Bill Overview
Title: Reducing Costs of DHS Acquisitions Act
Description: This bill requires notification of the Management Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Congress if a major acquisition program of DHS fails to satisfy any approved cost, schedule, or performance threshold. Major acquisition program means (1) a capital asset, service, or hybrid acquisition program that is estimated by DHS to require an eventual total expenditure of at least $300 million over the life-cycle cost of the program; or (2) an acquisition program identified as a program of special interest. If such a failure occurs, or is expected to occur, the bill requires a remediation plan and root cause analysis. The Management Directorate must review such plan and either approve it for continuation or provide an alternative proposed corrective action.
Sponsors: Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals working in and with DHS on major acquisition programs
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects major acquisition programs within the Department of Homeland Security, which have expenditures over $300 million.
- These programs likely involve numerous contractors, suppliers, and service providers who work with DHS.
- A significant number of DHS employees involved in acquisition management, program oversight, and implementation will be affected.
- Indirectly, the effectiveness and efficiency of DHS operations, which impact American citizens relying on homeland security, may be affected by major program failures and their corrections.
- Affected businesses and workers are related to the defense, technology, and broader infrastructure sectors.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects employees of DHS involved in acquisitions, contractors, suppliers, and service providers linked to DHS programs. It indirectly affects the general public through improved or maintained efficiency in homeland security functions.
- DHS encompasses a broad range of functions, so while only a subset of employees are involved in relevant acquisition programs, they have a considerable impact on the implementation and success of these programs.
- Contractors and service providers involved in DHS-related projects are likely to experience changes in workflow and potentially financial impacts based on how the policy is implemented.
- The overall population impacted by this policy is relatively high due to widespread interaction with DHS services and contracts, though many individuals will not be directly aware of the policy's effects on their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
DHS Acquisition Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems important to ensure accountability and transparency in our large projects.
- I'm supportive because it adds an extra layer of scrutiny, which can improve project outcomes.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm neutral about the policy. My contracts are smaller and less likely to be scrutinized directly.
- If it smooths procurement processes, it could mean more work for me eventually.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Supply Contractor (San Diego, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried the new policy will cause delays in payments while issues are resolved.
- If they solve these issues efficiently, it's good for everyone in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
IT Systems Integrator (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more responsibility and oversight, leading to better project management.
- I hope it streamlines procurement to involve the right technologies with less delay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Program Manager at DHS (Austin, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased oversight could mean more pressure on meeting deadlines.
- Ultimately, if this leads to successful projects, it's worth the added effort.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel the impact directly, but changes trickle down to everyone on the job site eventually.
- Better oversight could mean improved safety and less waste.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives more weight to my role and could lead to more comprehensive analytics.
- It's encouraging to see accountability becoming more central.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this were needed a long time ago, to curb mismanagement.
- I believe it will be beneficial if rigorously enforced.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Strategy Consultant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Current policy direction should lead to more solid project execution and fewer bottlenecks.
- Seems promising but depends on implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Public Policy Advisor (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Acquisition policies are critical, yet challenging to implement effectively.
- This policy could be a model for other departments, if successful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily targets improved oversight in major acquisitions which have historically encountered inefficiencies.
- The real impact is contingent on the Management Directorate’s capacity to effectively identify and rectify failures in acquisition processes.
- Potential scalability issues as the size and number of DHS acquisitions fluctuate over time.