Bill Overview
Title: Stop Price Gouging the Military Act
Description: This bill modifies Department of Defense acquisitions and negotiation processes to address transparency and pricing, including by requiring contractors to provide cost or pricing information for cost-reimbursement contracts, regardless of the number of offers.
Sponsors: Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in US military expenditures
Estimated Size: 300000000
- This bill relates specifically to Department of Defense acquisitions and negotiations, focusing on cost transparency and preventing price gouging by contractors.
- Entities involved in government contracting, especially those dealing with the Department of Defense, will be directly affected.
- The legislation aims to protect the financial interests of the military by ensuring fair pricing in contracts, which can affect military budgets and allocations.
- Indirectly, the broader public, particularly those with a stake in military expenditures (e.g., taxpayers, military personnel, and their families) could be impacted.
- Any changes in military spending practices might influence federal budget allocations and priorities.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily affects people who are associated with the defense industry or reliant on military expenditures, such as contractors, employees, and military families. These groups would experience direct and indirect changes due to shifts in cost and pricing regulation. The broader taxpayer population notes federal budget changes, but their direct self-reported wellbeing is less impacted.
- Due to resource limits, the impact will be tempered, and there may be cases where individuals do not notice substantial changes in their personal well-being. With financial savings aimed at improving military budget efficiency, indirect benefits might occur such as improved military support but quantifying these in self-reported wellbeing for non-military individuals is speculative.
- Interview scenarios include direct stakeholders like defense contractors and military families, and indirect ones like average taxpayers. Scenarios vary in impact levels from 'none' to 'medium', reflecting how likely they are to notice changes in their personal well-being across different timescales.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor (San Diego, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a defense contractor, I'm worried about new compliance costs but believe some transparency can be good.
- My firm's contracts could become less profitable or be reduced, impacting job security.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Aerospace Engineer (Huntsville, AL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support fair pricing policies, but there's fear of stricter scrutiny slowing projects.
- My job security feels stable, but any cuts could affect our department's growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Military spouse (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved budget efficiency should mean better resources for my husband's job.
- I'm cautiously optimistic but haven't seen much change personally yet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Pentagon Analyst (Arlington, VA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Higher transparency could streamline procurement but risks slowing decision processes.
- In the long run, it might mean better funds allocation which I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Supply Chain Manager for Defense Contractor (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes might increase paperwork but better pricing helps sustain long term contracts.
- Our efficiency could ultimately improve.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Military (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If efficiency gains lead to better resource allocation, it’s positive for all.
- I'm not directly affected by contracts but any pension risks concern me.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Rochester, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While military spending is crucial, I'd like to see savings redirected to public services.
- I don't think I'll feel a big difference personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student in Public Policy (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy aligns with the kind of transparency needed across many sectors.
- It's a positive academic example but minimal personal effect.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Defense Consultant (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring cost transparency is critical for long-term sustainability of defense projects.
- This policy could increase the demand for my consultancy services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Taxpayer (Columbus, OH)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm interested in better federal budget use, I doubt I'll see much change.
- Military spending changes rarely trickle down obviously to daily life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation complexity and time in adapting current contractor agreements.
- Potential pushback or legal challenges from affected contractors leading to delays or costs.
- Ensuring the availability of skilled auditors and negotiators to enforce and manage the new pricing transparency rules.