Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8157

Bill Overview

Title: Clarity Act

Description: This bill requires additional transparency in federal procurement of food during supply chain disruptions. Specifically, the bill requires each executive agency, during a period in which there is a disruption in the supply chain of an item of food, to transmit in a timely manner information concerning the procurement of such item by the agency to the General Services Administration for entry into the Federal Procurement Data System.

Sponsors: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

Target Audience

Population: People relying on federal food procurement during supply chain disruptions

Estimated Size: 3000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Federal Procurement Officer (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will add more layers of reporting, which could cause some delays if not handled efficiently.
  • It might help us get more information to plan purchases better during disruptions.

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 6
Year 20 8 6

Logistics Coordinator (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Transparency would help understand how decisions are made when supply drops.
  • However, without increased budgets, transparency alone won't fix the logistic issues.

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 5 5
Year 20 5 5

School District Nutrition Director (Houston, TX)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I expect more reliable information to base our food service decisions, especially during disruptions.
  • The potential I see is mainly in reducing unexpected supply shortfalls.

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 7 7

Food Supplier Liaison (Chicago, IL)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Greater transparency should hopefully lead to more predictable contracts and interactions.
  • I'm cautiously optimistic but also worried about the administrative burdens it might add.

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 6
Year 20 6 6

Military Commissary Manager (San Antonio, TX)

Age: 63 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any improvement in transparency will help coordinate with suppliers.
  • The impact might be minor unless accompanied by policy shifts in logistics and supply stability.

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

Policy Advocate (New York, NY)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with better governance standards.
  • Increased transparency can lead to improved trust in the system.

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 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Humanitarian Logistician (Seattle, WA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the policy can streamline procurement processes during emergencies, it will be beneficial.
  • However, I see it only helping marginally right now.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Food Banks Coordinator (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The potential for better data could help forecast food availability.
  • Still, without addressing root causes of supply issues, changes could be minimal.

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 5

Government Auditor (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Transparency is always beneficial but enforcing compliance is another layer.
  • More clarity should ideally help reduce minor lapses and quicken audits.

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 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Federal Contractor (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this leads to strategic improvements in contracts during constraints.
  • Long-term, this could align procurement with practical needs better.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)

Year 2: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6000000)

Year 3: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6000000)

Year 5: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6000000)

Year 10: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations