PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 535.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 14, 2016
Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2016
(Sec. 3) This bill modifies the design-build selection procedures used by federal agencies soliciting offers to enter into civilian contracts for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work. Two-phase selection procedures (i.e., submission of qualifications and then the submission of price and technical proposals in response to a request for proposal) must be used when a contracting officer determines that a project has a value of $3 million or greater. But for contracts valued at less than $3 million, the contracting officer makes the same determination under current law as to whether the use of two-phase selection procedures is appropriate when the officer anticipates at least three offers for the contract.
Federal agencies must report, each year through FY2021, on each instance where the agency awarded a design-build contract in which: (1) more than five finalists were selected for phase-two requests for proposals, or (2) the contract or order was awarded without using two-phase selection procedures. The Government Accountability Office must report on agency compliance with design-build contract procedures.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council must amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to prohibit the use of reverse auctions as part of the two-phase selection procedure for awarding contracts for construction and design services. A "reverse auction," with respect to procurement by an agency, is: (1) a real-time auction conducted through an electronic medium among at least two offerors who compete by submitting bids for a supply or service contract with the ability to submit revised lower bids before the closing of the auction; and (2) the award of the contract, delivery order, task order, or purchase order to the offeror based on the price obtained through the auction process.
People & committees
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC-11] · R–NC
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. 535.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-691.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-691.
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: Dec 5, 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.5199 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.5199 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.5199 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.5199 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.