Bill Overview
Title: Securing American ARMS Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides that acquisition procedures other than competitive procedures may be used to (1) replenish United States stockpiles with like defense articles when stockpiles are diminished as a result of the response to an armed attack by a foreign adversary against a U.S. ally or partner, or (2) contract for the movement or delivery of defense articles transferred to such ally or partner through the President's drawdown authorities in connection with such response, provided that the United States is not a party to the hostilities. The head of the applicable agency must provide the congressional defense committees written notification of the use of such procedures within one week after such use.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: People employed by U.S. defense contractors
Estimated Size: 350000
- The bill allows for non-competitive acquisition procedures primarily to expedite the replenishment of defense stockpiles and support logistical operations for defense articles provided to allies.
- The primary impact is on U.S. defense contractors who may be awarded contracts under non-competitive procedures.
- The broader population indirectly affected includes military personnel who rely on these stockpiles for national security purposes.
- The legislation might affect U.S. taxpayers who fund defense spending, especially if non-competitive bidding leads to higher costs.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts people involved in the defense sector, especially those at U.S. defense contractors who may see changes in contract awards and job security.
- Military personnel indirectly benefit as they may receive quicker access to replenished stockpiles, potentially affecting their wellbeing.
- The broader taxpayer base might be concerned with how efficiently funds are used, given that non-competitive acquisition can sometimes lead to higher costs.
- The policy doesn’t broadly affect those outside the immediate defense industrial base, limiting its direct impact on the general population's wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor Engineer (Huntsville, Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might create more job security for us, with possible increases in workload without the need to compete for every contract.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Logistician for Defense Company (San Diego, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more steady work for us, but I'm concerned about the potential inefficiencies in spending.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Non-competitive acquisition can lead to wasteful spending, but it might be necessary for quick response times. I worry about the fiscal implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Military Supply Chain Coordinator (Arlington, Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is beneficial as it could expedite procurement processes which are currently cumbersome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Senior Executive at a Defense Firm (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could stabilize project pipelines but might lead to complacency in innovation due to non-competitive processes.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Taxpayer and Military Spouse (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support policies that keep my spouse safe, I’m wary about government spending inefficiencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Defense Procurement Officer (Reston, Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could ease some of the bureaucratic burdens and expedite acquisitions.
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 |
Small Business Owner in Defense Logistics (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Non-competitive procedures might marginalize smaller players like us, limiting opportunities to compete.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Graduate Student in Public Policy (Austin, Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My primary concern is the potential for reduced transparency and oversight in non-competitive procurement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Retired, Former Defense Industry Executive (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though retired, I still follow these policies and believe they can improve readiness if implemented properly.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $1800000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 3: $1600000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- Non-competitive acquisition procedures may lead to higher unit costs due to lack of price competition.
- The frequency and scale of defense drawdowns and replenishments will significantly affect overall costs.
- The policy could strengthen the domestic defense industry by providing consistent demand but may also reduce pressure for cost efficiencies.