‘(D) establish requirements for periodic and statistically valid data 

verification and validation; and 

‘‘(E) assign clear data verification responsibilities. 

‘‘(3) COMMITTEE BRIEFING.—Once finalized and by not later than 90 days prior 

to implementation, the plan described in this subsection shall be presented to 

the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate. 

‘‘(4) IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than the first day of fiscal year 2017, the 

Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall implement the plan 

described in this subsection. 

‘‘(5) CERTIFICATION.—The Administrator shall annually provide to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate certification of the accuracy and completeness of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. 

‘‘(6) GAO STUDY AND REPORT.— 

‘‘(A) STUDY.—Not later than the first day of fiscal year 2018, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate a study on the effectiveness of the plan described in this subsection that shall assess whether contracts were accurately labeled as bundled or consolidated. 

‘‘(B) CONTRACTS EVALUATED.—For the purposes of conducting the study 

described in subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General of the United 

States— 

‘‘(i) shall evaluate, for work in each of sectors 23, 33, 54, and 56 (as 

defined by the North American Industry Classification System), not 

fewer than 100 contracts in each sector; 

‘‘(ii) shall evaluate only those contracts— 

‘‘(I) awarded by an agency listed in section 901(b) of title 31, 

United States Code; and 

‘‘(II) that have a Base and Exercised Options Value, an Action 

Obligation, or a Base and All Options Value; and 

‘‘(iii) shall not evaluate contracts that have used any set aside authority. 

‘‘(C) REPORT.—Not later than 12 months after initiating the study required by subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General of the United States 

shall report to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 

Senate on the results from such study and, if warranted, any recommendaVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR410.XXX HR410

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1Originally, title II of the Act of July 30, 1953, c. 282, 67 Stat. 232 was designated as the 

Small Business Act of 1953. A plethora of amendments in subsequent Congresses led to a rewrite in 1958. Pub. L. No. 85–536, § 1, 72 Stat. 384 (1958). The Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 631–657s. 2 15 U.S.C. § 632(o)(2). A contract may be unsuitable for award to small businesses due to the 

diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified; the value of 

the contract, places of performance, or a combination of these factors. Id. 3 15 U.S.C. § 657q(a)(2). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 4081 attempted to reconcile these provisions and improve the definition of bundling. The key distinction between contract bundling and 

contract consolidation is that consolidation may occur without regard to whether the contract 

is suitable for award to a small business. Therefore, a contract may be consolidated but not bundled, but all bundled contracts are consolidated. 

tions on how to improve the quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. 

‘‘(7) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection the following definitions shall apply: 

‘‘(A) CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER; SENIOR PROCUREMENT EXECUTIVE.—The 

terms ‘Chief Acquisition Officer’ and ‘senior procurement executive’ have 

the meanings given such terms in section 44 of this Act. 

‘‘(B) FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA SYSTEM DEFINITIONS.—The terms ‘Base 

and Exercised Options Value’, ‘Action Obligation’, ‘Base and All Options 

Value’, and ‘set aside authority’ have the meanings given such terms by the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the Federal procurement 

data system on October 1, 2013, or subsequent equivalent terms.’’. 

II. PURPOSE AND BILL SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 4094, the ‘‘Contracting Data and Bundling 

Accountability Act of 2014,’’ is to improve the quality of data on 

contract bundling and consolidation currently reported pursuant to 

the Small Business Act (the Act).1 The Act defines contract bundling as ‘‘consolidating 2 or more procurement requirements for 

goods or services previously provided or performed under separate 

smaller contracts into a solicitation of offers for a single contract 

that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small-business concern.’’ 2 In contrast, it defines a consolidated contract as one that 

satisfies ‘‘2 or more requirements of the Federal agency for goods 

or services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal 

agency under 2 or more separate contracts lower in cost than the 

total cost’’ 3 of the new contract. The safeguards Congress has enacted to protect small business concerns against unjustified contract bundling and consolidation are triggered only if a contract is 

properly identified as bundled or consolidated. However, the inability of federal agencies to properly identify contracts as bundled or 

consolidated, let alone justify or mitigate the consolidation and 

bundling, is obvious from the data currently reported to Congress 

and through publicly available data sources. 

H.R. 4094 employs a three step process to improve the quality of 

data available on contract bundling and consolidation. First, it directs the Administrator of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) to work with other parties to develop a data quality improvement plan. Second, it provides the affected agencies one year to implement the plan. Third, it requires the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) to study the effectiveness of the data quality improvement plan, and report to Congress on ways to further improve the 

quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. 

Better data quality should lead to improved identification of unjustified contract bundling or consolidation, which in turn should 

deter such procurement practices. Furthermore, in those situations 

in which bundling and consolidation are justified, the higher quality data will enable procurement officials to mitigate adverse efVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR410.XXX HR410

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

4 15 U.S.C. § 644(a). 

5Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–135, § 411, 111 Stat. 2592, 

2617 (1997) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 631(j)). 6 Id. at § 413, 111 Stat. 2618 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 644(e)). 7The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act), Pub. L. No. 111–240 Title I, Part III § 1313, 

124 Stat. 2504, 2538 (2010). 8 Bungling Bundling: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Contracting and Workforce of the House 

Comm. On Small Business, 113th Cong. 113–041 (2013); GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting 

Needed for Consolidated Contracts (2013) (GAO–14–36). 9The justification and mitigation requirements will be further discussed in Section VII of this 

report, but may be found in §§ 15(a) and 44 of the Act. 

fects on small businesses through subcontract participation or the 

issuance of alternative contracts. H.R. 4094 will ensure that bundled and consolidated contracts that are justified are properly mitigated to ensure that opportunities for small business participation 

are maintained at the subcontract level or through the use of alternative contracts. 

III. NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Committee has a long history of oversight with respect to 

contract bundling. Throughout several Congresses, the Committee 

has held a number of hearings on contract bundling, submitted letters objecting to various procurement strategies that bundle contracts, and met with procurement officials to express concerns 

about contracting strategies which led to bundled contracts. This 

concern is rooted in the belief that contract bundling and consolidation undermine the goal of Section 15(a) of the Act to ensure that 

‘‘a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for property 

and services for the government in each industry category are 

placed with small-business concerns,’’ and of ‘‘maintaining or mobilizing the Nation’s full productive capacity.’’ 4

Indeed, in 1997 Congress determined that contract bundling 

jeopardized the aims of the Act, and enacted legislation requiring 

that agencies ‘‘avoid unnecessary and unjustified bundling of contract requirements that precludes small business participation in 

procurements as prime contractors.’’ 5 To prevent such bundling, 

the 1997 legislation established a process for assessing whether 

bundling was justified, and, if so, how it should be mitigated.6 In 

2010, Congress established a similar process for contract consolidation.7 Unfortunately, seventeen years after the first bundling legislation was passed, Committee hearings and recent GAO reports indicate that the prohibitions against unjustified and unmitigated 

contract bundling and consolidation are observed only in the 

breach.8

In part, the lack of adherence to statutory requirements may be 

attributed to the failure to properly identify bundled and consolidated contracts. Whether the contract is bundled or consolidated, 

agencies will not examine justifications and benefits, nor consider 

mitigation strategies as required by law, unless the contract is 

properly identified as bundled or consolidated.9 Without this simple 

act of recognition, none of the other carefully crafted protections for 

small business are worth the paper upon which they are written. 

Therefore, while recognizing that significant problems remain in 

the processes by which SBA and small business concerns may challenge contracts identified as bundled or consolidated, this legislaVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR410.XXX HR410

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

10 Committee Memorandum, ‘‘Bungling Bundling: How Contract Bundling and Consolidation 

Remain Challenges to Small Business Success’’ 4–5 (2013), available at http:// 

smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/10-10-2013_hearing_memo.doc.pdf. 11Putting the Strategy in Sourcing: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Contracting and Workforce of the House Comm. on Small Business, 113th Cong. 113–023 at.19–20 (2013). 12 15 U.S.C. § 644(l). 13See, e.g., FPDS. 14SBA Procurement Scorecard Methodology (2012) available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/ 

default/files/files/Scorecard_Grade_Calculation_Methodology_FY12_FINAL_2013-06-24.pdf. 

tion focuses on ensuring that contracts are first identified as bundled or consolidated, thereby triggering the protections in the Act. 

The data available on the occurrence of contract bundling is 

scant and severely compromised. While all contracts that are bundled or consolidated are supposed to be tracked as such by the SBA 

and the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), these sources 

often conflict and neither is comprehensive. As the Committee’s 

oversight has documented, the occurrence of bundling and consolidation is seriously underreported.10 As discussed in Section VII of 

this report, tens of billions of dollars in contracts are not being reported as bundled and consolidated. For example, the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce raised the issue of why 

strategic sourcing vehicles—contracts attempting to leverage the 

government’s buying power by expanding the scope of contracts 

while limiting the number of vendors—are not being identified as 

bundled or consolidated.11

Potential issues with the poor quality of data on contract bundling and consolidation may be caused by gaps or loopholes in the 

way in which that data is collected. The responsibility for identifying contracts as bundled or consolidated rests with the agency 

conducting the procurement, with SBA backstopping agency efforts. 

