PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 15, 2013
Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2013 - (Sec. 2) States that it is the policy of the U.S. government that no government contracts or grants should be awarded to individuals or business entities with seriously delinquent federal tax debts.
(Sec. 3) Requires the head of any executive agency that issues an invitation for bids or a request for proposals for a contract in an amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (i.e., $150,000) to require each person submitting a bid or proposal to: (1) certify that such person does not have a seriously delinquent tax debt, and (2) authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose information limited to describing whether such person has a seriously delinquent tax debt.
Requires the head of any executive agency: (1) in evaluating any offer received in response to an agency solicitation for bids or proposals for a contract, to consider a certification that the offeror has a seriously delinquent tax debt to be definitive proof that the offeror is not a responsible source to do business with the federal government; and (2) to initiate a suspension or debarment proceeding against an offeror or a grant applicant after receiving an offer for a contract or grant application that contains a certification that such person has a seriously delinquent tax debt, or after receiving information from the Secretary that a submitted certification is false. Allows a waiver of such debarment requirement if an agency head certifies in writing urgent and compelling circumstances significantly affecting the interests of the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Requires the head of any executive agency that offers a grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold amount to require each grant applicant to: (1) certify that the applicant does not have a seriously delinquent tax debt, and (2) authorize the Secretary to disclose information limited to describing whether such a applicant has a seriously delinquent tax debt. Requires the agency head, in evaluating a grant application, to consider a certification that the grant applicant has a seriously delinquent tax debt to be definitive proof that the applicant is high-risk, requiring enhanced oversight.
Requires the revision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation to incorporate requirements set forth in this Act relating to responsibility determinations and debarment for offerors or grant applicants.
(Sec. 5) Defines "seriously delinquent tax debt" as an outstanding federal tax debt for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records. Exempts from such definition: (1) tax debts that are being paid in a timely manner under an approved installment agreement, and (2) debts for which a collection due process hearing has been requested or is pending.
(Sec. 6) Makes this Act applicable to contracts and grants awarded on or after 270 days after its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 407 - 0 (Roll No. 104). (text: CR H2001-2002)
House roll call 104 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 407 - 0 (Roll No. 104).(text: CR H2001-2002)
House roll call 104 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2011-2012)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 882.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2001-2004)
Mr. Issa moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 21.
Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 113-35.
Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 113-35.
Ordered to be Reported 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.882 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.882 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.882 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.882 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.