Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act

Bill Number: H.R. 2417
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Government Operations and Politics
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-03-27: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Last Updated: 2026-02-28T00:46:36Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act (H.R. 2417) aims to enhance federal agencies' management of software assets by improving visibility, accountability, and oversight. It focuses on tracking, assessing, and modernizing software use to reduce costs, eliminate waste, and ensure efficient operations, building on prior laws that require basic software inventories.

Key Provisions

Definitions (Section 2): Establishes clear terms, such as "agency" (federal entities under data laws, excluding intelligence community parts), "software entitlement" (purchased, leased, or licensed software with usage limits), and "comprehensive assessment" (a detailed review of agency software).

Software Inventory Update and Expansion (Section 3):
Requires each agency's Chief Information Officer (CIO), in consultation with financial, acquisition, data, and legal officers, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of all agency software within 18 months of enactment.
The assessment must inventory current software (including entitlements, contracts, and largest providers/categories), account for usage, costs (e.g., cloud fees, unused licenses), interoperability (how well software works together), and compliance with policies.
Agencies may hire contractors for support, but with rules to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure independence.
Assessments are submitted to agency heads, then to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator, Government Accountability Office (GAO), and relevant congressional committees.
Intelligence community elements conduct separate assessments with national security protections and submit summaries to intelligence committees.
OMB shares best practices across agencies for standardization.

Software Modernization Planning at Agencies (Section 4):
Agencies must develop a plan within one year of submitting the assessment, focusing on consolidating licenses, adopting cost-effective strategies (e.g., enterprise-wide licensing), and restricting sub-agency software purchases without CIO approval.
Plans must detail remediation of issues, automation tools, employee training on negotiations and licensing, usage analytics, interoperability improvements, cost estimates/savings, and mitigation of restrictive terms (e.g., limits on hardware or data access).
Purchases must use fair, public criteria without favoring vendors.
Plans are submitted to OMB and congressional committees; intelligence elements submit separately.
OMB coordinates with councils (e.g., CIO Council) to standardize terms and submits a government-wide report within two years on improving interoperability, consolidation, costs, performance, and oversight.

GAO Report (Section 5): Within three years, GAO must report to congressional committees on trends in software management, agency comparisons, OMB processes, contract compliance, and plan analyses.

No Additional Funds (Section 6): Implementation uses existing agency resources; no new appropriations authorized.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Expands the software inventory requirements from the 2016 Making Electronic Government Accountable By Yielding Tangible Efficiencies Act (which mandates basic inventories) by requiring detailed, comprehensive assessments, cost accounting for hidden fees (e.g., cloud usage), and interoperability analysis.
Introduces mandatory modernization plans with training, automation, and approval restrictions, which were not previously required.
Adds government-wide coordination by OMB and GSA, plus a GAO oversight report, to standardize practices across agencies—previously, efforts were more decentralized.
Provides special handling for the intelligence community to balance security with accountability, differing from general agency rules.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Could lead to cost savings by eliminating duplicate or unused licenses, better interoperability for efficient operations, and reduced waste through consolidated purchasing and analytics. Agencies may face initial workload for assessments and plans but gain long-term tools for management.
On Citizens: Indirect benefits via more efficient use of taxpayer dollars on software, potentially freeing resources for public services without increasing budgets.
On International Relations: No direct impacts mentioned; focuses on domestic federal operations.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Federal Agencies: Primary targets, including CIOs, CFOs, acquisition/data/legal officers; must conduct assessments, develop plans, and restrict software buys.
Intelligence Community: Handled separately with security-focused processes.
Oversight Entities: OMB Director (leads coordination), GSA Administrator (supports assessments/plans), GAO (evaluates implementation).
Congress: Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs/Oversight and Accountability (receive submissions/reports); intelligence committees for IC elements.
Vendors/Contractors: Software providers affected by fair purchasing rules and license consolidations; contractors hired for assessments must avoid conflicts.
Agency Employees: Required to receive training on software policies.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Strengthens compliance with federal acquisition rules (e.g., Federal Acquisition Regulation on conflicts) and data management laws; ensures assessments respect laws prohibiting vendor favoritism. No new enforcement penalties, but promotes accountability through reporting.
Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's spending power (Article I) by overseeing executive branch efficiency without infringing on agency autonomy; intelligence provisions protect classified information under national security precedents.
Political: Enhances congressional oversight of executive spending, potentially reducing waste amid fiscal concerns. Bipartisan sponsorship (e.g., Connolly, Fallon) suggests broad support for government reform, but implementation challenges could spark debates on resource burdens or vendor influences.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Cosponsors (3)

Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4], Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Recent Actions

2025-03-27: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2025-03-27: Introduced in House
2025-03-27: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act — issued 2025-03-27 — PDF (16 pages)