On the recordApril 28, 2010
I'd like to thank my friends from Florida, Mr. Grayson and Mr. Hastings, for offering this amendment. It makes eminently good sense. It says this: if a procurement officer decides to buy the product that isn't the least expensive, a couple of rules apply. First of all, price has to be at least equal to the greatest factor that's being used. It can't be any less than equal. And if it is less than equal, the procurement officer has to explain why. Now this makes pretty good sense. I think most people would agree that it's not always true that the least expensive item is the best. But if you think a more expensive item is the best, then you ought to explain why. I think most of us would want that in the way we manage our household budgets, our businesses, our towns, our local school districts. Mr. Grayson, based upon his years of experience in this field, has written an amendment that carries that idea forward. I think it's very worthy. Again, I think it strikes the right balance between flexibility for the procurement officer to make a decision that he or she thinks is the right one, but justification to the public as to why we're not spending the least amount of money on something that we're buying. I think most of our constituents would want us to presume that we should get the best price available; and only if it can be demonstrated that the best price available is not the best value available, should we make a different decision.
