HR-787-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Sponsored by Nick LaLota (R-NY)
What it does
This bill would require federal agencies to write contracting notices aimed at small businesses in plain, clear, and well-organized language. It would also require agencies to include searchable keywords in those notices so small businesses can more easily find relevant opportunities on SAM.gov, the government's single contracting portal. The Small Business Administration (SBA) would be directed to issue implementing rules within 90 days of enactment, and no new funding would be authorized to carry out the requirements.
Who benefits
Small businesses — particularly those without dedicated procurement staff or legal teams — that currently struggle to parse complex federal contracting language. Minority-owned, women-owned, and veteran-owned small businesses, which are disproportionately represented among first-time or infrequent federal contractors. Small businesses in rural areas or underserved communities with fewer resources to navigate bureaucratic language. Taxpayers broadly, if clearer notices attract more competitive bids and lower contract costs.
Who is hurt
Federal agency contracting officers and staff who would bear the administrative burden of rewriting existing notice templates without additional funding. The SBA, which must develop and issue new rules within a tight 90-day window using existing resources. Larger, established contractors who currently benefit from a competitive advantage over smaller firms that struggle with complex notice language. Legal and consulting firms that help small businesses interpret federal contracting notices may see reduced demand for those services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that unnecessarily complex contracting language effectively shuts small businesses out of the federal marketplace, reducing competition and costing taxpayers money. They contend that the federal government already spends over $160 billion annually on small business contracts, and that clearer notices would expand the pool of qualified bidders, driving down costs and increasing innovation. They further argue the bill imposes a minimal burden — writing clearly — while delivering measurable benefits to the roughly 33 million small businesses in the United States.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's mandate to rewrite all covered notices without any new funding is an unfunded directive that could strain already-stretched agency contracting offices, potentially slowing the procurement process. They contend that terms like "clear, concise, and well-organized" and "to the maximum extent practicable" are vague enough that compliance will be uneven and difficult to enforce, meaning the bill may produce little real change while adding a layer of regulatory obligation. They also argue that the 90-day rulemaking deadline for the SBA is unrealistically short for producing meaningful, well-developed guidance.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority to set conditions on federal procurement and to direct executive agencies in administering federal contracting programs under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) and its spending and contracting powers. The SBA rulemaking delegation is narrow and specific, making a major questions doctrine challenge under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) unlikely.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (SBA) gains limited rulemaking authority to implement plain-language standards; Congress retains oversight through its appropriations power and the requirement that no new funds be spent, effectively constraining the scope of implementation.
Historical precedent
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 established a similar plain-language requirement for federal agencies' public-facing documents broadly, though it did not specifically target federal contracting notices or small business procurement portals.