Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act
Description: This act addresses conflicts of interest in federal acquisitions. Specifically, the act directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide and update definitions related to specific types of organizational conflicts of interest; definitions, guidance, and illustrative examples related to relationships of contractors with public, private, domestic, and foreign entities that may cause contract support to be subject to potential organizational conflicts; and illustrative examples of situations related to the potential organizational conflicts identified. Further, the council must revise the FAR to provide executive agencies with solicitation provisions and contract clauses to avoid or mitigate organizational conflicts, for agency use as needed, that require contractors to disclose information relevant to potential organizational conflicts and limit future contracting with respect to potential conflicts with the work to be performed under awarded contracts; allow agencies to tailor such solicitation provisions and contract clauses as necessary to address risks associated with conflicts of interest and other considerations that may be unique to the agency; require agencies to establish or update agency conflict of interest procedures to implement the revisions to the FAR made under this act and periodically assess and update such procedures as needed to address agency-specific conflict issues; and update FAR procedures to permit contracting officers to take into consideration professional standards and procedures to prevent organizational conflicts of interest to which an offeror or contractor is subject.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People working in companies involved in federal contracting
Estimated Size: 570000
- The bill is focused on federal acquisitions, so it will directly impact companies and individuals who contract with or seek to contract with the federal government.
- Changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will impact all current and potential federal contractors that need to comply with new definitions and provisions related to organizational conflicts of interest.
- Federal acquisition officers and other agency personnel involved in procurement will be impacted as they will need to apply updated guidance, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses.
- There are about 5.7 million employer firms in the US (as of 2020) and a significant portion of those may seek government contracts at some point. However, the number that actively participates in federal contracts at any time is much lower.
- Many employees within federal contracting companies may be indirectly impacted due to changes in policies and procedure.
Reasoning
- The policy targets federal acquisitions, primarily affecting companies involved with government contracts. Therefore, simulated interviews will include individuals from businesses of various sizes involved in federal contracts.
- People involved in federal contracting might vary from executives to procurement or compliance officers and to small business owners, as these people will directly interact with updated FAR guidelines.
- Not everybody engaged in federal contracting perceives the regulatory changes with the same significance, as some may find compliance costly while others perceive it as minimal impact given pre-existing compliance structures.
- Considering the estimated effected footprint of the target population at around 570,000 companies, the responses of individuals may vary widely based on their company's size, existing processes, and their personal role within the company.
- The policy requires resources for proper implementation, so I'll include interviews with people responsible for implementing new regulations, as they will provide insights into the cost and resource allocation challenges faced by the companies.
- Some roles will report high impact due to potential change management work required to incorporate new guidelines, while others in roles not as closely tied to federal contracting might feel minimal impact.
Simulated Interviews
Compliance Officer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy updates are necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in federal acquisitions.
- Our firm will need to invest in training and possibly hire additional staff to handle the increased compliance workload.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new guidelines make the federal procurement process feel more daunting, but I understand the need for transparency.
- As a newcomer, navigating additional compliance requirements might increase our bid costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Acquisition Officer (Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new FAR revisions will streamline our procedures, ultimately saving us time in assessing contractor risks.
- Our new challenge is ensuring all contractors meet these updated standards efficiently.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Procurement Specialist (Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change makes my job more complex with additional checks, but it's a step towards fairness.
- Initial implementation might be rocky, but it should smooth out over time with proper training.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Senior Executive (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company already has sophisticated compliance frameworks in place.
- In the short term, this adds to our operational duties, but it also improves competitive fairness.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Software Developer (Illinois)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have direct involvement with contract compliance, so the policy change doesn’t impact my work directly.
- The overall company culture might shift slightly toward more compliance awareness.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Procurement Consultant (Florida)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is overdue and can close loopholes that previously existed.
- I worry about the potential administrative burden this places on smaller businesses.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
HR Manager (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- HR must facilitate understanding of new compliance requirements across departments.
- This policy reinforces ethical standards which align with our company's values.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Business Analyst (Colorado)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The FAR changes mean I will spend more time on compliance checks, constraining my strategic work.
- In the long run, stricter rules should level the playing field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Legal Advisor (Massachusetts)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our expertise in compliance will be in higher demand as these regulations come into effect.
- I foresee some businesses struggling initially but, eventually, the industry will adapt.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $400000, High: $600000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among agencies on implementing new FAR provisions is crucial.
- Agencies may require additional training or resources to effectively integrate and use revised contract clauses.
- There may be varied impacts across different agencies depending on their reliance on federal contracting.