SBA has 58 Procurement Center Representatives specifically 

tasked with reviewing contracts to determine if they are suitable 

for award to small business, if they contain bundling or consolidation, and whether the bundling or consolidation is justified and 

mitigated.12 However, with over 20 million procurement actions occurring each year, SBA is unable to catch contracts that the agency 

fails to identify.13 Since identifying contracts as bundled or consolidated imposes upon the agency additional reporting requirements 

and can reduce the agency’s grade on its annual SBA report card, 

agencies have little incentive to make that identification.14

H.R. 4094 addresses the problems with the data available for 

contract bundling and consolidation. First, it requires that SBA, 

working with the Small Business Procurement Advisory Committee, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and the Administrator of the General Service Administration, 

develop a plan to improve the quality of data reported on consolidated and bundled contracts. This plan must address the roles and 

responsibilities of all parties; make changes to underlying policies, 

regulations, and training; establish consequences for the failure to 

properly identify contracts; establish requirements for periodic and 

statistically defensible data verification and validation; and assign 

clear data verification responsibilities. The agencies have until fiscal year 2017 to develop and implement the plan, which is in keeping with the time frames provided to the Committee for changes to 

the underlying data systems. A year after the new plan in place, 

GAO will audit contracts pulled from industries susceptible to consolidation and bundling, in order to assess whether the identificaVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR410.XXX HR410

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

tion of contracts has improved. GAO also will suggest additional 

steps for improvement. 

As agencies currently face few consequences for failing to properly identify bundled and consolidated contracts, this legislation is 

a necessary prerequisite to implementing the protections already 

present in the Act. Improving the labeling of consolidated and bundled contracts will provide small businesses with tangible benefits. 

It will make it easier for small businesses to challenge these contracts, and to obtain subcontracts on contracts that are bundled or 

consolidated. Furthermore, improved data will give the Committee 

and Congress the information it needs to continue formulating sensible procurement reforms that limit unjustified bundling and consolidation. 

IV. HEARINGS

In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Contracting and 

Workforce held two hearings that examined agency compliance 

with the current laws on contract bundling and consolidation. The 

first, held on June 13, 2013, was titled ‘‘Putting the Strategy in 

Sourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Small Business Contractors.’’ During the hearing, witnesses testified that federal efforts at strategic sourcing were encouraging the use of bundling 

and consolidation without identifying, justifying these contracts or 

mitigating their effects. On October 10, 2013, the Subcommittee 

held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Bungling Bundling: How Contract Bundling and Consolidation Remain Challenges to Small Business Success.’’ At this hearing, witnesses testified that contracting officers 

still do not recognize bundling and consolidation, and that there 

are no consequences for agencies that fail to comply with the current statutory requirements. 

Furthermore, during the 112th Congress, issues related to contract bundling were addressed by the Committee at multiple hearings held to consider federal government contracting at both the 

full and subcommittee levels. One hearing, conducted by the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce entitled ‘‘Construction 

Contracting: Barriers to Small Business Participation’’ on February 

9, 2012, focused specifically on contract bundling and consolidation 

in federal procurement for construction services. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Small Business met in open session, with a 

quorum being present, on March 5, 2014 and ordered H.R. 4094 reported to the House by a voice vote at 2:30 pm. During the markup, one amendment was offered and adopted. 

Amendment Number One filed by Ms. Chu (D–CA) requires the 

SBA to present the Committee with the data quality improvement 

plan required in H.R. 4094 prior to implementing the plan. The 

amendment passed by voice vote at 2:30 pm. 

VI. COMMITTEE VOTES

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

15 15 U.S.C. § 644 (p). 16 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–136, Tit. VIII, 

§ 801, 117 Stat. 1392, 1540 (2003), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2382 note. 17SBA, S.O.P. 60–02–7 at 47 (2004); see also GAO, Improvements Needed to Help Ensure Reliability of SBA’s Performance Data on PCRS (2011) (GAO–11–549R). 18 15 U.S.C. § 644(a). The current substantial bundling thresholds are $8 million for the De- partment of Defense (DoD), $6 million for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), the General Services Administration (GSA) or the Department of Energy (DOE), or $2.5 

million for any other agency. 48 C.F.R. § 7.105. The criteria for a justifying the decision to bundle may include: (1) measurable cost savings (exclusive of administrative and personnel costs); 

(2) quality improvements; (3) reduction in acquisition cycle times; (4) better terms and conditions; or (5) other benefits. 15 U.S.C. § 644(a). 19The HCA is usually the head of a regional office, so an agency will have multiple HCAs. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4094 

OFFERED BY MS. CHU OF CALIFORNIA

Page 3, insert after line 17, and redesignate provisions accordingly: 

‘‘(3) COMMITTEE BRIEFING.—Once finalized and by not later 

than 90 days prior to implementation, the plan described in 

this subsection shall be presented to the Committee on Small 

Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate.’’. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 4094 

Section 1. Short title 

This Section designates the bill as the ‘‘Contracting Data and 

Bundling Accountability Act of 2014.’’ 

Section 2. Plan for improving data on bundled and consolidated 

contracts 

There are currently four means to track bundling and consolidation of contracts. The first of these is § 15(p) of the Act which requires that SBA create and administer a database that tracks each 

bundled contract, and that this serve as the basis of an annual report to Congress.15 Second, DoD is required to identify and report 

on contracts that are consolidated.16 Third, FPDS is configured to 

report bundled and consolidated contracts pursuant to § 15(p) and 

§ 44 of the Act, and 10 U.S.C. § 2382 note. Finally, SBA’s Procurement Center Representatives (PCRs) track bundled and consolidated contracts using SBA Standard Form 1970 (SF 1970).17 Unfortunately, none of these systems are able to accurately capture 

consolidation or bundling, because the contracts are not properly 

identified in the first place. 

