Bill Overview
Title: Time to Choose Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits federal contracting with consulting firms that are simultaneously contracting with China. The bill establishes penalties (1) including termination, suspension, and debarment from eligibility for future federal contracts, for knowingly submitting a false certification or information on contracting with China; and (2) under the False Claims Act for intentionally hiding or misrepresenting contracts with China.
Sponsors: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
Target Audience
Population: People working in and associated with consulting firms contracting with both US and China
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects consulting firms that engage in both federal contracting and contracting with China.
- Federal contract work involves many consulting firms, both large and small.
- Firms that are debarred or suspended will have a significant impact on their employees, shareholders, and clients who are reliant on those contracts.
- Global consulting firms may have divisions or subsidiaries in multiple countries, including the US and China.
- There could be indirect impacts on the broader sectors that depend on consulting services for federal projects.
Reasoning
- The immediate focus is on consulting firms operating both in the US federal contract sphere and with Chinese contracts, affecting a significant number of employees and stakeholders in the consulting sector.
- Year 1 budget may prioritize compliance monitoring and initial penalties. Over 10 years, the policy's impact expands, potentially reducing instances of dual contracts as firms adapt or cease operations.
- Not all stakeholders are equally affected: some firms may withdraw from Chinese contracts, others may exit federal work, affecting jobs and shareholder value differently.
- Indirect effects can touch sectors reliant on consulting advice for navigating federal contracts and strategy.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager at a global consulting firm (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potential job insecurity if our firm decides to cease federal contracts.
- While the policy intends to reduce reliance on firms with dual loyalties, it might inadvertently stifle innovation by cutting off revenue streams.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Consultant at a mid-sized consulting firm (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a bit daunting to potentially navigate changes in company strategy due to this policy.
- I trust my firm can adapt, but it might limit our growth opportunities in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Legal consultant specializing in international business compliance (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will definitely increase demand for my services, as more firms need to scrutinize compliance requirements.
- I foresee a positive impact on my career, but it might also mean more clients stressed about their operational future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Accountant (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm expecting an initial flurry of work due to changes in client contracts and structuring.
- Long-term, it might stabilize, or we'll see fewer firms engaging in risky territory.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Junior Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's an air of uncertainty at work, and as someone early in my career, that's a bit stressful.
- The firm does provide reassurances about adapting, but it might mean changes I didn't anticipate when I joined.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Independent Contractor (Dallas, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reminds me of past regulatory changes that temporarily disrupted operations but leads to longer-term stability.
- I'm keen to see how firms navigate the restrictions and maintain competitive edges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this means more work in the short term, it's a chance to prove the value of robust compliance tech.
- I hope the new systems streamline operations without hampering creativity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Financial Analyst (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Dual-market strategies can be risky as it is, but the policy adds a new layer of complexity.
- My role now becomes educating clients on new boundaries while still finding strategic paths forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Business Strategist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many of my clients will likely face pauses in their growth plans while they reassess contracts.
- Ultimately, this might prove beneficial if they choose a clearer, less risky path forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Public Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a fascinating case study on balancing national security concerns with economic partners.
- I'm curious to see if this leads to wider debates on consulting firm roles and global trade rules.
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: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $63000000)
Year 3: $47000000 (Low: $28500000, High: $65500000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $55000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $77000000)
Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $92000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost of enforcement and compliance must be balanced against the potential savings and economic impacts.
- Legal challenges from consulting firms could modify or delay implementation.
- Impact on international relations due to the perceived targeting of contracts with China.
- The transition period for firms to comply with new regulations could have short-term economic impacts.