Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney
L. Elaine Halchin
Specialist in American National Government
Coupled with increasing concerns about the environment, the magnitude of federal spending on contracts has prompted numerous questions from Members of Congress and the public about the role of environmental considerations in federal procurement. These include to what extent do agencies consider environmental factors when procuring goods or services? What legal authorities presently require or allow agencies to take environmental factors into account when acquiring goods or services? How are existing provisions authorizing agencies to consider environmental factors implemented? This report provides an overview, answering these and related questions.
The federal procurement system is designed “to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.” Environmental objectives can generally be among the public policy objectives that factor into federal procurement. However, they are not necessarily the most significant objectives overall or in any specific procurement. There are numerous other objectives (e.g., obtaining high quality goods and services at low prices, promoting American manufacturing, protecting small businesses, fostering affirmative action) that can also factor into procurement decisions. The relationship and prioritization among these different objectives is presently unclear.
Various legal authorities currently require or allow contracting officers to take environmental considerations into account when procuring goods or, less commonly, services. These authorities can be broadly divided into three categories: (1) “attribute-focused” authorities, generally requiring agencies to avoid or acquire products based on their environmental attributes (e.g., ozone-depleting substances, recovered content); (2) general contracting authorities, allowing agencies to purchase goods with certain environmental attributes when they have bona fide requirements for such goods; and (3) responsibility-related authorities, which require agencies to avoid certain dealings with contractors that have been debarred for violations of the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts. “Attribute-focused” authorities arguably do not deprive vendors of ineligible products of due process or equal protection in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, certain preferences for products with desired environmental attributes, or vendors of such products, could violate procurement integrity regulations and the Competition in Contracting Act if not based in statute. Use of evaluation factors based on environmental considerations is possible in negotiated procurements, but subject to certain conditions, and the reportedly lower lifecycle costs of “green” products do not, per se, mean their acquisition is justified on a “best value” basis.
Agencies generally implement existing authorities by relying on third-party designations of products with specific environmental attributes and by using standard purchasing methods, including bilateral contracts, the Federal Supply Schedules, and government-wide commercial purchase cards.
In the 111th Congress, there were bills and hearings that highlighted and sought to address the environmental effects of federal procurement practices. Given the proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) addressing “sustainable acquisition” and recent efforts by the General Services Administration (GSA) to make the federal supply chain “greener,” interest in these topics may continue in the 112th Congress. Both the proposed amendments to the FAR and the GSA initiatives respond to President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order on “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.”
Date of Report: January 3, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41297
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Legislative Attorney
L. Elaine Halchin
Specialist in American National Government
Coupled with increasing concerns about the environment, the magnitude of federal spending on contracts has prompted numerous questions from Members of Congress and the public about the role of environmental considerations in federal procurement. These include to what extent do agencies consider environmental factors when procuring goods or services? What legal authorities presently require or allow agencies to take environmental factors into account when acquiring goods or services? How are existing provisions authorizing agencies to consider environmental factors implemented? This report provides an overview, answering these and related questions.
The federal procurement system is designed “to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.” Environmental objectives can generally be among the public policy objectives that factor into federal procurement. However, they are not necessarily the most significant objectives overall or in any specific procurement. There are numerous other objectives (e.g., obtaining high quality goods and services at low prices, promoting American manufacturing, protecting small businesses, fostering affirmative action) that can also factor into procurement decisions. The relationship and prioritization among these different objectives is presently unclear.
Various legal authorities currently require or allow contracting officers to take environmental considerations into account when procuring goods or, less commonly, services. These authorities can be broadly divided into three categories: (1) “attribute-focused” authorities, generally requiring agencies to avoid or acquire products based on their environmental attributes (e.g., ozone-depleting substances, recovered content); (2) general contracting authorities, allowing agencies to purchase goods with certain environmental attributes when they have bona fide requirements for such goods; and (3) responsibility-related authorities, which require agencies to avoid certain dealings with contractors that have been debarred for violations of the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts. “Attribute-focused” authorities arguably do not deprive vendors of ineligible products of due process or equal protection in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, certain preferences for products with desired environmental attributes, or vendors of such products, could violate procurement integrity regulations and the Competition in Contracting Act if not based in statute. Use of evaluation factors based on environmental considerations is possible in negotiated procurements, but subject to certain conditions, and the reportedly lower lifecycle costs of “green” products do not, per se, mean their acquisition is justified on a “best value” basis.
Agencies generally implement existing authorities by relying on third-party designations of products with specific environmental attributes and by using standard purchasing methods, including bilateral contracts, the Federal Supply Schedules, and government-wide commercial purchase cards.
In the 111th Congress, there were bills and hearings that highlighted and sought to address the environmental effects of federal procurement practices. Given the proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) addressing “sustainable acquisition” and recent efforts by the General Services Administration (GSA) to make the federal supply chain “greener,” interest in these topics may continue in the 112th Congress. Both the proposed amendments to the FAR and the GSA initiatives respond to President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order on “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.”
Date of Report: January 3, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41297
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
