ARCA Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance efficiency, accountability, and expertise in the Department of Veterans Affairs' acquisition processes through significant structural reforms and independent oversight mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill significantly reorganizes the Department of Veterans Affairs' acquisition structure by establishing new leadership roles, centralizing acquisition functions, and mandating independent oversight for major programs. It creates an Assistant Secretary for Acquisition as the Chief Acquisition Officer, establishes a Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and requires independent verification and validation for large-scale projects. Additionally, it aims to improve the VA's acquisition workforce through expanded internship programs and professional certification requirements.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation will address long-standing issues of inefficiency, cost overruns, and delays in VA acquisition programs, ultimately improving service delivery to veterans by ensuring better management and accountability for large-scale projects. They contend that a more professionalized and centralized acquisition system will lead to better outcomes and more responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Opponents contend
No specific opposition is explicitly stated in the provided bill text or common public discourse regarding these types of reforms. However, potential critics might raise concerns about the administrative burden and initial costs associated with such a significant reorganization, or question whether structural changes alone are sufficient to resolve deep-seated acquisition challenges without addressing underlying cultural or workforce issues.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical nature and the introduction of new organizational structures, but its provisions are clearly laid out, allowing an informed reader to understand its implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 2(a), (b), (c)
Reorganization of VA Acquisition Leadership and Structure
This provision defines a 'major acquisition program' as one exceeding $1 billion in total life cycle cost or $200 million annually. It then amends existing law to increase the number of Assistant Secretaries and designates one as the Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Acquisition, who will also serve as the Department's Chief Acquisition Officer. This new Assistant Secretary will head a new Office of Acquisition, under which all major acquisition program offices must align and report.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that centralizing acquisition authority under a dedicated Assistant Secretary and Chief Acquisition Officer will streamline decision-making, improve accountability, and professionalize the VA's approach to major procurements, thereby reducing waste and improving outcomes for veterans.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the concept of centralizing acquisition authority in large organizations, as it is often seen as a best practice. However, some might express concerns about the potential for increased bureaucracy or slower decision-making if the new structure is not implemented efficiently.
Tradeoffs
The primary tradeoff is between the potential for increased efficiency and accountability through centralization versus the risk of creating new bureaucratic layers or alienating existing departmental units that previously managed their own acquisitions.
Sec. 2(d), (e), (f)
Establishment of Deputy Assistant Secretaries and Program Executive Officers
This provision creates three new Deputy Assistant Secretaries under the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition: one for Logistics, one for Procurement, and one for Acquisition, Program Management, and Performance. It also mandates the appointment of at least four Program Executive Officers (PEOs) for specific areas like Medical and Information Technology, each responsible for overseeing major acquisition programs within their domain. These PEOs must be certified in project management at a high level.
Sec. 3
Major Acquisition Program Managers and Decision Authority
This section requires Program Executive Officers to appoint certified managers for each major acquisition program within 30 days of its approval. These managers must be Level 3 certified in project management and are responsible for developing program baselines (cost, schedule, performance), ensuring compliance, and managing risks. Crucially, the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition is designated as the program decision authority, and program management offices are explicitly made independent of the VA's primary administrations (VBA, VHA, NCA), reporting directly to the Assistant Secretary.
Sec. 5
Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) for Major Acquisition Programs
This section mandates that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs enter into contracts with independent entities to perform verification and validation services for all major acquisition programs. These contracts must be competitively awarded, and eligible entities must demonstrate a strong track record in IV&V or equivalent services for major acquisition or defense systems. Crucially, the bill includes strict conflict of interest rules, prohibiting entities with conflicts from being awarded contracts and disallowing any mitigation plans for such conflicts.
Sec. 6
Establishment of Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE)
This section establishes a Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) within the Department of Veterans Affairs, who will report directly to the Secretary. The DCAPE is responsible for developing cost estimation policies, conducting independent cost estimates and analyses for major acquisition programs, evaluating program effectiveness, and submitting annual reports to Congress. The Chief Financial Officer is tasked with providing necessary support and resources to the DCAPE.
