Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The bill directs the GSA Inspector General to review the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting system and report findings within 180 days. The GSA Administrator must produce and annually update a plan to modernize the system, standardize reporting, reduce recipient burden, improve data accuracy and accessibility, and strengthen enforcement.
Transparency benefits versus privacy and proprietary data concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear administrative framework for reviewing, planning, and beginning implementation of modernization and expansion of the FFATA subaward reporting system by assigning responsible entities and timelines and requiring recurring reports to Congress.
The bill directs the GSA Inspector General to review the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting system and report findings within 180 days.
The GSA Administrator must produce and annually update a plan to modernize the system, standardize reporting, reduce recipient burden, improve data accuracy and accessibility, and strengthen enforcement.
Within specified timelines agencies must begin collecting two tiers of subaward data, adopt reporting rules, and start implementing the expansion plan within two years.
Technical, transparency-focused bill has bipartisan potential, but implementation costs, compliance burden, and interagency complexity lower odds absent funding or strong sponsorship.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear administrative framework for reviewing, planning, and beginning implementation of modernization and expansion of the FFATA subaward reporting system by assigning responsible entities and timelines and requiring recurring reports to Congress. It combines reporting requirements (IG review and annual Administrator reports) with operational mandates (agency data collection and issuance of reporting rules).
Transparency benefits versus privacy and proprietary data concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Transparency benefits versus privacy and proprietary data concerns
Likely supportive because the bill increases federal transparency and oversight of subcontracting, aiding accountability and anti-corruption efforts.
Would press for strong public access, enforcement, protections for nonprofit and small recipient privacy, and timely implementation.
Cautiously favorable: values increased transparency and standardized reporting but wants pragmatic cost-benefit analysis.
Will seek clear implementation plans, cost estimates, and efforts to minimize burdens on awardees.
Skeptical: accepts need to prevent misuse of funds but worried about expanded federal reporting, regulatory burden, and unfunded mandates on contractors and nonprofits.
Prefers limiting scope and ensuring fiscal restraint.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technical, transparency-focused bill has bipartisan potential, but implementation costs, compliance burden, and interagency complexity lower odds absent funding or strong sponsorship.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Transparency benefits versus privacy and proprietary data concerns
Technical, transparency-focused bill has bipartisan potential, but implementation costs, compliance burden, and interagency complexity lowe…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear administrative framework for reviewing, planning, and beginning implementation of modernization and expansion of the FFATA subaward reporting system by a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.