Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 3071, the Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017. This legislation seeks to modernize our government's outdated acquisition strategies, while simultaneously acting as good stewards of valuable taxpayer dollars.

My bill would simply require Federal agencies to consider renting as a cost-effective alternative in equipment acquisition, giving the government options that the private sector has undertaken and has seen success and cost savings with.

As previously reported by the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, the Federal Government spends more than $200 billion, on average, either purchasing or leasing equipment. Of those acquisition decisions, purchasing of equipment accounts for more than 99 percent of that share.

Federal agencies are instructed to consider the cost-effectiveness of these strategies as they move through the process, but even that has been found to be lacking. The GAO has found that, in many instances, Federal agencies don't even bother to undertake these analyses. That means that the taxpayers are the ones who lose out as Federal agencies sidestep these responsibilities and undertake what is, many times, the easiest but most expensive route--purchasing.

This is an issue the committee and this body have been looking at for years. In 2012, the GAO issued a report finding that contracting officials from the Air Force and Department of the Interior did not perform the lease-versus-purchase analysis for many of the contracts awarded. In July of 2013, GSA issued an RFI seeking to determine if there is a distinction between leasing and renting of equipment. The overwhelming response to the RFI indicated that amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the FAR, to include renting would be pertinent. However, the GSI did not act on that recommendation.

These actions have resulted in this legislation and the good-faith effort to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that the Federal requirements for Federal acquisition are followed.

Under subpart 7.4 of the FAR, agencies are directed to conduct a case-by-case evaluation of the cost between leasing and purchasing. As I mentioned earlier, many of those analyses aren't conducted.

Amending this part of FAR will open up new avenues and will allow them to pursue successes and cost savings being used in the private sector. For instance, the Texas Department of Transportation reported savings of $10.8 million within the fleet operations division. These savings are realized when the additional costs of ownership are factored, including maintenance, transportation, and other areas.

In addition to this example, the Mississippi Department of Transportation commissioned a study finding that they could find significant cost savings per unit if they utilized renting equipment as an option. Rental agreements are often thought of as short-term transactions with no fixed duration. This gives the renter--in this case, the Federal agencies--more say in how the equipment is used and the duration of the need for that equipment. For instance, specialized equipment that is only needed several times a year or is needed in varying locations can be sourced via renting to reduce overhead costs.

As this body continues to pursue meaningful legislation to reduce the burden on our constituents and streamline the government, this is a great step forward. My bipartisan legislation will reduce waste in the Federal Government while giving them the opportunity to pursue new and innovative ways to source equipment.

Too often, we see areas of mismanagement within the Federal Government that can and should be addressed, and this is a chance to help correct the ship one step at a time.

This bipartisan legislation passed the Oversight and Government Reform Committee with overwhelming support, and I thank my colleagues on the committee and on this bill for their support and persistence in addressing shortfalls in the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in support of this legislation and help us ensure future acquisition decisions are done with the taxpayers in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3071) to require executive agencies to consider equipment rental in any cost-effectiveness analysis for equipment acquisition, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3071, introduced by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Carter), and which I have cosponsored.

The Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017 would require the government to consider renting equipment over buying or leasing that equipment. The Government Accountability Office reported that agencies annually spend an average of more than $200 billion on purchasing or leasing equipment, with purchasing accounting for almost all of that spending.

The Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017 provides an opportunity to save money when obtaining equipment. The current rules encourage agencies to consider the most cost-effective way to obtain equipment, but only between purchasing or leasing. Renting is not an option.

H.R. 3071 requires agencies to consider renting equipment as a cost- saving measure over purchasing or leasing. The bill also directs that the Federal Acquisition Regulation be revised to implement this policy. Renting equipment can provide a more cost-effective and flexible alternative to buying or leasing.

When purchasing equipment, the purchaser makes a long-term investment and assumes the total cost of ownership for that equipment. However, some short-term needs can be met without assuming the cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment. Leasing or renting are options in such cases. Leasing should be considered, but, depending on an agency's needs, leasing may not be the best low-cost option. Typically, leases involve defined leasing periods and are specific to a single piece of equipment.

In addition, leasing may require a large upfront outlay of capital, and, under a lease, the government is generally responsible for the cost of maintenance, insurance, and storage of the equipment. Alternatively, rental for a temporary period with no fixed duration may fit the need and provide a more flexible option.

Renting equipment may be cost-effective because rental agreements typically cover costs such as storage, maintenance, insurance, transport, and licensing.

Other State and local governments have used the equipment rental option with great success, but the Federal Government has not widely adopted this low-cost option. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation reported saving $10.8 million due to a rental program. They reported renting more than 1,200 pieces of equipment at a cost of $18.9 million and purchasing 931 assets costing more than $40 million.

The Mississippi Department of Transportation commissioned a study on their equipment management processes and systems, and that study found that renting equipment, such as bulldozers and motor graders, to supplement their fleet was the most cost-effective option. In fact, that study found that Mississippi could realize over $13,000 in annual cost savings and $180,000 in lifecycle cost savings per bulldozer unit.

H.R. 3071 presents an opportunity to realize cost savings in obtaining equipment by directing agencies to consider the rental option.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Buddy Carter for his leadership on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 3071, the Federal Acquisition Savings Act, as amended, would require Federal contracting officers to consider short-term rentals in addition to long-term leasing or purchasing when acquiring equipment agencies need. I would like to thank Chairman Gowdy and Representative Carter for working with the minority in a bipartisan manner to address concerns that were raised about the bill as introduced.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation is currently unclear about whether short-term rentals are permitted. Rental equipment, as opposed to purchasing or leasing, can be a cost-effective option for Federal agencies in certain circumstances.

This bill would provide additional flexibility by allowing such rentals. It would also improve efficiency by requiring the cost- effectiveness of renting to be considered by Federal contracting officers. I support giving contracting officers additional tools to make the most cost-effective decisions.

The bill, as amended, also would require GAO to produce a report card on the use of renting or leasing by Federal agencies. The requirements for that report were very burdensome for GAO in the bill as introduced. I know we all value GAO's work and want to make the best use of its resources. I am glad that those reporting requirements have been streamlined.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on November 13, 2017, and November 14, 2017, I was absent from the House and missed Roll Call Votes 623 through 628. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

on Roll Call Vote 623, on passage of H. Res. 599, I would have voted No;

on Roll Call Vote 624, on passage of H.R. 3071, I would have voted Yes;

on Roll Call Vote 625, on approval of the journal, I would have voted No;

on Roll Call Vote 626, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted No;

on Roll Call Vote 627, on approval of H. Res. 616, I would have voted No; and

on Roll Call Vote 628, on approving the journal, I would have voted No.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 13, 2017, I was unavoidably detained. As a result, I was absent for Roll Call votes 623 through 625.

Had I been present for Roll Call vote 623, on agreeing to H. Res. 599, I would have voted yes; on Roll Call vote 624, on suspension of the rules and passage of H.R. 3071, I would have voted yes; and on Roll Call vote 625, on approving the journal, I would have voted yes.