Regardless of which method is used to track bundling, once a 

contract is identified as bundled, SBA and the contracting agency 

have certain responsibilities to small businesses pursuant to the 

Act. In the case of a bundled contract exceeding a regulatorily-set 

threshold, the contracting agency is required to provide the SBA 

and the agency’s internal small business advocates with a statement explaining why the underlying requirements cannot be met 

without bundling the contract, and ‘‘why the agency has determined that the bundled contract [is] necessary and justified.’’ 18

Once that justification is made, the head of the contracting activity 

(HCA) 19 must determine that ‘‘the anticipated benefits of the proposed bundled contract justify its use’’ and mitigate the effect on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

20 15 § 644(e)(3). If the SBA determines that a contract was bundled but not identified as such, 

or objects to justification or mitigation strategy, the SBA can delay the procurement while SBA 

and the agency negotiate, although the agency ultimately will make the decision regarding the 

award. Id. at § 644(a). 21 15 U.S.C. § 657q(c)(1). The CAO and SPE are senior officials responsible for the acquisition 

programs of an agency. 41 U.S.C. § 1702. 22 15 U.S.C. § 657q(c)(1). 23 Id. at § 644(k). 24 Id. at § 644 (p). 25SBA, Report to Congress: Contract Bundling for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 (2014). 26 Email from SBA to Committee Staff, September 30, 2013 (on file with the Committee). 27See, e.g., CYIOS, Inc., B–402728.3 (2012) (bundling not unjustified since SBA did not challenge bundle). Even though the contract was bundled, no such contract is found as bundled or 

consolidated in FPDS. 28FPDS Report, October 1, 2013 (on file with the Committee). 

small businesses, usually through increased subcontracting opportunities.20

Similarly, whether a contract is identified as consolidate using 

an agency process, SBA process, or DoD specific process, once the 

identification of a consolidated requirement occurs, specific agencylevel actions are triggered. Before an agency can issue a consolidated contract for more than $2 million, the Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) or Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) must certify that 

the agency has conducted market research; identify ‘‘alternative 

contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation of contract requirements;’’ determine, in writing, that the 

consolidation is ‘‘necessary and justified;’’ identify any negative effects on small businesses due to the acquisition strategy and ensure ‘‘that steps will be taken to include small business concerns 

in the acquisition strategy.’’ 21 In contrast to the bundling requirements, this requires that a more senior agency official make the 

certification, and applies to contracts above $2 million—smaller 

contracts than those covered by bundling rules.22 While the agency 

is not required to provide this document to SBA, the agency must 

coordinate it with their internal small business advocates.23

The aforementioned protections are triggered only once consolidation or bundling is identified. Misidentification or failure to identify contracts as bundled or consolidated thereby undermines protections for small business. This identification problem also makes 

the reporting required by Congress a Sisyphean task. 

The SBA is required to report annually to the Committee on the 

bundling activity of the preceding year.24 This report is generated 

using data in FPDS, using a database SBA is required to maintain 

to track the results of bundled contracts, and using the SF 1970s 

generated by the PCRs. Despite these three sources of data, the 

data reported to the Committee is seriously flawed. For example, 

the SBA’s FY 2011 and FY 2012 Bundling Report was only filed 

in February of this year.25 However, the data in the report for that 

period varied significantly from the FPDS bundling and consolidation data, with SBA in each case underreporting bundling.26 However, the FPDS data also to be appears unreliable. For example, 

contracts challenged as bundled or consolidated at the GAO under 

a bid protest cannot be found in the reports.27 Likewise, in FY 

2012, FPDS states that only four agencies bundled contracts during 

FY 2012—DoD, Agency for International Development, the Peace 

Corps, and the Department of the Treasury—and that they only 

bundled 11 contracts, albeit contracts worth over $2.2 billion28 Finally, a review of the SF 1970s for this period identified over $2 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

29The Committee staff requested copies of SBA’s Form 1970s on September 16, 2013, and 

again on September 17, 30, and October 1, 2013, for FY 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately, SBA 

was not able to provide all of the requested documents, and the documents provided were often 

incomplete, used the terms bundling, breakout and partial set-aside interchangeably, and bore 

no relationship to the data in FPDS. While it is possible that SBA intervened and stopped this 

bundle, it is impossible to know. More disturbing are GAO’s findings that SBA failed to review 

the majority of bundled contracts, and that information on the Form 1970s and otherwise maintained by SBA was unreliable. GAO, Improvements Needed to Help Ensure Reliability of SBA’s 

Performance Data on PCRS 2 (2011) (GAO–11–549R). 30Supra, note 16. 31FPDS Report, October 1, 2013 (on file with the Committee). 32 Id. 33 Id. 34GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated Contracts 22–24 (2013) 

