PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 500.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Dec 12, 2014
Design-Build Efficiency and Jobs Act of 2014 - Modifies the procedure for awarding civilian and defense agency design and construction contracts for federal buildings and facilities to require: (1) a contracting officer to provide a written justification to the head of a federal agency for requiring more than five finalists in the bidding process for such contracts and agency approval of such justification; and (2) the use of the two-phase selection process (i.e., the submission of qualifications and then the submission of price and technical proposals in response to a request for proposal) for contracts having a value of $1.5 million or greater, unless the agency head approves the contracting officer's justification that procedures other than two-phase selection procedures are in the best interest of the federal government.
Requires each civilian and defense agency to submit to the Comptroller General (GAO) and publish in the Federal Register, during a five-year period, annual reports on all cases in the preceding year in which: (1) more than five finalists were selected for phase-two requests for competitive proposals; or (2) two-phase selection procedures involving contracts with a value of $1.5 million or more were not used. Requires the Comptroller General to publish a report on agency compliance with the requirements of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 500.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 113-668.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 113-668.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2750 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2750 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2750 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2750 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.