American Procurement Improvement Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill modernizes and reinforces the AbilityOne Program, aiming to increase meaningful employment for individuals with disabilities by updating its statutory framework, improving procurement processes, and enhancing employee protections and development.
What it actually does
This bill significantly updates and strengthens the AbilityOne Program, which facilitates federal procurement from qualified nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or have significant disabilities. It renames the oversight body, modernizes key definitions, revises procedures for managing the procurement list, and introduces new requirements for employee professional development and fair wages, aiming to enhance employment opportunities and program efficiency.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for updating a critical program whose statutory framework has not changed in over 50 years. They contend it will address employment barriers for people with disabilities, ensure fair wages and professional development, and strengthen the program's role as a domestic manufacturing base, providing a significant return on investment to taxpayers by fostering financial independence.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might argue that prioritizing the program's social mission over the lowest possible price could lead to increased procurement costs for federal agencies and taxpayers. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden of new regulations on both the oversight Commission and participating nonprofit agencies, potentially hindering efficiency or competition.
The bill is moderately complex due to its statutory amendments and new definitions, but an informed reader can understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)(1) and 3(e)
Modernization of Terminology and Agency Name
This provision renames the 'Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled' to the 'Commission for the Employment of Individuals Who are Blind or Have Significant Disabilities.' It also updates several key definitions, including 'blind individual,' 'direct labor' (to include supervisory, technical, and administrative roles), and introduces 'individual with a significant disability,' 'participating employee,' and 'employee professional development,' aligning the program with modern disability policy language.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these changes modernize the program's identity and terminology, making it more inclusive and reflective of current best practices in disability employment and policy, thereby enhancing its relevance and effectiveness.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against these terminology updates, as they are generally viewed as aligning with modern inclusive language and program goals.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is ensuring that updated terminology translates into substantive improvements in program outcomes, rather than being merely cosmetic changes.
Section 3(a)(2)(A)-(D)
Revised Procurement List Management Procedures
This section establishes new, more transparent procedures for adding and removing products and services from the federal procurement list. It requires public notice for all changes and mandates specific considerations before removing a product or service, such as the impact on the Commission's employment mission and the economic impact on participating employees. It also allows for time-limited additions to the list for new or emerging lines of business.
Section 3(a)(2)(A)-(D)
Criteria and Procedures for Qualified Nonprofit Agencies
This provision establishes clear criteria for an entity to be considered a 'qualified nonprofit agency,' including employing participating employees for at least 51% of direct labor hours, providing employee professional development, and paying fair wages consistent with non-disabled peers. It mandates that the Commission issue regulations for authorizing and revoking agency status, considering factors like technical capability, past performance, and the provision of professional development.
Section 3(a)(2)(E) and 3(a)(2)(B)
Price Determination and Priority for Blind Individuals
This provision directs the Commission, when determining prices for products and services on the procurement list, to explicitly consider its mission to maximize employment opportunities for blind individuals and individuals with significant disabilities, including through employee professional development. It states that the Commission 'may not prioritize purchasing such product or service at the lowest price possible over carrying out such mission.' It also reaffirms the existing priority for products from qualified nonprofit agencies for blind individuals.
Section 3(d)
Pilot for Governmentwide Contract Vehicle
This provision authorizes the Administrator of General Services (GSA), in consultation with the Commission, to establish a governmentwide contract vehicle for a single contract cycle. This vehicle would be used to procure services from two or more qualified nonprofit agencies performing the same service. Orders awarded under this vehicle are capped at $50,000,000 total contract value and may be awarded competitively.
Expands the definition of 'direct labor' to include all work required for the provision of products or services, specifically mentioning supervisory, technical, or administrative roles performed by participating employees.
Section 3(a)(1)(B)
Why it matters:While definitions are typically placed at the beginning of a bill for clarity, this particular redefinition has significant operational implications that might not be immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue this update more accurately reflects the diverse and valuable contributions of individuals with disabilities in various roles, ensuring that a broader range of their work counts towards the program's employment thresholds and encourages career progression.
Case against: Critics might suggest that broadening the definition could dilute the original intent of 'direct labor' as primarily production-oriented, potentially allowing agencies to meet the 51% threshold with fewer employees in direct production roles.
Estimated impact: Likely increases the number of employees whose work counts towards the direct labor requirement, potentially making it easier for qualified nonprofit agencies to meet and maintain their status.
Clarifies that a participating employee of a qualified nonprofit agency shall be considered an employee of that agency for the purposes of all Federal, State, and local labor or employment laws, regardless of whether they are also clients of rehabilitative services.
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:It addresses a specific legal clarification that might be considered technical, but it has significant implications for the rights and protections of participating employees.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures full legal protections and rights for participating employees, preventing any ambiguity that could lead to their being treated differently under labor laws simply because they also receive rehabilitative services.
Case against: Some qualified nonprofit agencies might express concern about potential increased regulatory scrutiny or legal liabilities if they previously operated under a different interpretation of employee status for individuals receiving rehabilitative services.
Estimated impact: Strengthens the legal and labor protections for thousands of individuals employed through the AbilityOne Program.
Amends Section 2679 of Title 10, United States Code, to explicitly state that intergovernmental support agreements (IGSAs) authorized by that section shall not be used to circumvent the requirements of Chapter 85 of Title 41 (the AbilityOne Program).
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:It addresses a specific potential loophole or circumvention strategy that might not be immediately obvious to a general reader focused on the primary amendments to Title 41.
Case for: Proponents would argue this closes a potential loophole that could undermine the AbilityOne Program's mission by ensuring federal agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, cannot use IGSAs to bypass their obligations to procure from qualified nonprofit agencies.
Case against: Some federal agencies, especially those utilizing IGSAs for cost-effective services, might argue this provision could limit their flexibility in certain procurement decisions, even if they had no intention of circumventing AbilityOne.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential erosion of procurement opportunities for AbilityOne agencies, thereby protecting jobs for individuals with disabilities.