Technical corrections only. The diff between v2 and v3 primarily involves clerical updates, such as the addition of the Clerk's name and removal of a redundant header block at the end of the document. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
FIT Procurement Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
The FIT Procurement Act seeks to make federal technology acquisition faster, more efficient, and more accessible to a broader range of businesses, especially small businesses, through workforce training and increased spending thresholds.
What it actually does
This bill aims to modernize and streamline federal technology procurement processes by enhancing the acquisition workforce's skills, increasing various acquisition thresholds, and promoting innovative procurement methods. It seeks to reduce bureaucratic barriers, particularly for small businesses, and improve the government's ability to acquire cutting-edge information and communications technology.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal technology procurement, enabling agencies to adopt modern solutions more quickly and cost-effectively. They contend that by reducing administrative burdens and fostering a more skilled acquisition workforce, the government can better leverage commercial innovation and provide more opportunities for small businesses to compete for federal contracts.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that increasing acquisition thresholds without corresponding enhancements in oversight could lead to increased risks of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. They might argue that reducing requirements for cost or pricing data on larger contracts could diminish transparency and potentially result in the government paying inflated prices for goods and services.
The bill is relatively concise and accessible for an informed reader, though understanding the implications of changes to existing statutes requires some familiarity with federal procurement regulations.
Section 3(a)
Experiential Learning Pilot Program
This provision authorizes the Director of the Federal Acquisition Institute to establish a pilot program within 18 months to incorporate experiential learning into federal acquisition certification programs. This aims to provide hands-on training and simulations to enhance the professional skills of the federal acquisition workforce, making their training more practical and relevant.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that practical, experiential learning is crucial for developing a highly competent acquisition workforce capable of navigating complex technology procurements. They believe this will lead to better contract outcomes and more efficient use of taxpayer funds.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as enhancing workforce skills is generally seen as beneficial. Potential concerns might revolve around the cost or administrative burden of implementing such a program.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between the investment required for developing and implementing such a program and the long-term benefits of a more skilled workforce. Ensuring the pilot program's effectiveness and scalability will be key.
Section 3(b)
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Acquisition Training Program
This section mandates the Federal Acquisition Institute to develop and implement a cross-functional training program for the acquisition workforce focused on ICT procurement. The program will cover market research, industry engagement, requirements development, contract administration, and understanding key technologies like cloud computing and AI. It also emphasizes streamlined and alternative procurement methods and includes objectives to mitigate waste, fraud, and abuse.
Section 4(a), (b), (c)
Increased Acquisition Thresholds
This section significantly raises several key acquisition thresholds. The Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) is increased from $250,000 to $500,000. The threshold for simplified procedures for certain commercial products and services is increased from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. The Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) is increased from $10,000 to $25,000. These changes aim to streamline procurement for smaller value contracts.
Section 4(d)
Advances for Commercial Technology Subscriptions and Tenancy
This provision amends 31 U.S.C. 3324(d) to allow federal agencies to make advance payments for information and communications technology (ICT) subscriptions, reservations, or tenancy, including cloud environments. This change recognizes the common commercial practice of requiring upfront payments for such services, which was previously a barrier for government agencies due to restrictions on advance payments.
Section 5(b)
Modifications to Submissions of Cost or Pricing Data
This section significantly increases the thresholds at which contractors are required to submit cost or pricing data to the government. For prime contracts entered into after June 30, 2026, the threshold is raised from $2,000,000 to $10,000,000. For subcontracts, the threshold is raised from $750,000 to $2,000,000. This aims to reduce the administrative burden on contractors and streamline negotiations for a wider range of contracts.
Section 6(a)
Guidance on Use of Past Performance
This section directs the Administrator to issue guidance within one year on how federal agencies should accept a wider range of past performance, including commercial, non-government, and government projects, especially for requirements without much precedent. It also requires guidance on validating non-government references and using alternative evaluation methods like demonstrations and testing, aiming to increase competition.
Section 6(b)
Enhancing Competition for Small Businesses
This provision mandates the Administrator to convene the Chief Acquisition Officers Council to identify and eliminate unnecessary procedural barriers disproportionately affecting small businesses in federal contracting. The Council must consult with the public, including APEX Accelerators, to identify obsolete or burdensome policies. Within two years, the Administrator must implement regulatory and non-legislative actions to remove these barriers, with a focus on streamlining documentation and qualification requirements.
This section harmonizes the Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition Workforce Act (Public Law 117-207) by correcting references to the 'Director' and 'Administrator'. It changes 'Director' (of OMB) to 'Administrator' (of GSA) and vice versa in several instances, clarifying which official is responsible for coordinating and implementing AI training for the acquisition workforce.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for making technical corrections to existing statutes. It's not intended to be evasive but rather to ensure consistency and clarity in legal text.
Case for: Supporters would argue that such technical corrections are essential for the proper functioning and clear implementation of existing laws. Without these clarifications, there could be confusion regarding agency responsibilities for AI training initiatives.
Case against: No specific case against this technical correction is typically made, as it serves to improve the clarity and operability of existing legislation.
Estimated impact: The impact is primarily administrative, clarifying roles and responsibilities without direct fiscal implications. It ensures the smooth execution of AI training programs for federal acquisition personnel.
This section explicitly states that no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out this Act. This means that all activities mandated or permitted by the Act must be funded using existing agency appropriations or through reallocations within current budgets.
Section 9
Why it matters:While common in authorizing legislation, placing this clause at the end can sometimes downplay its importance. It ensures the bill does not require new spending, which can help garner support from fiscal conservatives, but it also means agencies must absorb new responsibilities within existing resources.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision demonstrates fiscal responsibility, ensuring that the bill's objectives are met through efficient use of existing resources rather than increasing federal spending. It encourages agencies to prioritize and innovate within their current budgetary constraints.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating significant new training programs and policy reforms without additional funding could strain agency resources, potentially hindering effective implementation. They might contend that underfunding new initiatives could lead to suboptimal outcomes or divert funds from other critical agency functions.
Estimated impact: The estimated total impact is that the bill's implementation will not directly increase the federal deficit through new appropriations. However, it implies potential reallocation of existing funds within agencies, particularly for training and administrative updates.