To make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill is a comprehensive technical cleanup effort to ensure consistency and accuracy in federal statutory language following the positive law codification of Title 41, with some substantive clarifications to contract dispute mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill makes extensive technical corrections across numerous titles of the United States Code to update references to Title 41, which was enacted into positive law by Public Law 111-350. It also introduces new provisions within Title 41 itself, including a new chapter on the finality of administrative decisions in certain contract disputes and explicit translation tables for references to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential for maintaining the clarity, consistency, and accuracy of the United States Code. By systematically updating obsolete references and codifying previously scattered provisions, it simplifies legal research, reduces ambiguity, and ensures that federal agencies and contractors operate under a unified and modern statutory framework. The clarifications to contract dispute processes enhance administrative efficiency and fairness.
Opponents contend
No organized opposition is typically raised against technical revision bills of this nature, as they are generally considered non-controversial and beneficial for legal clarity. Potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the accuracy of specific cross-references or unintended consequences of rephrasing, but these are usually addressed during drafting and committee review.
The bill is highly technical and dense due to its nature as a statutory revision, requiring careful reading to track all changes, but the core purpose is straightforward.
Section 2
Purpose of the Act
This section explicitly states the bill's overarching goal: to improve the enactment of Title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to generally improve the Code. This clarifies that the bill is primarily a technical revision and codification effort.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clearly stating the purpose helps guide interpretation and underscores the importance of maintaining an accurate and consistent federal statute book.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against a clear statement of purpose in technical revision bills.
Tradeoffs
There are no significant tradeoffs or tensions associated with this provision, as it merely articulates the bill's intent.
Sections 3-29, 31-40
Systematic Updates to US Code References
These sections constitute the bulk of the bill, making thousands of specific amendments across nearly all titles of the United States Code. Each amendment replaces an outdated reference to a provision of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, or other older statutes with the corresponding, updated reference to Title 41, United States Code, or Title 40, United States Code, which have been enacted into positive law.
Section 30(2)
New Chapter 73: Finality of Administrative Decisions in Contract Disputes
This provision inserts a new Chapter 73 into Title 41, United States Code, establishing rules for the finality of administrative decisions in disputes arising under 'covered contracts'—those not subject to the main Contract Disputes Act (Chapter 71). It specifies that a decision by an agency head, representative, or board is final and conclusive unless it is fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, grossly erroneous, or not supported by substantial evidence. It also prohibits contract provisions from limiting judicial review to only cases of alleged fraud or making decisions final on questions of law.
Section 30(4)
Translation Tables for Obsolete Procurement Laws
This provision adds new sections 171 and 172 to Chapter 1 of Title 41. These sections serve as explicit translation tables, mapping provisions formerly contained in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (OFPPA) to their corresponding, updated locations within Title 40 and Title 41, United States Code. This provides a clear guide for legal practitioners and agencies to navigate the re-codified statutes.
This provision repeals a previous repeal of sections 1 and 16 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-563, 41 U.S.C. 601 note) and revives those provisions as if the prior repeal had not occurred.
Section 30(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for correcting errors or unintended consequences of previous codification efforts, rather than an attempt to obscure the change.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this correction ensures the proper functioning and intended scope of the Contract Disputes Act, restoring provisions that were inadvertently removed or misclassified during prior codification.
Case against: No specific case against this technical correction is likely, as it rectifies a previous legislative oversight.
Estimated impact: Restores the original intent and scope of the Contract Disputes Act for certain provisions, affecting federal contractors and agencies involved in dispute resolution.
This amendment adds a new subparagraph (D) to Section 7105(e)(1) of Title 41, United States Code, specifically granting jurisdiction to either the Armed Services Board or the Civilian Board (as specified by the contracting officer) to hear appeals from decisions made by a contracting officer of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) relating to CIA contracts.
Section 30(32)(B) amending Section 7105 of Title 41
Why it matters:This is likely a technical clarification to ensure appropriate and consistent dispute resolution mechanisms for contracts involving sensitive national security agencies, rather than an attempt to hide the provision.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures a clear and established process for resolving contract disputes involving the CIA, which may have unique operational considerations, providing legal certainty for both the agency and its contractors.
Case against: No specific opposition is likely, as this clarifies an administrative process. However, some might generally question the extent of special provisions for intelligence agencies if they were to scrutinize the detail.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the judicial review pathway for a specific category of federal contracts, potentially streamlining dispute resolution for CIA contracts.