This bill bars the Administrator of General Services from awarding any SmartPay Program contract for a commercial payment system if that system ‘‘uses a payment processing agency that has implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers.’’ The sole substantive operative restriction is forward-looking: it does not affect contracts awarded before enactment.
The change is narrow in text but potentially broad in effect. SmartPay is the federal charge-card and commercial payment contracting vehicle used across civilian and defense agencies; excluding vendors tied to processors that adopt a gun-retailer MCC could shrink the pool of eligible card providers, complicate bid evaluation, and create verification and compliance tasks for GSA and offerors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill forbids GSA from awarding SmartPay contracts for commercial payment systems that ‘‘use’’ a payment processor that has implemented an MCC (merchant category code) for gun retailers. The prohibition operates at award time and contains no separate sanctions or compliance regime beyond nonaward.
Who It Affects
GSA procurement officials, commercial payment-system vendors that bid into the SmartPay Program, payment processors and card networks that implement industry merchant codes, and federal agencies that rely on SmartPay cards for purchasing and travel.
Why It Matters
By tying award eligibility to a payment processor’s merchant-classification decisions, the bill imports private payment-market policy into federal procurement, potentially narrowing competition, forcing business model changes for vendors, and creating a new verification task for GSA contracting officers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and narrowly framed: it requires the Administrator of General Services to refuse to award any SmartPay Program contract for a commercial payment system where that system ‘‘uses’’ a payment processing agency that has implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers. In practical terms, the statute conditions eligibility for federal SmartPay contracts on a downstream commercial classification choice made by payment processors.
Because the SmartPay Program covers government charge, travel, fleet, and purchasing card services, the restriction will become part of the procurement evaluation: offerors must demonstrate that their payment processing partners have not adopted the specified merchant category code. The bill does not define ‘‘uses’’ or the scope of ‘‘implements’’ a merchant category code, nor does it identify a numeric MCC value; those interpretive gaps will fall to GSA to resolve when applying the prohibition during source selection.Enforcement is procedural: GSA must decline to award new contracts that fail the test.
The Act explicitly preserves any contract already awarded before enactment, so it is not retroactive. The bill contains no separate remedy, penalty, or audit regime; its effect is to shape award decisions rather than to impose ongoing regulatory obligations or civil penalties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits GSA from awarding any SmartPay Program contract for a commercial payment system that uses a payment processing agency that has implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers.
The prohibition is prospective only: contracts awarded before the Act’s enactment date remain unaffected by the new rule.
The statutory test hinges on two undefined terms — ‘‘uses’’ and ‘‘implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers’’ — leaving key scope questions to agency interpretation.
The bill creates no enforcement mechanism beyond barring awards; it does not authorize civil penalties, monitoring requirements, or reporting duties for vendors or processors.
GSA contracting officers will carry the practical responsibility to verify bidders’ reliance on covered payment processors and to exclude offers that fail the statutory test.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s short title as the “No SmartPay for Anti-2A Companies Act.” This is purely nominative and carries no substantive effect on implementation or interpretation of procurement rules.
Award prohibition tied to processor MCC practice
Imposes the substantive restriction: the Administrator of General Services may not award a SmartPay Program contract for a commercial payment system that uses a payment processing agency that has implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers. The practical import is that, at source selection, GSA must determine whether an offeror’s payment processing partner has adopted such an MCC and, if so, disqualify the offer. This creates a new eligibility criterion tied to private-sector payment-classification choices rather than to standard procurement factors like price, past performance, or technical capability.
Nonretroactivity of the rule
Makes clear the prohibition does not apply to any contract awarded before enactment. That preserves existing SmartPay contracts and related continuity of service for current federal card programs, while applying the new restriction only to future procurements and re-competes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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
- Vendors and payment-system integrators that avoid or refuse to work with processors that adopt a gun-retailer MCC — they face less competition when bidding for SmartPay work because some rivals may be disqualified.
- Industry participants and trade groups opposed to merchant classifications for gun retailers — the federal procurement preference reduces pressure on card-accepting merchants who object to such classifications.
- Federal agencies and procurement staff seeking to align supplier selection with specific policy preferences — the bill gives GSA an explicit statutory basis to exclude certain processor relationships.
Who Bears the Cost
- Payment processors that implement a gun-retailer MCC — they and their downstream commercial clients risk exclusion from SmartPay contract awards, which can be lucrative and high-volume.
- Commercial payment-system vendors that rely on third-party processors — such vendors may need to reconfigure partnerships or certify processor practices to remain eligible, increasing compliance and transition costs.
- GSA procurement offices — contracting officers must develop verification procedures, document determinations, and handle protests or bid disputes tied to ambiguous terms like ‘‘uses’’ and ‘‘implemented.’’ This raises administrative burden without an allocated enforcement mechanism.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a policy preference about merchant classification (and the desire to avoid contracting with processors that adopt a gun-retailer MCC) against traditional procurement goals of broad competition, operational efficiency, and predictable verification. Narrowing eligibility to exclude processors based on private classification choices solves a targeted policy aim but raises implementation burdens and may reduce competition and increase costs for the government.
Several implementation questions are unresolved and consequential. First, the statute provides no working definition of ‘‘implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers.’’ Merchant category codes are numeric industry classifications used by card networks and processors; the bill does not identify a specific code, whether a processor-level assignment suffices, or whether a network-level MCC that some merchants fall under would trigger the ban.
That ambiguity will drive disputes between offerors and GSA and could produce inconsistent award determinations across procurements.
Second, the bill does not specify how GSA must verify compliance or which contractual clauses bidders must include. The absence of a reporting, certification, or audit mechanism means verification will rely on representations in proposals, vendor disclosures, or GSA-requested due diligence.
That increases the risk of protest litigation and may motivate offerors to renegotiate commercial relationships preemptively. Finally, tying award eligibility to a private-sector classification decision creates a supply-side impact: processors may retract or avoid certain classifications to preserve access to federal business, with spillover effects for merchant acceptance, pricing, and card-network governance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.