(GAO–14–36). 35Deltek, Top Ten Civilian Opportunities for FY 2013 (2012) (on file with the Committee). 36 Committee Memorandum, ‘‘Putting the Strategy in Sourcing: Challenge and Opportunities 

for Small Business Contractors’’ (June 10, 2013) available at http://smallbusiness.house.gov/ 

uploadedfiles/6_13_2013_hearing_memo.pdf. 37GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated Contracts 13 (2013) (GAO– 

14–36). 

billion in contracts the Committee considers bundled. None of these 

procurements are listed in FPDS, including a $1.2 billion bundle at 

the Department of Veterans Affairs.29

Similarly, DoD is required to report on contracts that are consolidated.30 These reports have not been filed. However, drawing on 

data from FPDS, DoD reported 144 consolidated contracts for FY 

2012, worth $265.9 billion—more than half the total dollars spent 

by the entire federal government through contracts that year.31

Further research showed that $240 billion of those dollars should 

have been only entered as $48 billion.32 When the $240 billion 

error is subtracted from $265 billion, and only $48 billion reentered, this reduces the total to $73.9 billion.33 However, this number is not reliable either, as GAO determined that contracts were 

consolidated but not identified as such.34

Finally, while there is no Congressional reporting requirement, 

contracts consolidated pursuant to § 44 of the Act are identified as 

such in FPDS. However, despite the fact that this provision became 

law nearly four years ago, agencies are not recording contracts as 

consolidated. This does not indicate that consolidated failed to 

occur outside of DoD. In FY 2012, draft RFPs were issued for ten 

civilian agency contracts worth a total of $39.2 billion, it seems incredible that none of the ten agencies responsible for those contracts reported any bundled or consolidated contracts for that period.35 Indeed, some of these contracts, such as GSA’s $12 billion 

integrated professional services contract, called OASIS, have been 

discussed as bundles and consolidations in prior Subcommittee 

hearings, although no bundling or consolidation justification has 

ever been provided.36 Likewise, strategic sourcing vehicles are noticeable absent from any report or data source. Given that strategic 

sourcing involves combining the requirements of numerous federal 

agencies into one contract with a limited number of vendors, these 

contracts meet the definition of a consolidated contract, and possibly a bundled contract. When questioned regarding the lack of 

data on consolidation, agencies stated that the lack of regulatory 

guidance excused their failure to report these vehicles.37

Until the data on bundling and consolidation are improved, small 

businesses will have little protection against these procurement 

practices. To improve the data collection and reporting of bundled 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

38The Small Business Procurement Advisory Council is an interagency committee comprised 

of the Directors of the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, as defined in 

Section 15(k) of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 644(k)), and is chaired by the SBA. Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–355, Tit. VII, § 7104, 108 Stat. 3243, 3369 (1994) 

(FASA). 39 15 U.S.C. § 644(k)(5). Unfortunately, despite clear statutory direction, many OSDBU do not 

believe that they play a significant role in the review of contracts for bundling or consolidation. 

GAO, Small Business Contract: Action Needed by Those Whose Advocates Do Not Report to 

Agency Heads and Required 17 (2011) (GAO–11–418). 40FASA at § 7104, 108 Stat. 3369, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112–239, Tit. XVI § 1692, 126 Stat. 1632, 2089 (2013). 41 41 U.S.C. §§ 1121–22. 42 Id. at § 1122. 43 41 U.S.C. § 1702. 

and consolidated contracts, the bill adds a new subsection 15(s) to 

the Act in order to ameliorate this problem. 

Subsection (s)—Data quality improvement plan 

Paragraph (1) of the new subsection 15(s) requires that the Administrator, in consultation with the Small Business Procurement 

Advisory Council (SBPAC),38 the Administrator of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration (GSA), develop a plan to improve 

the quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts 

in the federal procurement data system no later than the first day 

of Fiscal Year 2016. 

Paragraph (2) of the new subsection 15(s) provides five mandatory elements for the data quality improvement plan. Each element 

is discussed in detail in a subparagraph. 

Paragraph (2)(A) requires that the plan describe roles and responsibilities for the SBA Administrator, the Directors of the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), 

the SBPAC, the OFPP Administrator, the GSA Administrator, 

SPEs, and the CAOs implementing this plan. Each of these parties 

plays a critical role in ensuring that improvement in collected and 

reported data will occur. 

As the agency tasked with reporting requirements under Section 

15(p) of the Act, the SBA must play a key role in this process. 

Similarly, the OSDBUs are required to ‘‘identify proposed solicitations that involve significant bundling of contract requirements,’’ 39

and thereby play a key role. The SBPAC is statutorily required to 

monitor compliance by the OSDBUs, and to ‘‘(4) to identify best 

practices for maximizing small business utilization in Federal contracting that may be implemented by Federal agencies having procurement powers,’’ 40 so consequently are in a position to assist 

with the implementation of the plan. The bill also includes OFPP 

because it has responsibility for all government-wide acquisition 

policy, for ensuring compliance with federal procurement regulations, for training of the federal acquisition workforce, and for ensuring that FPDS adequately collects, develops, and disseminates 

procurement data.41 Likewise, the GSA Administrator has the dayto-day responsibility for FPDS, including its budget, so is in the 

best position to guarantee that the system collects the correct 

data.42 Finally, as the highest-ranking procurement officials within 

each agency, the CAO and SPE are responsible for all contracting 

activity within each agency, including the contracting officers, contract reporting systems, and ensuring that all acquisition decisions 

are ‘‘consistent with all applicable laws.’’ 43 Therefore, the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR410.XXX HR410

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

44GAO, Updated Guidance and Reporting Needed for Consolidated Contracts 8 (2013) (GAO– 

14–36). 45 Bungling Bundling: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Contracting and Workforce of the 

House Comm. On Small Business, 113th Cong. 113–041 (2013) (statement of Juanita Beauford, 

at 5). 46 Id. at 5, 6, 10. (statements of Juanita Beauford, Robert Burton, and Margot Dorfman). 

mittee determined that all of the aforementioned parties need to be 

engaged to improve the data quality on bundling and consolidation. 

Paragraph (2)(B) requires that the data quality improvement 

plan address the reasons that the data quality is poor. First, it requires that changes be made to policies and procedures on the 

identification and mitigation on contract bundling and consolidation. Many agencies misunderstand the rules associated with bundling and consolidation.44 Agencies questioned by the Committee 

claim that it is unnecessary to report contracts as bundled or consolidated if the bundling or consolidation is mitigated. Second, it 

requires that people involved with the identification and mitigation 

receive the necessary training to carry out their responsibilities. 

The educational component is key because the Subcommittee on 

Contracting and Workforce received testimony that contracting officers do not know how to identify bundling and consolidation.45

Paragraph (2)(C) also addresses an issue raised by testimony before the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce—the lack of 

accountability.46 Currently, there are no repercussions if a contracting official fails to identify a contract as bundled or consolidated. Therefore, subparagraph (C) requires that the data quality 

improvement plan include consequences for the failure to properly 

identify contracts as bundled or consolidated. 

Paragraph (2)(D) requires that the responsible parties take affirmative actions to review the quality of the data, rather than simply relying upon that which is in FPDS. Specifically, the legislation 

requires that the data quality improvement plan include requirements for periodic and statistically acceptable data verification and 

validation. As DoD has already implemented a similar process for 

its data, which accounts for over seventy percent of the data in 

FPDS, the Committee believes that existing resources are available 

to complete this task. 

Paragraph (2)(E) further addresses the procedures for data 

verification. Specifically, this subparagraph requires that the relevant parties assign clear data verification responsibilities as part 

of the data quality improvement plan. 

Subsection (s)(3) is designed to increase the Committee’s oversight of the data quality improvement plan. It requires that at 

least 90 days before implementing the plan, as described in Paragraph (4), the Administrator present the plan to the Committee on 

Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate. Based on 

the deadlines in Paragraph (4), this briefing must occur no later 

than July 2, 2016. The Committee also finds that imposing mandatory obligations, such as deliverables to Congress, will provide SBA 

with the needed incentives to meet its statutory mandate. 

Subsection (s)(4) establishes the timeline for implementing the 

data quality improvement plan. It requires that the data quality 

improvement plan be implemented no later than October 1, 2016. 

The Committee believes that providing SBA and the other entities 

named in subsection (s)(1) with more than a full year to develop 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

47FPDS Report generated by the Committee staff on April 1, 2014 (on file with the Committee). 48 Id. Given the types and kinds of construction projects available, if not for the proliferation 

of bundling and consolidation, small businesses could reasonably expect to win a far greater percentage of both the dollars and awards in this sector. 49 Id. 

and implement the plan is sufficient, given that the responsibility 

to collect and report this data has existed for up to 17 years. Furthermore, DoD is currently undertaking a similar effort with all of 

its FPDS data, which should greatly simplify the process. 

Subsection (s)(5) requires that the Administrator, as part of the 

annual reporting process required by § 15(p) of the Act, certify that 

the data is accurate and complete. This certification will require 

that the Administrator remain vigilant in policing the quality of 

the data submitted. Unfortunately, the certification is necessary 

given the poor state of the data currently provided to Congress. 

Subsection (s)(6) establishes a detailed framework for a GAO 

study and report on the effectiveness of the data quality improvement plan. The Committee believes that data quality must be continually monitored to remain useful, and this study will determine 

whether the parties tasked by this legislation were successful in 

improving the quality of the data. 

Paragraph (6)(A) establishes the timeline and subject matter of 

the study. Specifically, it requires that GAO begin the study no 

later than October 1, 2017. This ensures that the data quality improvement plan will have been operational for at least one year 

when GAO begins the study. Further, GAO must evaluate the effectiveness of the data quality improvement plan and whether contracts entered into after implementation of the data quality improvement plan are correctly labeled as bundled or consolidated. 

