Bill Overview
Title: Responsible BUILD Act
Description: This bill establishes the Office of the Special Inspector General for Infrastructure Projects within the Department of Transportation (DOT). Specifically, the office shall provide for independent and objective (1) supervision of certain infrastructure projects; and (2) leadership and coordination of, and recommendations on, policies designed to promote efficiency and effectiveness and to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse related to such projects. The office must submit quarterly reports to Congress and DOT on state spending of infrastructure funding.
Sponsors: Rep. Meijer, Peter [R-MI-3]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on infrastructure services around the world
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill pertains to infrastructure projects which generally impact a wide range of individuals, including those who use public services and infrastructure.
- The supervision of infrastructure projects will ensure better quality and security for the citizens who rely on these services.
- Efficient infrastructure affects transportation, utility services, public safety, and urban development, impacting the daily lives of most, if not all, individuals within a region.
- Waste, fraud, and abuse in infrastructure spending can lead to financial inefficiencies that potentially affect the availability of services and job opportunities.
- By ensuring effective project implementation, the bill indirectly benefits people relying on the new and improved infrastructure.
Reasoning
- The Responsible BUILD Act impacts a broad spectrum of Americans due to its focus on infrastructure projects, which are foundational to many aspects of daily life. This includes transportation, utilities, and public services.
- The fiscal oversight provided by the Office of the Special Inspector General aims to improve project outcomes by minimizing waste, fraud, and inefficiencies.
- The policy target population would include not only users of public infrastructure like highways and public transit but also indirect beneficiaries such as families dependent on infrastructure-supported utilities.
- The act is expected to have variable impacts based on region and reliance on public infrastructure, with urban areas potentially seeing more immediate and noticeable benefits.
- Given the scale of infrastructure projects, the policy is designed to be a long-term improvement strategy, with benefits expected to scale over years rather than immediately.
Simulated Interviews
Civil Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the Responsible BUILD Act will introduce much-needed oversight and efficiency improvements in current infrastructure projects.
- The quarterly reports can help identify problem areas in our planning process and reduce delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Bus Driver (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in road maintenance would directly benefit my work and reduce vehicle maintenance costs.
- Effective use of funds is crucial to ensure the reliability of public transit systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Rural Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would welcome any improvements to the infrastructure, but I'm skeptical about how much impact this will have out here.
- The priority often seems to be cities over rural areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A dedicated office for oversight is critical for preventing misuse of funds.
- This could incentivize more sustainable and well-planned developments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better road quality would reduce delivery times and business costs.
- The focus on efficiency could significantly benefit local businesses like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy addresses critical issues in transparency and accountability that have been lacking in current projects.
- Finally, the government oversight office can scrutinize spending effectively.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Tech Employee (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Using public transport daily makes me acutely aware of infrastructure issues.
- I hope this policy could accelerate updates and improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lessen commute times, which would significantly affect my work-life balance.
- It's critical that these improvements prioritize health and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Works Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The oversight could guide us better in resource allocation.
- Reducing waste in spending is key to executing more successful projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater infrastructure efficiency may lead to improved school environments.
- Taxpayers' money being used wisely will be reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the new office will depend significantly on its independence, mandate having sufficient authority to act on findings.
- There may be variable responsiveness from state and local governments regarding federal oversight and adjustments to infrastructure spending.
- Long-term savings will depend on the office's ability to effectively identify and mitigate fraud and waste in infrastructure projects.