A bill to increase competition in Defense contracting, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 17, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase competition in Defense contracting by broadening eligibility criteria and streamlining procurement processes for smaller and newer firms, while also prioritizing cost efficiency and quality.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Department of Defense (DoD) to issue guidance within one year on accepting a wider range of past performance, including commercial or non-government projects, for contract awards. It also mandates the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council to identify and recommend eliminating unnecessary procedural barriers for small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors, with the Secretary of Defense implementing non-legislative changes within two years. Additionally, it requires the Secretary of Defense to prioritize contracting policies that emphasize cost efficiency and quality.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will foster innovation and bring new technologies and agile companies into the defense industrial base by removing outdated barriers. They contend that by accepting a wider range of past performance and streamlining regulations, the DoD can tap into a broader pool of talent and technology, ultimately leading to better value for taxpayer money and enhanced national security capabilities. Prioritizing cost and quality ensures that contracts are awarded based on merit.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that broadening the definition of acceptable past performance could introduce undue risk if non-government projects are not rigorously vetted, potentially leading to contracts being awarded to less proven entities. Some may also argue that streamlining regulations, while beneficial for competition, could inadvertently weaken necessary oversight or security protocols if not implemented with extreme care, potentially compromising national security interests or increasing the risk of fraud.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 1(a)
Uses of Past Performance
This section requires the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance within one year on how the Department of Defense should accept past performance from a wider array of projects, including commercial or non-government work, when awarding contracts. It also mandates methods for validating these non-government references and encourages the use of alternative evaluation methods, such as demonstrations and testing, for requirements without much precedent. This aims to expand the pool of eligible contractors beyond those with extensive prior government experience.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for fostering innovation and bringing cutting-edge technologies into the defense sector. By allowing the DoD to consider commercial and non-government past performance, it enables smaller, agile companies and tech startups to compete, which might otherwise be excluded due to a lack of prior federal contracts. This ultimately strengthens the defense industrial base and provides better solutions for national security.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that expanding the acceptance of non-government past performance could introduce unnecessary risk into defense procurement. They argue that government contracts often have unique requirements, security protocols, and oversight standards that commercial projects do not, making direct comparisons difficult. Without extremely rigorous validation, this could lead to contracts being awarded to firms that are not adequately prepared for the specific demands of defense work, potentially compromising project success and national security.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between fostering innovation and competition by lowering entry barriers, and ensuring the reliability and security required for defense contracts. It seeks to balance the desire to tap into a broader talent pool with the need to mitigate risks associated with less-established government contractors.
Section 1(b)
Enhancing Competition in Defense Procurement
This section directs the Secretary of Defense to convene the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council within 90 days to identify and recommend ways to eliminate unnecessary procedural barriers that disproportionately affect small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors. The Council must seek public input, including from the APEX Accelerators program, to identify burdensome regulations. The Secretary is then required to implement non-legislative recommendations within two years and brief Congress on any legislative actions identified.
Section 1(c)
Consideration of Cost-Efficiency and Quality
This section directs the Secretary of Defense to actively promote and prioritize contracting policies that ensure cost efficiency and the quality of goods and services are primary factors in awarding procurement contracts. This serves as a guiding principle for all DoD procurement decisions.
This subsection defines 'nontraditional defense contractors' by reference to section 3014 of title 10, United States Code, and 'small business concern' by reference to section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
Section 1(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal frameworks. It's not intended to be evasive but requires a reader to consult other statutes for the full meaning.
Case for: Using existing statutory definitions ensures legal consistency and avoids creating conflicting or ambiguous terms. It leverages established legal frameworks that are already understood and applied by relevant agencies.
Case against: For a reader unfamiliar with the referenced statutes, the full scope of who qualifies as a 'nontraditional defense contractor' or 'small business concern' is not immediately clear from the bill text alone, requiring additional research to fully grasp the bill's intended beneficiaries.
Estimated impact: These definitions are foundational to the bill's intent, as they precisely delineate the target groups for increased competition. Their impact is therefore central to the bill's overall effect.