HB 5533 would require the President to issue regulations within 180 days to authorize local governments to use Construction Manager at Risk procurement methods for activities carried out under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, including qualifications-based procurement procedures. It would also raise the simplified procurement threshold under the Stafford Act from $1 million to $3 million for related goods and services.
The bill seeks to streamline FEMA procurement for local disaster-relief projects, potentially enabling faster project initiation and execution in disaster zones.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the President to issue regulations within 180 days to allow local governments to use Construction Manager at Risk procurement for activities under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, including qualifications-based procurement. It covers the acquisition of goods or services needed to complete the activity, spanning professional, technical, construction-related, or non-professional work.
Who It Affects
Local governments carrying out Stafford Act Section 406 activities, their procurement offices, and CMAR-capable contractors and firms that will participate in these projects.
Why It Matters
If enacted, the measure could shorten procurement timelines and simplify complex disaster-relief projects, shifting project delivery toward CMAR-enabled models while preserving necessary oversight and competition considerations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 5533 targets FEMA procurement processes by enabling a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) approach for activities funded under the Stafford Act’s Section 406. The core idea is to streamline how local governments hire teams to plan and execute disaster-relief projects, using CMAR to integrate design and construction phases under one contractual framework.
The bill also expands the pool of procurements that can use streamlined procedures by increasing the threshold for simplified procurement from $1 million to $3 million, thereby allowing larger transactions to qualify for this simplified path. The regulatory requirement—issuance of necessary regulations within 180 days—creates a binding deadline for federal agencies to codify these procurement flexibilities.
In practice, CMAR can accelerate delivery of critical infrastructure and services after disasters, but it also raises questions about competition, oversight, and cost control that must be managed through rules, qualifications-based selection, and rigorous post-award governance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The President must issue regulations within 180 days to allow CMAR procurement for Stafford Act Section 406 activities.
CMAR procurement can cover a broad range of goods and services necessary to complete the activity.
The simplified procurement threshold for related activities rises from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000.
The change applies to local governments carrying out disaster-relief activities under the Stafford Act.
Overall, the bill aims to speed disaster procurement while preserving key mechanisms like qualifications-based selection.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the act’s official citation as the Streamlining FEMA Procurement Procedures Act of 2025, establishing the bill’s identity and scope for subsequent provisions.
Regulations to Enable CMAR
Section 2(a) directs the President to issue regulations within 180 days to allow local governments to use Construction Manager at Risk procurement for activities under Section 406 of the Stafford Act. The regulations must ensure CMAR applicability to a broad set of acquisitions—goods and services including professional, technical, construction-related, and non-professional work—required to complete the activity, with qualifications-based procurement options preserved where applicable.
Procurement Threshold Increase
Section 2(b) amends Section 422(a) of the Stafford Act by replacing the $1,000,000 threshold with $3,000,000. This raises the ceiling for simplified procurement procedures, expanding the range of projects that can be procured under streamlined rules while maintaining the overall framework for accountability and oversight.
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
- Local governments in disaster-impacted areas can deploy CMAR processes to accelerate project delivery and coordinate design and construction more efficiently.
- Procurement offices within local governments gain clearer authority and a streamlined pathway for selecting CMAR and related services.
- CMAR-focused firms and construction managers gain access to a broader pipeline of disaster-relief projects.
- FEMA regional offices and state emergency management agencies may see faster project throughput and more predictable delivery timelines for relief infrastructure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments may incur upfront training and implementation costs to adopt CMAR processes and new procurement practices.
- Federal agencies face the administrative burden of issuing and maintaining regulations within the 180-day deadline and ensuring ongoing compliance supervision.
- CMAR contractors could face increased risk if competition remains limited or if cost-control measures lag behind accelerated timelines.
- Small or under-resourced localities might struggle to build internal expertise quickly enough to maximize CMAR benefits and ensure robust oversight.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Speed and flexibility in disaster procurement (via CMAR and higher thresholds) versus maintaining robust competition, price discipline, and oversight to prevent waste and ensure value.
The bill creates a pathway to significantly accelerate disaster-relief procurement by delegating to CMAR methodologies, but it also imposes the need for tight regulatory frameworks to maintain competition, price reasonableness, and accountability. The 180-day regulatory deadline centralizes the implementation risk in federal agencies, raising questions about the pace and quality of rulemaking, especially for diverse local contexts.
By raising the simplified procurement threshold, the bill expands the universe of procurements that can bypass more rigorous procedures, which could reduce competitive pressure unless accompanied by strong post-award governance and transparent cost controls.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.