Bill Overview
Title: Protecting the Future of America’s Federal Contractors Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal agencies from evaluating bids and proposals on the basis of information related to noncompliance with a federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Specifically, the agency may not, on the basis of COVID-19 federal contractor vaccine mandate noncompliance information (1) unfavorably evaluate the offeror's past performance, or (2) exclude the offeror from being awarded the contract.
Sponsors: Rep. Hill, J. French [R-AR-2]
Target Audience
Population: people working for federal contractors worldwide
Estimated Size: 1500000
- The bill is related to federal contractors, which include private companies and their employees who contract with the U.S. federal government to provide goods and services.
- Federal contractors span various industries including defense, health, construction, and technology sectors, encompassing millions of workers globally.
- Globally, the population impacted includes large and small companies around the world that engage in U.S. federal contracts.
- The removal of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate compliance as a factor in bid evaluation changes the landscape for these contractors who may now choose not to comply with such health mandates in relation to contract eligibility.
Reasoning
- To simulate the impact of the policy, consider the federal contracting landscape's diversity. It includes various industries such as defense, health, construction, and technology, ensuring industry-specific impacts are covered.
- The policy mainly affects federal contractors, estimated at 1.5 million in the U.S., of which only a fraction might see significant changes in job security or contract opportunities due to noncompliance with vaccine mandates.
- The impact on the wellbeing scores varies based on the individual's views on the vaccine mandate, how crucial federal contracts are to their employment, and their stance on public health policies.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager in a defense contracting company (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy levels the playing field by removing discriminatory factors unrelated to job performance.
- Removing the vaccine mandate from contract evaluations gives more companies, like ours, a fairer chance to compete.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer at a tech company holding federal contracts (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might make contracting more about technical capability than health compliance, which aligns with our focus as an engineer.
- Personally, I support maintaining health standards but also see how it can improve business opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Owner of a construction company with federal contracts (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- COVID-19 rules have been stifling, this change is welcome to ensure my company isn't penalized for choices on vaccines.
- It's crucial for business survival to have fewer restrictions on these contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Policy Analyst at a think tank focusing on federal procurement (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this policy may undermine efforts to ensure safety in federal workspaces.
- It may benefit some contracts but at the potential cost of public health standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Operations Manager at a logistics firm with some government contracts (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as potentially easing workforce management issues.
- However, I worry about the mixed message regarding federal commitment to health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
HR Manager at a healthcare supply company contracting with the federal government (San Diego, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could complicate our hiring as it would send mixed signals regarding health mandates.
- It might ease some competition but raises ethical concerns about employee safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Legal Advisor for a civil rights organization that monitors government contracts (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step back for health compliance in federal contracts.
- Our concern is about setting precedents for ignoring critical safety measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Financial Analyst in a large federal consulting firm (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could restore lost opportunities without undue penalties.
- It's crucial for firms to manage without unnecessary compliance barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Entrepreneur starting a new federal IT contracting firm (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing the mandates may reduce barriers for startups like ours to enter federal markets.
- However, maintaining some level of health compliance is vital, so mixed feelings on long-term impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Senior Engineer with a federal aerospace contractor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our firm maintains strict health measures internally, so this policy won't change much operationally but may affect competition.
- It's a mixed bag – we support safety compliance but welcome reduced bureaucratic hurdles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary effect is procedural and administrative, with modest to negligible economic impact.
- The initial costs are associated with aligning practices and potential legal reviews or challenges.
- Long-term cost implications depend on how the landscape of federal contracting adjusts to these rules.