Nancy Mace (R-SC)
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed both chambers, not yet sent to the President
Both the House and the Senate have passed it, though not necessarily the same text.
If the two chambers passed identical wording, the final copy is being prepared for the President. If they did not, one chamber must accept the other's version or the two negotiate a single one — nothing goes to the President until the text is identical.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
No one's position on it was recorded: the House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together), and the Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote).
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025. It stops contract solicitations from setting minimum education requirements for proposed contractor personnel unless a specific written justification is provided. Contracting officers must explain why the executive agency's needs cannot be met without these education requirements and clarify how the requirement ensures those needs are met. The Office of Management and Budget is required to issue guidance for implementing this change within 180 days. The Comptroller General must also submit an evaluation of executive agency compliance to Congress within three years.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Removes an expensive educational barrier to high-quality employment in federal contracting.
- Scored +5
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
Veterans often have high-level skills from service that may not translate to traditional college degrees.
- Scored +4
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young professionals entering the workforce without degrees can access higher-paying federal contract roles.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2, adding Sec. 3313(a): Prohibits solicitations from setting a minimum education requirement for proposed contractor personnel unless a written justification explains why the requirement is necessary. This could benefit workers who have relevant skills or experience rather than formal degrees by opening up contract opportunities that might have previously required a specific degree.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2, adding Sec. 3313(a): Allows solicitations to still set minimum education requirements if the contracting officer includes a written justification explaining why the agency's needs cannot be met without it. This could be viewed as a burden or negative if agencies continue to rely on education requirements and paperwork justifications rather than fully opening opportunities to non-degree holders.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Removes an expensive educational barrier to high-quality employment in federal contracting. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans often have high-level skills from service that may not translate to traditional college degrees. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young professionals entering the workforce without degrees can access higher-paying federal contract roles. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Helps reduce disparities in employment by prioritizing skills over formal credentials. Would business owners be better off under this? — Allows business owners to hire and propose based on skill, increasing their talent pool. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Helps reduce disparities in employment by prioritizing skills over formal credentials. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Mid-career professionals with extensive experience but no degrees are no longer automatically disqualified. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Helps reduce disparities in employment by prioritizing skills over formal credentials. Would union members be better off under this? — Favors vocational and technical skills often associated with union trade certifications. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Foreign-trained professionals whose degrees may not be recognized in the US can be hired based on skill. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Broadens job opportunities for skilled workers. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Removes a potential barrier for those whose disability may have hindered traditional degree attainment. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Benefits those in rural areas where access to higher education may have been limited. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases general employment flexibility. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General increase in employment accessibility. Would men be better off under this? — General increase in employment accessibility. Would people in cities be better off under this? Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases general employment flexibility. Would women be better off under this? — General increase in employment accessibility.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — By removing education barriers, more individuals are eligible for federal contracting roles. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small businesses with skilled but non-degreed staff can more easily compete for federal contracts. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Expands the available labor pool for government contracts by prioritizing skills over degrees.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reducing rigid degree requirements can lower systemic barriers for marginalized groups who may have skill but lack formal degrees. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases employment opportunities for skilled individuals without expensive degrees.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires written justification for the use of education requirements in contract solicitations.
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
What changed from Reported to Senate: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 10/14/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 9/30/2026
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5295)
- 9/14/2026
- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul without amendment. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 571.
- 8/6/2026
- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 2/24/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2/23/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2247)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2247)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5235.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2247-2248)
- Mr. Timmons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 12/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/2/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.
- 9/9/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Marie PerezDemocrat · Washington
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois