Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3711

Bill Overview

Title: A bill to ensure that no cost reduction or cash refund is due under certain transportation cost-reimbursement contracts on the basis of the forgiveness of certain covered loans, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill exempts until June 30, 2025, certain contractors that receive federal highway or public transportation funding from having to adjust costs associated with their contracts to account for loan forgiveness through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). (The PPP provided small businesses with loans for payroll and other costs to respond to the COVID-19 emergency with loan forgiveness under certain conditions.) Under current law, a contractor with a cost-reimbursable contract must reduce costs or provide cash refunds to the Department of Transportation (or a state department of transportation) if the contractor receives or accrues any income, rebate, allowance, or other credit relating to an allowable contract cost, which includes PPP loan forgiveness.

Sponsors: Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]

Target Audience

Population: Contractors receiving federal highway or public transportation funding with PPP loan forgiveness

Estimated Size: 300000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Project Manager (Albuquerque, NM)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy really helps streamline our budgeting process.
  • The PPP loan forgiveness benefit lets us reinvest more directly into our projects.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 3

Small Business Owner (Springfield, IL)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This exemption is a financial relief during a competitive time.
  • I’m grateful for the support but worry what happens when it ends.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 7 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 3
Year 10 4 3
Year 20 4 3

Financial Officer (Austin, TX)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • For us, it's more about less administrative burden than cash flow.
  • We were prepared to comply with old requirements, so the impact is minor.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

Contractor (Bozeman, MT)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This means I can keep more of my earnings without impact on the refund side.
  • I hope this exemption can extend longer, it's a big help.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 4

Retired Engineer (Columbus, OH)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see the practical side in reducing bureaucratic burden for contractors.
  • I'm not directly affected, but I appreciate how it helps others in the sector.

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 6 6
Year 20 5 5

Business Consultant (Memphis, TN)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will help maintain momentum on projects without financial hiccups.
  • Some of my clients might experience more stability with this bill passed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 4

Subcontractor (Miami, FL)

Age: 32 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This ensures stable employment for me as my company can focus resources better.
  • I hope more policies like this extend beyond 2025.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy helps by reducing complex accounting during the transition to normal business post-COVID.
  • The impact is more pronounced in our cash flow management.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 7 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 3

Contractor (Tucson, AZ)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It’s a great relief that we don’t have to adjust costs for now.
  • Helps us build a strategic cash reserve for uncertainties ahead.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 3

Policy Analyst (Denver, CO)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy makes administrative processes less burdensome for beneficiaries.
  • The broader economic ripple might be more positive and stimulate local economies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

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

Key Considerations