Sec. 7
Improvements to Hiring for Entry-Level Acquisition Positions
This provision directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prioritize the use of acquisition internship programs for hiring entry-level acquisition employees. It mandates that the annual number of participants in these programs be increased to between two and four times the number of participants in fiscal year 2025. This requirement will remain in effect until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the projected number of graduates is sufficient to meet the VA's human capital needs for acquisition, accounting for attrition and retirements.
Sec. 9
Standardized Requirements Development Process
This section requires the Secretary to establish a standardized requirements development process for major acquisition programs (those exceeding $200 million annually or $1 billion in lifecycle costs). This process must define mission-driven requirements, incorporate data-driven needs assessments, gather stakeholder input (including from veterans service organizations), and align with statutory mandates. It also mandates iterative validation of requirements through independent verification and validation. Importantly, the process must be implemented using existing staff within the Office of Acquisition and other relevant offices, unless a cost-benefit analysis justifies new positions.
Defines 'major acquisition program' as a program exceeding $1,000,000,000 (adjusted) for total life cycle cost or $200,000,000 (adjusted) annually.
Sec. 2(a), Section 8181
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define key terms upfront, but its placement means its significance for triggering numerous other provisions might be missed.
Case for: Clearly defining 'major acquisition program' is essential for establishing the scope of the bill's reforms, ensuring that the new oversight and management structures are applied consistently to the largest and most complex VA projects.
Case against: No specific case against the definition itself, but the thresholds could be debated. Some might argue they are too high, leaving significant programs without the same level of scrutiny, or too low, creating an undue burden.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines which VA programs will be subject to the new Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Program Executive Officers, independent verification and validation, and cost assessment, impacting potentially billions of dollars in federal spending.
Establishes strict conflict of interest rules for entities seeking contracts for Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) services, stating that eligibility will be revoked if a conflict of interest exists, and no mitigation plans will be accepted.
Sec. 5(b)(3)-(4)
Why it matters:While technically placed within eligibility, the absolute prohibition on conflict of interest mitigation plans is a significant policy choice that could have broad implications for the contractor landscape.
Case for: Proponents argue that absolute independence is paramount for IV&V services to be credible and effective. Allowing mitigation plans could compromise objectivity and undermine public trust in the oversight process, especially given past issues with federal contracts.
Case against: Critics might contend that such strict rules could severely limit the pool of qualified contractors, as many large firms have diverse portfolios that could create perceived conflicts. This limitation could lead to higher costs for the VA or a lack of specialized expertise if only a few smaller, less experienced firms qualify.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly shape the market for IV&V services for the VA, potentially impacting millions of dollars in contracts and influencing which firms can compete for this work.
Establishes the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) who shall report directly to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 6(a), Section 8184
Why it matters:While not intentionally buried, the direct reporting line to the Secretary, rather than through the new Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, is a subtle but critical detail that ensures the DCAPE's autonomy.
Case for: Proponents argue that for cost assessments and program evaluations to be truly independent and objective, the Director must report directly to the highest authority, insulating them from potential pressure from the acquisition chain of command they are evaluating.
Case against: Some might argue that reporting directly to the Secretary could create a disconnect with the day-to-day operations of the acquisition office, potentially leading to less practical or timely feedback, or creating an additional layer for the Secretary to manage directly.
Estimated impact: This reporting structure ensures that the Secretary receives unfiltered, independent analysis of major acquisition programs, potentially leading to more informed decision-making and greater accountability for billions of dollars in spending.
Requires the standardized requirements development process to be implemented using staff within the Office of Acquisition and other relevant offices, without creating new positions, unless a subsequent cost-benefit analysis justifies additional resources.
Sec. 9(a)(2)
Why it matters:This provision reflects a common legislative desire to implement reforms without expanding the federal workforce, but it places a significant constraint on the new process's implementation.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures efficiency and prevents unnecessary bureaucratic growth, forcing the VA to optimize existing resources and integrate the new process seamlessly into current operations.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating new, complex processes without allowing for new positions could strain existing staff, potentially leading to delays, burnout, or a less effective implementation if current personnel are already at capacity.
Estimated impact: This provision directly impacts the workload and resource allocation within the VA's Office of Acquisition and other relevant offices, potentially affecting the speed and quality of the new requirements development process for major acquisition programs.