Bill Overview
Title: Stop Price Gouging the Military Act
Description: This bill modifies Department of Defense acquisitions and negotiation processes to address transparency and pricing, including by requiring certain annual disclosures from large defense contractors.
Sponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with or impacted by Department of Defense acquisitions
Estimated Size: 8000000
- The bill affects large defense contractors by requiring them to provide annual disclosures.
- The Department of Defense and its procurement processes are directly impacted by changes in acquisition and negotiation procedures.
- This could indirectly impact military personnel and operations that rely on procured goods and services.
- The financial implications on large contractors might affect their employees and shareholders.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts a diverse set of stakeholders including contractors, military personnel, and nearby community economies.
- Given the scale of the Defense Department, any policy affecting procurement will have both direct and indirect effects across the economy, particularly around major contractor hubs.
- Employees within defense contractors may experience changes in workload and job security based on how their employers adapt to the policy's requirements.
- Military personnel directly rely on the efficiency and efficacy of procurement for their equipment and services provided.
- The policy's potential impact on contractor profits and pricing strategies could influence stock prices, affecting investors.
Simulated Interviews
Program Manager at a Defense Contractor (Virginia)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could initially create some challenges in project delivery timelines. However, these changes might make our processes more efficient in the long-term.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job might be at risk if contractors decide to cut costs to meet new standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Military Officer (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If executed well, the policy should help us get the equipment we need without delay.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Investor in Defense Stocks (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about how this policy might impact stock prices and dividends, but transparency might also mean stability.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Defense Analyst (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with efficient procurement strategies and should improve overall budget management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Defense Contractor Executive (New York)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better transparency can prevent market shocks, but initial adjustments might be tough for the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Community College Instructor (Utah)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could have a positive effect on local economies if contractors adjust efficiently to pricing changes.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Supply Chain Manager (Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transition will be challenging initially, but this could streamline our work with larger contractors.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Machinist (Michigan)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're worried about losing contracts if the large contractors tighten budgets too much.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Defense Policy Expert (Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will meet its goals if enforcement is consistent and adaptive to contractor feedback.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $28000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $38000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill's success depends on the effective implementation of new disclosure requirements and acquisition procedures.
- Defense contractors will bear some costs related to compliance, which might be passed on indirectly.
- Monitoring and enforcement will be crucial to achieving the proposed transparency and savings goals.