Bill Overview
Title: HOPR Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that procurement of certain items, such as body armor and other protective gear, meets specified requirements, including that a fraction of procurement funds be used for items manufactured by U.S. small businesses. The bill sets forth requirements for waivers of such requirements based on a national emergency or a major disaster. DHS shall (1) ensure that covered items are purchased at a fair and reasonable price, and (2) study the adequacy of uniform allowances provided to employees of frontline operational components (i.e., Customs and Border Protection and other listed agencies and entities). Further, DHS must report to Congress recommendations on how it can procure additional items from domestic sources and bolster the domestic supply chain for items related to national security.
Sponsors: Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with U.S. small businesses and DHS frontline operations
Estimated Size: 4500000
- The main purpose of the HOPR Act is to direct DHS to procure protective gear from U.S. small businesses, impacting manufacturers of body armor and other protective gear.
- Frontline operational components of DHS, such as Customs and Border Protection, would be impacted as they are the end users of the procured items.
- DHS employees who receive uniform allowances could see changes based on the study of the adequacy of these allowances.
- U.S. small businesses in the manufacturing sector, especially those producing protective gear, will be impacted by the requirement for DHS to purchase from them.
- Domestic suppliers and the broader national security-related domestic supply chain may experience increased demand and development opportunities due to DHS's focus on purchasing domestically.
Reasoning
- The HOPR Act's main beneficiaries will be small U.S. manufacturing businesses supplying DHS with protective gear, along with the DHS employees who receive uniform allowances. Given the budget restrictions, the act aims for substantial impact within these categories, but the broader effects on the U.S. economy may be moderate due to limited direct financial inputs compared to total national economic activities.
- Small businesses involved in manufacturing are a significant focus, given the supply chain and procurement stipulations. The act may stimulate growth but within a controlled financial scope, limiting extreme variations in wellbeing scores in the short term, although the long-term goal is to enhance sustainability and competitiveness through steady growth.
- DHS frontline workers may experience an incremental improvement in operational efficacy due to better equipment and possibly uniform allowances. However, since the policy budget is substantial yet finite, the distribution impact will be gradual, focusing on improving procurement efficiency and resilience.
- Different individuals will experience varying levels of impact based on their direct involvement with the elements specified in the HOPR Act—a common factor is their proximity to DHS operations or the small business manufacturing sectors.
Simulated Interviews
Owner of small manufacturing business (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The HOPR Act provides a great opportunity for my business to secure contracts with DHS, which we've struggled with in the past due to competition from larger manufacturers.
- I'm optimistic about the potential growth but concerned about maintaining competitive pricing and quality under increased demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
DHS Procurement Officer (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing the HOPR Act means more emphasis on quality and price fairness, which aligns with my priorities.
- The transition might be complex initially, but it also feels rewarding to support U.S. businesses directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Factory Worker in a small manufacturing firm (Detroit, MI)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may increase job security and even open up new job roles in the factory.
- Our factory has always aimed for quality, so I think we are well-placed to benefit from this policy change.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The HOPR Act seems strategically sound for bolstering small businesses, but we must watch out for unforeseen administrative and logistical challenges.
- Tracking progress will be key to ensuring that companies meeting standards are participating effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
DHS Frontline Employee (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might finally address some uniform quality issues we've faced for years.
- Efficiency in equipment procurement is crucial to our daily operations.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
CEO of a mid-sized manufacturing firm (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While we're slightly above the 'small business' threshold, we'll need to navigate this policy to maintain our market share.
- There’s always room to innovate and better compete under new policies like these.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Optimistic about stabilized demand through DHS contracts.
- I’m concerned about supply chain bottlenecks that might emerge under sudden spike in demand.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Starting a business is always risky; this policy gives us a clearer path to success if we meet all criteria.
- I'm hopeful for growth, but conscious of the competitive landscape.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
DHS Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing cost and domestic procurement is challenging but rewarding when done right.
- Monitoring the policy's financial impact will be crucial for future DHS strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Customs and Border Protection Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New gear can't come soon enough; we've been dealing with outdated equipment for too long.
- Seeing a policy promise is a relief, but I hope it’s effectively implemented.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 5: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 10: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 100: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Key Considerations
- Potential higher procurement costs due to sourcing from U.S. small businesses instead of cheaper foreign alternatives.
- Long-term supply chain resilience and domestic security manufacturing capabilities may improve.
- Administrative costs due to additional oversight and reporting requirements will add financial burdens to DHS.
- Potential positive effects on domestic small business employment.