Paragraph (6)(B) specifies which contracts GAO shall evaluate as 

part of its study. The Committee determined that it was necessary 

to specify the types of contracts to be examined in order to obtain 

the most relevant data. For example, if GAO were to study fuel 

contracts, which have historically been awarded to large businesses, the results would not be particularly useful. Likewise, if 

GAO were to study contracts set aside for small businesses, by definition the contracts could not be considered bundled. Therefore, the 

analysis would not produce any useful insights. 

Clause (i) specifies that the study shall consist of the analysis of 

at least 100 contracts in each of four broad industry sectors. Those 

sectors are specified by North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code, and are Construction (NAICS 23), Manufacturing (NAICS 33), Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 

(NAICS 54) and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 56). These sectors were 

chosen for a number of reasons. First, in FY 2013, they accounted 

for 75 percent of the dollars spent by the federal government, but 

only 19 percent of the contracts awarded.47 This indicates that the 

contracts are larger and more susceptible to bundling and consolidation. Second, small businesses are active in each of these sectors. 

During FY 2013, small businesses in NAICS 23 received 68 percent 

of the awards and 45 percent of the dollars.48 During the same 

time period small business participation in NAICS 33 accounted for 

27 percent of the awards and 10 percent of the dollars.49 Similarly, 

in NAICS 54, small businesses received 45 percent of the awards 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

50 Id. 51FPDS Report, ‘‘Awards by Contractor Type’’ generated by the Committee staff on April 1, 

2014. 52FPDS Report generated by the Committee staff on April 1, 2014 (on file with the Committee). 53When there are two or more small businesses that can perform requirement at a fair and 

reasonable price, competition on that contract is restricted to small business concerns. 48 C.F.R. 

§ 19.502. Sections 8(a), 8(m), 31, and 36 of the Act provide the ability to restrict competition 

based the concerns status as a socially and economically-disadvantaged small business, womanowned small business, historically underutilized business zone (HUBzone) qualified small business, or service-disabled veteran-owned small business, respectively. 54 As previously discussed, CAOs and SPEs are responsible for the acquisition programs of 

their respective agencies. Military departments and small agencies do not have CAOs, but instead have SPEs with the same responsibilities. Large agencies often have both a CAO and a 

SPE, with the SPE serving as the senior official responsible for procurement reporting to the 

CAO. 

and 24 percent of the dollars; and in NAICS 56, they received 57 

percent of the awards and 24 percent of the dollars.50 Given the 

Committee’s longstanding interest in bundling, the Committee determined that these sectors would provide the best insight into 

data collection improvements arising out of compliance with H.R. 

4094. 

Even with the limitations in clause (i), GAO would need to start 

its study with over 80,000 contracts to consider. The Committee 

recognizes the need to further circumscribe the set of contracts 

GAO would review. First, in clause (ii)(I), the bill limits the GAO 

study to contracts awarded by the 24 largest agencies. While all 

agencies play a role in creating opportunities for small business 

competition, the activities of the National Capitol Planning Commission, which awarded only four contracts valued at less than 

$35,000 in FY 2013, is not likely to be probative.51

Second, per subclause (II), GAO is required to review only those contracts exceeding $10 million. While contracts below $10 million 

may be consolidated or bundled, their size alone should not preclude small business participation. This will greatly limit the number of contracts to be reviewed. For example, during October 2012, 

there were approximately 19,245 contracts awarded in NAICS 54.52

However, only 272 of these actions exceed $10 million. If extrapolated, this will mean that only one percent of the contracts in the 

designated industry categories would be considered for the report. 

A final limitation is imposed on the scope of the report in subclause (III) by excluding contracts set aside for small businesses or 

any subcategory thereof.53 Since contracts set aside for small businesses are not, by definition, bundled contracts, including them in 

the sample for the study is unlikely to be probative of improvements in the database of bundled contracts. 

Paragraph (7) of the new subsection 15(s) provides definitions for 

terms used in this section. Definitions are provided for the following terms: CAO, SPE, and specific types of contract actions enumerated in the FPDS. 

The terms CAO and SPE are defined in subparagraph (A) as 

having the same definitions provided in Section 44 of the Act. That 

section cross references the definition set out in 41 U.S.C. § 1702.54

The terms ‘‘Base and Exercised Options Value’’ (BEOV), ‘‘Action 

Obligation’’ (AO), and ‘‘Base and All Options Value’’ (BAOV) are 

used in the new 15(s)(5)(B)(II) have the meanings given these 

terms by the OFPP Administrator through FPDS on October 1, 

2013, or equivalent definitions as the systems evolve. That means 

that BEOV refers to the money obligated under a contract for the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

base period of performance and any exercised options, while the 

BAOV is the total amount that may be obligated over the life of 

the contract, including unexercised options. The AO means the 

amount obligated by an agency through a discrete action, such as 

the exercise of an option, modification, or change. An AO is an action that accrues toward the ceiling for a base year or option year. 

VIII. UNFUNDED MANDATES

H.R. 4094 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 

No. 104–4, and would impose no costs on state, local or tribal governments. 

