HR 1118 Value Over Cost Act of 2026 Enables Best‑Value Procurement for GSA Schedules
Data as of August 15, 2026 · Refresh this data →
Sponsored by Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19] · 1 cosponsor
Plain-English Summary
Value Over Cost Act of 2025 This bill specifies that contracts and orders under the multiple award schedule program of the General Services Administration (GSA) may be evaluated on best value , rather than lowest overall cost, if the GSA determines that to be in the best interests of the federal government. ( Best value allows consideration of non-cost factors when evaluating contract proposals to determine the offer that provides the greatest overall benefit. The GSA's multiple award schedules provide federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commercial supplies and commercial services at prices associated with volume buying.)
Current Status
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
What Problem This Addresses
The GSA’s multiple‑award schedule program currently emphasizes the lowest overall cost when selecting contracts, limiting agencies’ ability to weigh qualitative factors. This narrow focus can constrain procurement flexibility and may overlook proposals that deliver greater overall benefit. Proponents argue that a best‑value approach would incorporate non‑cost considerations such as performance history, technical merit, and lifecycle savings. The bill seeks to give the GSA statutory discretion to apply best‑value when it deems it in the government’s best interests. By codifying this discretion, the legislation aims to close the gap between cost‑only evaluations and a more holistic assessment of contract proposals. The change is intended to preserve the simplified GSA schedule process while enhancing its effectiveness for agencies.
Outlook
The bill cleared the House with a decisive 421‑1 vote under suspension of the rules, indicating strong bipartisan support in that chamber. However, it has only one cosponsor and has just been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where it faces an uncertain timeline. Given the current Senate composition and typical committee bottlenecks, passage is not guaranteed and may require additional lobbying. If the committee schedules a hearing and reports the measure favorably, it could proceed to the Senate floor, but the lack of broader sponsorship suggests limited momentum. Analysts therefore view its Senate prospects as moderate at best, pending further legislative action.
Arguments From Supporters
Supporters contend that best‑value procurement allows agencies to select proposals that deliver the greatest overall benefit, not merely the lowest price. They argue that non‑cost factors such as technical capability, past performance, and long‑term savings can improve mission outcomes. The sponsor cites the GSA’s existing multiple‑award schedules as a vehicle already designed for volume buying, which could be leveraged more effectively under best‑value criteria. Proponents also claim that the flexibility aligns with the federal government’s duty to obtain value for taxpayers while maintaining a streamlined acquisition process.
Arguments From Opponents
The record does not identify formal opposition, but realistic concerns include the risk that moving away from lowest‑cost mandates could reduce price transparency and invite perceived favoritism. Critics may argue that best‑value discretion could be applied inconsistently across agencies, undermining fairness. Some stakeholders might worry about increased administrative burden to evaluate non‑cost factors, potentially slowing procurement cycles. Without explicit objections in the legislative history, these concerns remain speculative.
Where Both Sides Agree
Both supporters and potential critics agree that efficient procurement and accountability are essential to federal operations. They also concur that the GSA’s multiple‑award schedules provide a valuable framework for acquiring commercial supplies and services. Finally, there is common recognition that any change should preserve the simplicity and speed of the existing schedule process.
Core Disagreement
The core disagreement centers on whether best‑value evaluation will lead to higher overall costs compared with a strict lowest‑cost approach. Supporters emphasize quality and total‑life‑cycle savings, while opponents fear reduced price competition and potential for inconsistent application of non‑cost criteria.
Constitutional Basis Cited
The sponsor cites Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as the basis for congressional authority to enact procurement legislation. That clause grants Congress power to make rules for the regulation of the land and naval forces, which courts have interpreted to include procurement authority. No substantive constitutional challenges have been raised in the record, and the cited authority appears uncontroversial. Consequently, the bill faces no apparent constitutional obstacles.
Economic Considerations
No official cost estimate accompanies the bill, so projected fiscal effects are uncertain. Analysts suggest that best‑value procurement could generate savings by selecting higher‑quality solutions that lower maintenance and replacement costs over time. Conversely, allowing higher‑priced offers when justified by non‑cost factors could increase upfront expenditures. The shift may also raise agency staffing costs to conduct more detailed evaluations. Overall, the net economic impact will depend on how agencies apply the best‑value discretion in practice.
Sections beyond the plain-English summary are AI-synthesized analysis based on the sourced legislative record from Congress.gov, read, edited where needed, and approved by a human editor before publication. Full methodology: Editorial & Methodology.
← All Records