3 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Jul 21, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The later version (v3) updates the attestation signature to include the clerk's name and adds information about the bill's referral to the Senate, while removing some redundant text present in v2. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.

H.R. 1118119th CongressIntroduced Feb 7, 2025

Value Over Cost Act of 2026

Passed HouseGovernment Operations and PoliticsMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]
Committees: Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
Last action: Jul 22, 2026

Bottom line

This bill shifts federal procurement policy for multiple award schedules from a lowest-cost focus to a best-value approach, granting agencies more flexibility in contracting decisions.

What it actually does

This bill amends title 41, United States Code, specifically section 152(3)(B), to change the standard for federal procurement through the multiple award schedule program. It replaces the requirement to select the "lowest overall cost alternative" with a mandate to provide "best value," allowing federal agencies to consider factors beyond just price when acquiring goods and services.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue this change will enable federal agencies to acquire higher quality goods and services, foster innovation, and achieve better long-term outcomes by considering factors like performance, reliability, and technical merit alongside cost. They contend that a sole focus on the lowest cost can lead to inferior products or services that ultimately cost more in maintenance or replacement, undermining efficiency and effectiveness.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that shifting from "lowest overall cost" to "best value" could introduce subjectivity, increase opportunities for favoritism or corruption, and potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers without a clear, measurable improvement in value. They might contend that "best value" is harder to define and audit, making it more difficult to ensure accountability in federal spending and potentially increasing the risk of wasteful expenditures.

The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for immediate understanding of its literal change.

Section 2

Amending Federal Procurement Standard for Multiple Award Schedules

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section makes a singular, yet significant, change to federal procurement law. It amends title 41, United States Code, section 152(3)(B), which governs the multiple award schedule program. The amendment strikes the phrase "lowest overall cost alternative" and inserts "best value," thereby changing the primary criterion federal agencies must use when making purchasing decisions under this program. This allows agencies to consider a broader range of factors beyond just the initial price, such as quality, performance, and technical merit, when evaluating bids.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupFederal Agencies (e.g., GSA, DoD, civilian agencies)ImpactIncreased flexibility in procurement decisions and the ability to prioritize quality and long-term value.MechanismDirect amendment to 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(B) changes the evaluation standard for multiple award schedule contracts.ScaleApplies to all procurements under the multiple award schedule program, impacting a wide range of federal purchasing activities.

GroupFederal ContractorsImpactShift in competitive landscape, with increased emphasis on demonstrating value proposition over solely lowest price.MechanismChanges evaluation criteria for bids, potentially favoring contractors who offer higher quality, innovative, or more reliable solutions.ScaleAffects all contractors seeking federal contracts through the multiple award schedule program, potentially altering market dynamics.

GroupTaxpayersImpactPotential for higher quality government services and products, or potentially higher initial costs depending on implementation and long-term outcomes.MechanismChanges how federal funds are allocated for goods and services, aiming for better overall value for money.ScaleBroad, indirect impact on federal spending efficiency and the quality of government services delivered to the public.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this change will allow agencies to procure more effective and innovative solutions, leading to better long-term outcomes and potentially reducing lifecycle costs, even if the initial price is not the absolute lowest. They contend it aligns federal procurement with best practices in the private sector, where value often outweighs mere cost.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that this change opens the door to less transparent and potentially more expensive procurement decisions, as "best value" can be subjective and harder to quantify than "lowest cost." They may fear it could lead to increased spending or reduced accountability without clear metrics for measuring "value," potentially benefiting favored contractors.

Tradeoffs

The tension lies between the desire for greater flexibility and potentially higher quality acquisitions versus the risk of increased subjectivity, higher initial costs, and potential for less transparent decision-making in federal procurement. It balances the goal of efficiency with the goal of effectiveness.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.