Expedited Delivery Act Quadruples Non-Competitive Contract Limits: $10M Bids Now Bypass Oversight

The newly proposed Expedited Delivery Act is a major overhaul of how the government buys things, specifically when they want to skip the usual competitive bidding process. Right out of the gate, Section 2 takes the rules governing non-competitive contracts (Title 10, Section 3204) and flips them. The bill’s main purpose is to make it much easier and faster for agencies to award huge contracts without the scrutiny of full competition, claiming it’s for speed and special features.

The 'Special Features' Fast Lane

Under current law, there are specific, limited reasons why an agency can avoid competition—like emergencies or when only one source exists. This bill adds a new, potentially wide-open door. Agencies can now skip competition if market research shows the property or service offers "special features," can be "delivered faster," or provides "ongoing improvements." Think about that for a second. What doesn't offer "ongoing improvements" in the tech world? This new language is subjective and gives agencies a lot of wiggle room to justify sole-source contracts, potentially benefiting contractors who can claim their product is just a little bit better or faster than the rest, even if it costs taxpayers significantly more.

Inflation for Contract Limits: $10 Million Now Feels Like $100 Million

If you're busy, this is the part you need to pay attention to. The bill drastically raises the dollar amounts for these non-competitive buys. The primary threshold for when these contracts need serious justification and oversight is being raised from $10 million to $100 million. Furthermore, the lower limit that triggers certain procedures jumps from $500,000 to $10 million, and a higher limit goes from $75 million to $500 million. This means that contracts worth up to $100 million—which is enough to build a new factory or outfit an entire military base—can now be awarded without the full, public, competitive process that ensures the best price and value. For taxpayers, this is a major concern because less competition usually means higher prices and less incentive for contractors to deliver efficiently.

Who Benefits and Who Pays?

This legislation is a clear win for large contractors who already have established relationships with government agencies. They can now secure much larger, more lucrative contracts without having to beat out competitors on price, simply by arguing their product has a "special feature." For small businesses and innovative start-ups that rely on a fair, competitive process to break into the market, this bill makes their uphill climb even steeper. The bill also changes the language around justifying these non-competitive awards: agencies no longer have to "certify" the accuracy of their decision; they just need to ensure the written justification "accurately and completely supports" it. This subtle shift might reduce the level of formal accountability and oversight for these multi-million dollar deals.

The Real-World Cost of Speed

While the stated goal might be faster delivery, the practical impact is a significant reduction in oversight for hundreds of millions of dollars in spending. Imagine your company is bidding on a major infrastructure project. If this bill passes, a competitor could skip the entire bidding process simply by promising a slightly faster delivery date or claiming their software has "ongoing improvements," securing a $90 million contract that your firm, which might have offered a better value, never even got a fair shot at. This shift concentrates contract power, reduces cost control, and ultimately means the public pays more for less-scrutinized government purchases.