Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act
Description: This bill addresses conflicts of interest in federal acquisitions. Specifically, the bill directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to (1) identify contracting methods, types, and services that raise heightened concerns for potential organizational conflicts of interest beyond those currently addressed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); and (2) revise the FAR to address organizational conflicts of interest and require executive agencies to take certain actions. The council must revise the FAR to provide and update definitions related to organizational conflicts of interest, to include specified contractor relationships; provide executive agencies with solicitation and contract provisions that require contractors to disclose information relevant to potential organizational conflicts of interest and limit future contracting with respect to potential conflicts; and require executive agencies to establish or update agency conflict of interest procedures to implement these FAR revisions and address agency-specific conflict of interest issues.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by federal contracting and acquisition
Estimated Size: 800000
- The bill impacts entities involved in federal contracting, particularly those concerned with organizational conflicts of interest.
- Federal procurement officers and agencies enforcing these regulations will experience changes in protocol.
- The revision of the FAR can affect the processes contractors navigate to secure government contracts, impacting their operations.
- This can also impact the efficiency and integrity of federal acquisitions, thereby affecting the government services provided to the public.
Reasoning
- The range of impacts seen will vary depending on the role of individuals within federal contracting processes.
- Contractors with current conflicts of interest may face significant operational adjustments, which can be costly, affecting their wellbeing scores negatively in the short term.
- Federal employees tasked with enforcing new regulations may experience increased workload and procedural changes, potentially decreasing their wellbeing temporarily.
- Contractors without conflicts might experience benefits from a more level playing ground in federal contracting.
- The policy primarily affects professional life and stress related to regulatory compliance for those directly involved.
- Indirect impacts will include the public benefiting from more efficient and transparent procurement practices, affecting trust and satisfaction with government services.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Procurement Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is a necessary step to eliminate any hidden bias and conflicts.
- Initially, it might increase our workload but that's manageable given the long-term benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Contractor - IT Consulting (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is going to make the contracting process more transparent which is good, but it might slow down some of our projects initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Accountability Office Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our role won't change too much, but anything that clarifies conflict of interest can only aid our audits.
- I think more clarity can help us do our job better.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner - Engineering Services (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried this might make it harder for small businesses like mine to compete.
- More paperwork means more time and expenses for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Consultant - Federal Regulatory Compliance (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase demand for my consulting services.
- It’s likely to be beneficial for my business in the long run.
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 | 7 |
Retired, former federal contractor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think these changes are overdue to curb unethical practices.
- It’s good for the reputation of the field, especially for future contractors.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Non-profit Executive Director (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic as this policy directly supports our mission for transparency and fairness.
- We hope to see broader adoption of such practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Defense Contractor Executive (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy requires us to be extra cautious, which might slow down some operations.
- Overall, it should make contracting fairer, but it could be painful in the initial phase.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Federal Intern - Procurement Department (Dallas, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm learning a lot through these new procedures, though it seems complex initially.
- It adds to my workload, but it’s a valuable experience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We don't have direct dealings but stronger regulations might affect our collaborators and create more stable environments for long-term projects.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative burden on agencies to revise their conflict of interest procedures and training can vary significantly.
- The potential challenges and costs associated with technology solutions for enforcement and monitoring should be considered.
- Unanticipated challenges in implementing the new FAR rules could impact cost estimates.