ACCESS Act Forces Feds to Justify Education Requirements in Contracts: New Rules Aim for Skills-Based Hiring

The ACCESS Act—or the "Allowing Contractors to Choose Employees for Select Skills Act"—is shaking up how the federal government hires contractors. Instead of just demanding degrees, agencies now have to explain why a specific education level is absolutely necessary for a contract job.

Justify Your Credentials

This bill, signed into law, requires contracting officers to provide a written justification when they set minimum education requirements in a contract solicitation. They have to spell out why the agency's needs can't be met by someone with different qualifications and how the education requirement actually guarantees those needs are met (Section 2(a)(1)). Think of it like this: if a construction firm needs someone who can operate a specific type of crane, the government now has to explain why a certification in crane operation wouldn't be enough, and a four-year engineering degree is mandatory.

The Rollout and Real-World Impact

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 180 days to issue guidance to all federal agencies on how to implement these changes (Section 2(b)(1)). This includes instructions on writing those justifications and pushing for alternatives to strict degree requirements. The law fully kicks in 15 months after enactment, applying to all new contract solicitations from that point on (Section 2(c)). Within three years, the Comptroller General will report back to Congress on how well agencies are actually following the new rules (Section 2(e)).

This could be a game-changer for people who have solid skills and experience but might lack a formal degree. Imagine a self-taught coder with years of practical experience. Previously, they might have been automatically excluded from bidding on a government IT contract that listed a computer science degree as a must-have. Now, the agency has to justify that degree requirement, opening the door for skilled workers who took a different path.

The Fine Print and Potential Challenges

The law defines "education" pretty narrowly as degrees or coursework from accredited institutions (Section 2(f)). This means informal training or certifications could still be overlooked unless the OMB guidance specifically encourages agencies to consider them. There's also the risk, as highlighted in the initial analysis, that agencies might provide weak justifications, essentially rubber-stamping existing practices.

Overall, the ACCESS Act aims to make federal contracting more accessible and focused on actual skills, not just paper credentials. It repeals a section of a 2001 defense authorization act (Section 2(d)), signaling a shift away from potentially rigid requirements. Whether it truly levels the playing field will depend on how strictly the OMB and agencies enforce the new rules, and how creative they get in recognizing diverse forms of expertise.