Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4758

Bill Overview

Title: RAMP Act

Description: This bill provides for enhanced domestic content requirements in federal procurement. Specifically, the bill requires that more than 60% (currently, 55%) of the value of the components of products that the federal government purchases be made in the United States. Such requirement increases to 65% at the start of 2024 and 75% at the start of 2029. Such requirements shall not apply to manufactured articles that consist wholly or predominantly of iron, steel, or a combination of iron and steel. Additionally, the bill establishes price preferences for domestic goods that the federal government designates as critical to U.S. supply chains.

Sponsors: Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

Target Audience

Population: People in the manufacturing industry related to Federal procurement

Estimated Size: 800000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Automotive Parts Manufacturer (Detroit, MI)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might increase demand for our components, but it also requires us to find or produce more locally sourced parts, potentially at a higher cost.
  • If successful, long-term contracts with the government could stabilize our business.

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 6
Year 20 7 5

Electronics Supply Chain Manager (San Jose, CA)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The new domestic content requirements will increase operational costs, but it also enhances national security in our supply chains.
  • Management expects clearer market commitments and potential expansion.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Steel Mill Worker (Pittsburgh, PA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Since iron and steel aren't included, I don't see much immediate change for us.
  • I hope this means other jobs might grow and stabilize employment beyond our industry.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Textile Manufacturer (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We might see an increase in orders; however, domestic sourcing of raw materials may be challenging due to price constraints.
  • A role in future critical goods supply chains would be a significant business opportunity.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Aerospace Components Engineer (Huntsville, AL)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy supports our current strategy as we mostly use domestic suppliers. Critical goods preference might push us further to top suppliers in our field.
  • Long-term, it increases competitiveness and innovation within US borders.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 10 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Government Procurement Analyst (Chicago, IL)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I foresee more detailed work on compliance and guiding contractors through the policy changes.
  • This might increase my workload initially but also positions me as a critical advisory piece for businesses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Software Developer (Austin, TX)

Age: 26 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Indirect benefits as more manufacturers may need advanced software to comply with domestic content audits.
  • It presents an opportunity for new features in our product offerings.

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 6 6

Retired Steel Worker (Springfield, MO)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this as a push for revitalizing manufacturing jobs; however, our sector's exclusion means these changes won't directly affect old colleagues.
  • It's too late for me career-wise, but my children might benefit.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Industrial Designer (Cleveland, OH)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Collaborating with more domestic suppliers could streamline project execution and product market alignment.
  • May see tighter competition among those able to meet federal standards, raising the bar for quality.

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 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Student - Manufacturing Engineering (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • As an aspiring engineer, this policy could offer more domestic career options and influence curriculum towards innovative manufacturing methods.
  • I'm optimistic about future job prospects when these policies fully mature.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 7 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)

Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)

Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $84000000)

Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $126000000)

Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $72000000, High: $168000000)

Key Considerations