IX. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House, the Committee provides the following opinion and estimate 

with respect to new budget authority, entitlement authority and 

tax expenditures. While the Committee has not received an estimate of new budget authority contained in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 

to § 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 

does not believe that any additional appropriation will be required 

due to the enactment of H.R. 4094. H.R. 4094 does not direct new 

spending, but prioritizes how resources already allocated under the 

E-Government Fund, 44 U.S.C. § 3604, should be spent. Further, 

the Committee notes that DoD is already undertaking a data quality improvement plan for all FPDS data, including bundled and 

consolidated contracts. As approximately 70 percent of the records 

in FPDS are generated by DoD, this means that the majority of the 

effort should be directed towards reviewing a small portion of the 

data. 

X. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In accordance with clause (2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the 

House, the oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee on Small Business with respect to the subject matter contained in H.R. 4094 are incorporated into the descriptive portions 

of this report. 

XI. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the authority for this 

legislation in Art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3, and 18 and Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 of 

the Constitution of the United States. 

XII. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

H.R. 4094 does not relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the 

meaning of § 102(b)(3) of Pub. L. No. 104–1. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

XIII. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT STATEMENT

H.R. 4094 does not establish or authorize the establishment of 

any new advisory committees as that term is defined in the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. 

XIV. STATEMENT OF NO EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 4094 does not contain any 

Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in subsections (d), (e) or (f) of clause 9 of rule XXI 

of the Rules of the House. 

XV. STATEMENT OF DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House, 

no provision of H.R. 4094 establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the federal government known to be duplicative of another Federal 

program, a program that was included in any report from the GAO 

pursuant to Section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance. 

XVI. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House, 

H.R. 4094 does not direct any rulemaking. 

XVII. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House, 

the Committee establishes the following performance-related goals 

and objectives for this legislation: 

H.R. 4094 includes a number of provisions designed to 

improve the quality of data captured and reported on contract bundling and consolidation, to improve agency compliance with the Small Business Act. 

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

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SMALL BUSINESS ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 15. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(s) DATA QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the first day of fiscal year 

2016, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, 

in consultation with the Small Business Procurement Advisory 

Council, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration shall develop a plan to improve the quality of data reVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR410.XXX HR410

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

ported on bundled and consolidated contracts in the Federal 

procurement data system. 

(2) PLAN REQUIREMENTS.—The plan shall— 

(A) describe the roles and responsibilities of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Directors 

of the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council, 

the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, the senior procurement executives, and Chief Acquisition Officers in implementing the plan described in paragraph (1) and contributing to the annual report required by 

subsection (p)(4); 

(B) make necessary changes to policies and procedures on 

proper identification and mitigation of contract bundling 

and consolidation, and to training procedures of relevant 

personnel on proper identification and mitigation of contract bundling and consolidation; 

(C) establish consequences for failure to properly identify 

contracts as bundled or consolidated; 

(D) establish requirements for periodic and statistically 

valid data verification and validation; and 

(E) assign clear data verification responsibilities. 

(3) COMMITTEE BRIEFING.—Once finalized and by not later 

than 90 days prior to implementation, the plan described in 

this subsection shall be presented to the Committee on Small 

Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate. 

(4) IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than the first day of fiscal 

year 2017, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall implement the plan described in this subsection. 

(5) CERTIFICATION.—The Administrator shall annually provide to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate certification of the accuracy and completeness of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. 

(6) GAO STUDY AND REPORT.— 

(A) STUDY.—Not later than the first day of fiscal year 

2018, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 

initiate a study on the effectiveness of the plan described in 

this subsection that shall assess whether contracts were accurately labeled as bundled or consolidated. 

(B) CONTRACTS EVALUATED.—For the purposes of conducting the study described in subparagraph (A), the 

Comptroller General of the United States— 

(i) shall evaluate, for work in each of sectors 23, 33, 

54, and 56 (as defined by the North American Industry 

Classification System), not fewer than 100 contracts in 

each sector; 

(ii) shall evaluate only those contracts— 

(I) awarded by an agency listed in section 901(b) 

of title 31, United States Code; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

(II) that have a Base and Exercised Options 

Value, an Action Obligation, or a Base and All Options Value; and 

(iii) shall not evaluate contracts that have used any 

set aside authority. 

(C) REPORT.—Not later than 12 months after initiating 

the study required by subparagraph (A), the Comptroller 

General of the United States shall report to the Committee 

on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 

Senate on the results from such study and, if warranted, 

any recommendations on how to improve the quality of 

data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. 

(7) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection the following definitions 

shall apply: 

(A) CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER; SENIOR PROCUREMENT

EXECUTIVE.—The terms ‘‘Chief Acquisition Officer’’ and 

‘‘senior procurement executive’’ have the meanings given 

such terms in section 44 of this Act. 

(B) FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA SYSTEM DEFINITIONS.— The terms ‘‘Base and Exercised Options Value’’, ‘‘Action Obligation’’, ‘‘Base and All Options Value’’, and ‘‘set aside authority’’ have the meanings given such terms by the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the Federal procurement data system on October 1, 2013, or subsequent 

equivalent terms. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS