49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–628 

TO AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO PAY FOR SERVICES 

RENDERED BY SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER A GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION INDEFINITE DELIVER/INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT 

ISSUED FOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED AT THE GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. POMBO, from the Committee on Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3961] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3961) to authorize the National Park Service to pay for services rendered by subcontractors under a General Services Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for 

work to be completed at the Grand Canyon National Park, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 3961 is to authorize the National Park Service to pay for services rendered by subcontractors under a General 

Services Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at the Grand Canyon National Park. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

During 2002 and 2003, the National Park Service (NPS) issued 

approximately 43 task orders to Pacific General, Inc. (PGI), a California-based construction firm, under an Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for work to be performed at the 

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). 

PGI subcontractors performed work on numerous projects at 

GCNP, including new entrance stations at North Rim and Desert 

View, rehabilitated cabins at North Rim, improvements to the Colorado River Bridge at Phantom Ranch and a new South Rim wasteVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:07 Sep 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR628.XXX HR628

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

water treatment plant. These projects have benefitted thousands of 

tourists who visit the Park each year. Although PGI certified that 

payments were being sent to subcontractors and suppliers, complaints were received from many subcontractors that they had not 

received payment. The NPS had paid over $10 million to PGI, of 

which $1.3 million was owed, but unpaid to subcontractors. In addition, the NPS never verified that PGI was indeed bonded. 

Today, PGI is out of business and 38 small companies based in 

Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Washington still have not 

been paid and many are close to bankruptcy. The NPS does not 

have the authority to pay the subcontractors directly for their 

work. H.R. 3961 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to pay 

subcontractors for work performed at the Park under the PGI IDIQ 

contract between 2002 and 2003. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 3961 was introduced on September 29, 2005, by Congressman Rick Renzi (R–AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on National Parks. On March 30, 2006, the Subcommittee held a hearing 

on the bill. On July 19, 2006, the Full Resources Committee met 

to consider the bill, at which time the Subcommittee on National 

Parks was discharged from further consideration of the bill by 

unanimous consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was 

ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 

unanimous consent. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8, clause 3 and Article IV, section 3, clause 2 

of the Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase 

or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of H.R. 3961 would result in 

direct spending of $1 million in 2007, but that amount would be 

offset by less spending over the 2008–1010 period, and the net impact on direct spending over 2007–2010 would thus be ‘‘insignificant.’’

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. The bill does not 

authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
3 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 3961—A bill to authorize the National Park Service to pay for 

services rendered by subcontractors under a General Services 

Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract 

issued for work to be completed at the Grand Canyon National 

Park 

Summary: H.R. 3961 would require the National Park Service 

(NPS) to make payments to certain subcontractors who performed 

work at the Grand Canyon National Park but were not paid by the 

prime contractor. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 

increase direct spending by about $1 million in 2007, but that 

amount would be offset by less spending over the 2008–2010 period, and the net impact of the bill on direct spending over the 

2007–2010 period would be insignificant. 

The legislation 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. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3961 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated budget authority .......................................................................... 1 * * * 0 

Estimated outlays ......................................................................................... 1 * * * 0 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 3961 would require the NPS to use collections from the Grand Canyon National Park’s entrance fees to pay 

subcontractors associated with Pacific General, Inc. (PGI), a California-based firm for construction work performed in 2002 and 

2003. The NPS has paid $10 million to PGI through a General 

Services Administration contract for numerous Grand Canyon National Park construction projects, and $1.3 million of that amount 

was owed, but not paid to the firm’s subcontractors. PGI has since 

gone out of business. 

Entrance fees collected by the NPS are recorded in the budget as 

offsetting receipts and are available without further appropriation. 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 3961 will be enacted 

near the start of fiscal year 2007. CBO expects that requiring the 

NPS to pay PGI’s subcontractors would cost $1.3 million in 2007. 

CBO estimates that spending of park entrance fees would be reduced by $1.3 million over the 2008–2010 period. Thus, the bill’s 

net impact on spending over the 2007–2010 period would not be 

significant. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
4 

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

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on state, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact on 

the private sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing law. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING