PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 24, 2014
Modifies design-build selection procedures for civilian and defense contracts for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work to require the contracting officer to provide written documentation of how more than five finalists in a solicitation for a contract is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase selection process (a procurement process in which the first phase consists of prequalification or shortlisting and the second phase consists of preparation and submission of complete design-build proposals from the prequalified offerors).
Requires the use of two-phase selection procedures for civilian or defense contracts when a contracting officer determines that the contract has a value of $750,000 or greater, adjusted for inflation. Requires: (1) agencies to report on contracts for which more than five finalists were selected for phase-two requests or for which the contract was awarded without using two-phase selection procedures, and (2) the Comptroller General (GAO) to report on the compliance of executive agencies with design-build contract procedures.
People & committees
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 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 S.2652 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 S.2652 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 S.2652 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 S.2652 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.