Bill Overview
Title: Securing American Acquisitions, Readiness, and Military Stockpiles Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides that acquisition procedures other than competitive procedures may be used to (1) replenish United States stockpiles with like defense articles when stockpiles are diminished as a result of the response to an armed attack by a foreign adversary against a U.S. ally or partner, or (2) contract for the movement or delivery of defense articles transferred to such ally or partner through the President's drawdown authorities in connection with such response, provided that the United States is not a party to the hostilities. The head of the applicable agency must provide the congressional defense committees written notification of the use of such procedures within one week after such use.
Sponsors: Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by defense acquisitions and military readiness
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects those involved in defense contracting as it alters acquisition procedures.
- It impacts U.S. military readiness and personnel by replenishing stockpiles, which is crucial for defense operations.
- Allies and partners of the United States might be directly affected as they could receive faster support through streamlined procedures.
- The defense industry and defense procurement sectors will see changes in processes, potentially affecting employment and operations in those areas.
- The general U.S. public has indirect potential impacts as national security measures affect overall national safety.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals and sectors directly involved in defense contracting and military logistics.
- The defense industry workforce, including both blue-collar and white-collar roles, will see changes in procurement procedures which may impact job stability and work processes.
- Military personnel and departments dealing with logistics will need to adapt to new processes for stockpile management and transport logistics.
- Civilian populations may experience indirect impacts related to perceived national security improvements, but direct well-being effects are likely minimal for these individuals.
- Economic effects on communities housing defense contractors could translate into broader societal impacts over time.
Simulated Interviews
Defense contractor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy streamlines processes which could mean more work for us but also more pressure to perform quickly.
- There could be job stability if contracts come faster, but we need to meet high demands without usual competitive buffers.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Logistics officer for the Navy (San Diego, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve operational readiness by speeding up resource delivery, which is critical for my role.
- Faster acquisitions can aid mission success, but the new processes might initially be complex to navigate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Procurement manager (Arlington, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The non-competitive acquisition process could mean less transparency and oversight, which worries me.
- It may provide more opportunities for established contractors but challenges for new or small businesses.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Junior analyst in defense policy sector (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy presents learning curves but enriches my understanding of defense policy intricacies.
- There is potential for career growth due to increased demand for analysis of new procedures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired military officer (Boulder, CO)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a necessary policy move given global tensions, could improve ally support credibility.
- Personally, I don't see much advantage or disadvantage at my age and retirement status.
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 industry researcher (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I will have new material for research and publications, potentially increasing my professional footprint.
- Worried about ethical considerations regarding less competition in contracting processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Civilian defense analyst (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster acquisition could represent reduced delays in policy deployment leading to market opportunities.
- However, less bidding competitiveness may limit client options and competitive market pricing.
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 |
Military family member (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems like a strategic move ensuring our military is prepared to protect allies, which is reassuring.
- With a National Guard spouse, I am cautious about increased deployment rates.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Political advocate focusing on transparency (Detroit, MI)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about transparency in non-competitive acquisition processes and limited checks.
- However, understand the urgency of stockpile readiness under certain circumstances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Small business owner outside defense industry (Miami, FL)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly affected but aware that community depends on defense contracts for economic vitality.
- The policy might bring more work indirectly supporting local suppliers, but doesn't affect my business directly.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1250000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 2: $1281250000 (Low: $1025000000, High: $1537500000)
Year 3: $1313281250 (Low: $1050625000, High: $1575937500)
Year 5: $1379403378 (Low: $1105126250, High: $1655984375)
Year 10: $1513399530 (Low: $1214424800, High: $1816075100)
Year 100: $3499160477 (Low: $2802208378, High: $4196112576)
Key Considerations
- The unpredictability of international conflicts means the need to implement such procedures could vary significantly year to year, affecting costs.
- Non-competitive bidding can lead to higher prices, reducing cost efficiency.
- Impact on defense stockpile readiness has significant implications for national security.
- Defining precise usage conditions of these procedures can limit unanticipated fiscal impacts.