PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2009
Construction Quality Assurance Act of 2009 - Requires each solicitation by an executive agency for the procurement of construction in excess of $1 million to require each bidder to submit the name, business location, and nature of work of each subcontractor with whom such bidder will subcontract for work in excess of $100,000. Deems to be non-responsive, and prohibits consideration of, any bidder that fails to list such subcontractors.
Prohibits a contractor from substituting another subcontractor for a listed subcontractor, permitting any subcontract to be voluntarily assigned or transferred, or subcontracting work for which the contractor listed itself, without the contracting officer's consent. Sets forth: (1) examples of good cause and procedures required for substitution requests; and (2) penalties for violations of such prohibitions, including suspension or debarment from federal contracts for multiple violations. Requires revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Kanjorski, Paul E. [D-PA-11] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.3492 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.3492 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.3492 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.3492 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.