HB1722 directs the Office of Management and Budget to require executive and independent agencies to identify and report projects that are significantly delayed or massively over budget. Agencies must submit specified project-level data annually; OMB will compile that information, deliver it to Congress, and post it online.
The bill creates a single, public inventory of large problem projects — defined by a 5-year delay or a $1 billion cost overrun — and prescribes the data fields agencies must provide (including contractors, original and current cost estimates adjusted for CPI, schedule dates, scope changes, and incentives paid). For compliance officers, program managers, and oversight staff, the law standardizes what counts as a “boondoggle” and makes the information available for fiscal and programmatic scrutiny.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the OMB Director to issue guidance within one year obliging covered agencies to submit annual data on 'covered projects' — projects either more than five years behind the original completion date or at least $1 billion over the original cost estimate. OMB must aggregate those submissions into an annual report to Congress and publish it on OMB's website.
Who It Affects
Covered agencies (Executive agencies and independent regulatory agencies), program offices that run major acquisitions and construction or remediation efforts, contractors and subcontractors listed on affected projects, OMB as the aggregator, and Congressional oversight committees that will receive the report.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes thresholds and data fields for flagging major problem projects, creating a single public source for large overruns and delays—information previously scattered across agency reports. That standardization can change how agencies track projects, how Congress prioritizes oversight, and how contractors manage reputational risk.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines who must report and what counts as a problem project. 'Covered agencies' are Executive agencies under 5 U.S.C. 105 and independent regulatory agencies under 44 U.S.C. 3502. A 'covered project' triggers reporting if it meets either of two objective tests: it is at least five years behind its original expected completion date, or current spending exceeds the original cost estimate by $1 billion or more.
The definition of project is broad and explicitly includes major acquisitions, major defense acquisition programs, procurements, construction, remediation or clean‑up efforts, and other time‑limited endeavors — so long as they are not funded through mandatory/direct spending.
Mechanically, the Director of OMB must issue guidance within one year instructing agencies how to collect and submit the required data. Agencies must provide a short description, locations, contract or award numbers where applicable, initiation year, federal share of costs, and a list of primary contractors, subcontractors, grant recipients and subgrantees.
The bill requires side‑by‑side schedule and cost comparisons by asking for the original expected completion date and cost estimate (both indexed to CPI), the current expected completion date and current cost estimate (also CPI‑adjusted), plus explanations for scope changes and for delays or cost increases, including whether appropriations shortfalls contributed.The bill also requires disclosure of incentives: agencies must report any award, incentive fee, or bonus paid in connection with the covered project and explain the rationale. OMB assembles agency submissions annually, sends the compiled report to Congress, and posts the dataset on its website.
The statute does not create new grant or contracting remedies, judicial causes of action, or statutory penalties for agencies or contractors that appear in the report; its lever is transparency through standardized disclosure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A project is 'covered' if it is either more than 5 years late against the original expected completion date or at least $1,000,000,000 over the original cost estimate.
OMB must issue guiding instructions within one year of enactment requiring annual submissions from covered agencies; the bill itself does not prescribe a submission form or IT standard.
Required data fields include original and current cost estimates adjusted for CPI, original and current expected completion dates, full contractor and subrecipient lists, and the dollar amount and rationale for any incentive payments.
Projects funded through direct (mandatory) spending are explicitly excluded from coverage; major defense acquisition programs remain within scope if they meet the delay or overrun thresholds.
The Director must compile agency submissions into an annual report to Congress and publish it on OMB’s website, but the bill contains no enforcement mechanism, penalties, or funding to support the added reporting workload.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This single line names the statute the 'Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025.' It has no operative effect other than to provide an informal name agencies and Congress will use to refer to the requirements that follow.
Who and what the law covers
This subsection sets the universe of actors and activities subject to the reporting duty. It imports existing statutory definitions for 'Executive agency' and 'independent regulatory agency,' and then defines 'covered project' by two objective triggers (5+ years late or $1B+ overrun). It also lists the types of endeavors that count as projects and excludes projects funded through direct spending. Practically, the definitions determine whether agency program offices or a defense program office must prepare information, and they will shape disputes about scope (e.g., what counts as a rebaselined 'original' estimate).
What agencies must deliver and timing for guidance
This provision requires the OMB Director to issue guidance within one year that obliges covered agencies to send an annual package of specified data for each covered project. The bill lists granular fields — project purpose, locations, contract/award numbers, initiation year, federal share, contractor and subrecipient names, scope‑change narratives, original vs. current completion dates, CPI‑adjusted original and current cost estimates, explanations for delays/cost growth (including appropriations impacts), and any incentive payments and rationales. Because the statute delegates form, frequency, and technical standards to OMB guidance, those administrative decisions will determine the burden on agency IT and program offices.
OMB compiles, sends to Congress, and posts publicly
OMB must aggregate agency submissions into an annual report to Congress and publish the contents on its website. That creates a centralized, public dataset for oversight. The statute does not create enforcement penalties, deadlines for agencies’ submissions, or funding; it relies on OMB guidance to set submission schedules and to resolve operational questions such as classification of sensitive information and handling of national security exceptions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Congressional oversight committees — receive a standardized annual inventory that lets committees compare problem projects across agencies and prioritize hearings and appropriations scrutiny.
- Taxpayers and watchdog organizations — gain a single public source of project‑level data to monitor major delays and cost overruns and to pressure for corrective action.
- Office of Management and Budget — acquires a consolidated dataset that can inform cross‑agency budget and program policy, enabling OMB to spot systemic procurement problems and coordinate remedies.
- Inspectors General and GAO — benefit from standardized inputs that can speed audits and reduce time spent locating relevant project information across disparate agency systems.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered agencies’ program offices — must collect, verify, and submit detailed project data, which creates additional administrative workload and potential needs for IT changes or staffing.
- Contractors and subcontractors — will be publicly identified on projects flagged as covered, raising reputational risk and potentially increasing contractor scrutiny during procurements.
- Office of Management and Budget — must expend staff time and technical resources to issue guidance, aggregate submissions, vet sensitive information, and maintain public posting without dedicated funding.
- Program managers of national security or sensitive projects — may face added disclosure pressures and administrative cost to vet information for public release, even where some details should remain protected.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is transparency versus operational practicality: the bill advances public accountability by forcing standardized disclosure of massive overruns and long delays, but that same transparency can impose real administrative burdens, risk the exposure of sensitive program details, and create incentives for agencies to game definitions or alter budgeting practices to avoid appearing in the inventory.
The bill chooses bright‑line thresholds (5 years, $1 billion) to create a clear reporting trigger, but those cutoffs are blunt instruments. A program that runs 4.5 years late or overruns by $950 million remains invisible under this statute even if it is otherwise problematic; conversely, a long‑running program with a single, isolated cost spike will land in the public inventory even if the underlying program remains essential.
The statutory requirement that original estimates be adjusted for CPI recognizes inflation but does not address other drivers of cost growth (technology shifts, regulatory changes, scope creep), so the raw numbers may mislead without contextual narrative — the bill attempts that via required explanations, but it leaves judgment about sufficiency of explanation to agencies and, ultimately, readers.
Operationally, the statute delegates implementation details to OMB guidance, which matters a great deal. OMB will decide the submission format, deadlines, whether certain details can be redacted for national security or proprietary reasons, and how to validate the data.
Those choices determine whether the law produces useful, comparable datasets or a trove of agency narratives of varying quality. The lack of dedicated funding or explicit enforcement raises an implementation risk: agencies may treat this as a low‑priority reporting task, and OMB may lack resources to reconcile inconsistent inputs.
Finally, public disclosure can produce perverse incentives: agencies might rebaseline projects, shift costs to direct spending, or restructure programs to avoid the thresholds rather than address root causes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.