Federal Prison Industries:
Overview and Legislative History
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
January 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32380
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Summary
The Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), is a government-owned corporation that employs
offenders incarcerated in correctional facilities under the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The
FPI manufactures products and provides services that are sold to executive agencies in the federal
government. The FPI was created to serve as a means for managing, training, and rehabilitating
inmates in the federal prison system through employment in one of its industries.
The FPI is economically self-sustaining and it does not receive funding through congressional
appropriations. In FY2012, the FPI generated $606 million in sales, which is greater than the
FPI’s sales in FY1993 ($405 million), but it is below the FPI’s peak sales of $885 million in
FY2009. The FPI operated at a $28 million loss for FY2012, the fourth straight fiscal year in
which the FPI expenses exceeded revenues. The FPI uses the revenue it generates to purchase raw
material and equipment; pay wages to inmates and staff; and invest in expansion of its facilities.
Of the revenues generated by the FPI’s products and services, approximately 78% go toward the
purchase of raw material and equipment; 19% go toward staff salaries; and 3% go toward inmate
salaries.
All physically able inmates who are not a security risk are required to work. Data show that the
number of FPI work assignments available to inmates has not kept pace with the growing federal
inmate population. Starting in FY1988 the proportion of the federal inmate population employed
by the FPI started a steady decease. In FY2012, approximately 8% of all federal inmates had an
FPI work assignment.
There are only a handful of rigorous evaluations of the effect that participation in correctional
industries (i.e., FPI) has on recidivism. The body of research suggests that inmates who
participate in correctional industries are less likely to recidivate than inmates who do not
participate. However, questions about the methodology used in most evaluations of correctional
industries means that there is no definitive conclusion about the ability of correctional industries
to reduce recidivism.
Congress has taken legislative action to lessen any adverse impact the FPI has had on small
businesses. For example, in 2002, 2003, and 2004, Congress passed legislation that modified how
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) procured products
offered by the FPI in its schedule of products. In 2004, Congress passed legislation prohibiting
federal agencies from using appropriated funding for FY2004 to purchase products or services
offered by the FPI unless the agency determined that the products or services are provided at the
best value. This provision was extended permanently in FY2005. In the 110th Congress, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) modified the way in
which DOD procures products from the FPI. In addition, the Administration of President George
W. Bush made several efforts to reduce the consequences the FPI’s mandatory source clause
might have on the ability of private businesses to compete for federal contracts.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Authority.................................................................................................................................... 2
Activities.................................................................................................................................... 2
The FPI’s Sales and Earnings .................................................................................................... 3
Inmate Participation in the FPI .................................................................................................. 4
Effect of Correctional Industries on Recidivism ....................................................................... 5
Legislative History ........................................................................................................................... 6
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 ............................................................................................. 6
Crime Control Act of 1990 ........................................................................................................ 7
The Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992 ............................ 7
General Accounting Office Act of 1996 .................................................................................... 7
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 ............................................................... 7
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003 ............................................ 7
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 .......................................................................... 8
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 ..................................................................................... 8
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2004 ............................................................................... 8
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 ............................................................... 8
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011 ........................ 9
Administrative Efforts to Reform FPI ............................................................................................. 9
Figures
Figure 1. Sales and Earnings for the Federal Prison Industries, FY1993-FY2012 .......................... 3
Figure 2. Federal Inmates Employed by the FPI and Proportion of Total Inmate
Population Employed by the FPI, FY1970-FY2012 .................................................................... 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Introduction
The Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI),1 is a government-owned corporation that employs
offenders incarcerated in correctional facilities under the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP).2 The FPI manufactures products and provides services that are
primarily sold to executive agencies in the federal government. Although the FPI’s industries are
located within various federal prisons, they operate independently from the prison. The FPI was
created to serve as a means for managing, training and rehabilitating inmates in the federal prison
system through employment in one of its six industries.
The FPI’s enabling legislation3 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)4 require federal
agencies to procure products offered by the FPI, unless authorized by the FPI to solicit bids from
the private sector.5 This is commonly referred to as the “mandatory source clause.”6 Such waivers
can be granted by the FPI to executive agencies if its price exceeds the current market price for
comparable products.7 Federal agencies, however, are not required to procure services provided
by the FPI. Instead, agencies are encouraged to do so pursuant to FAR.8 It is the mandatory
source clause, and its effect on private businesses, that has drawn controversy over the years.
This report provides background on the FPI’s operations and statutory authority; it does not
address the related debates on inmate labor, criminal rehabilitation, or competitive versus
noncompetitive federal government contracting.
Background
As the federal prison system was established in 1930, factories were constructed within prisons to
manufacture products needed by the federal government and to provide prisoners with job skills
and keep them from being idle. Labor organizations, however, had been making arguments
against prison industries since the late 1800s due to the poor conditions in which inmates were
working and their perception that the industries were taking jobs away from law abiding citizens.
The Depression of the 1930s and the resulting high levels of unemployment crystalized the
debate. The FPI was established in 1934 under an executive order issued by President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt.9 The purpose of the FPI was to consolidate the operations of all federal prison
1 The FPI is sometimes referred by its trade name, UNICOR.
2 This report does not cover industries in state prison, often referred to as the Prison Industry Enhancement
Certification (PIECP) program. The PIECP was authorized by Congress in 1979 in the Justice System Improvement
Act (P.L. 96-157).
3 See 18 USC §4121 et seq.
4 FAR was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974
(P.L. 93-400).
5 Under current law (18 USC §4124(a)) and regulations (48 C.F.R.), federal agencies must procure products from FPI,
unless granted a waiver by FPI (48 CFR 8.604), that are listed as being manufactured by UNICOR in the corporation’s
catalog or schedule of products.
6 Also referred to as “superpreference,” “sole source,” or “preferential status.”
7 See Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 8224.02, FPI Pricing Procedures.
8 The FAR encourages federal agencies to treat the FPI as a “preferential source” in the procurement of services. See 41
CFR §101-26, 107; 48 CFR §302-5, 8.002, 8.602, 8.603, 8.605(f), and 8.704.
9 See Executive Order 6917.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
industries in order to provide training opportunities for inmates and “diversify the production of
prison shops so that no individual industry would be substantially affected.”10
Authority
The FPI is governed by a six-person Board of Directors that is appointed by the President. Its
enabling act11 requires that representatives of industries, agriculture, labor, and retailers and
consumers serve as board members.12 The board’s decision-making regarding products to be
manufactured and areas of expansion are driven by a goal of employing the greatest possible
number of inmates and reducing any potential impact on the private sector.
Activities
The FPI has 81 factories in federal prisons representing six different industrial operations.13 The
FPI’s six industrial operations are comprised of roughly 80 different types of products and
services. The FPI’s industrial operations include the following:
• clothing and textiles;
• electronics;
• fleet and industrial products;
• office furniture;
• recycling activities; and
• services (which include data entry and encoding).14
The FPI is economically self-sustaining and does not receive funding through congressional
appropriations. The FPI uses the revenue it generates to purchase raw material and equipment;
pay wages to inmates and staff; and invest in expansion of its facilities. Of the revenues generated
by the FPI’s products and services, 78% go toward the purchase of raw material and equipment;
19% go toward staff salaries; and 3% go toward inmate salaries.15 Inmates earn from $0.23 per
hour up to a maximum of $1.15 per hour, depending on their proficiency, educational level, and
time in the position, among other things. Additionally, inmates can earn bonuses based on work
performance. Under BOP’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, all inmates who have court
10 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, vol. 3 (New York: Random
House, 1938), p. 497. These principles are reflected in the current statutory authority for FPI, see 18 USC §4122(b).
11 See 18 USC §4121.
12 In addition to the four board members who must be from the aforementioned groups (retailers and consumers are
represented by one board member), the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense (or their designee) also serve as
board members.
13 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Prison Industries, Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Management
Report, November 15, 2012, http://www.unicor.gov/information/publications/pdfs/corporate/
FPI%20Annual%20Mgt%20Report%20to%20Congress%20FY2012.pdf.
14 Ibid.
15 Federal Prison Industries, FPI General Overview FAQs, http://www.unicor.gov/about/faqs/faqsgeneral.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
ordered financial obligations must use at least 50% of their FPI income to satisfy those debts; the
rest may be retained by the inmate.16
The FPI’s Sales and Earnings
Figure 1 presents data on the FPI’s sales and earnings (i.e., profits) since FY1993. In general, the
FPI’s sales increased between FY1993 and FY2009, increasing from $404.9 million to $885.3
million. In most of these fiscal years the FPI generated a profit. The two exceptions were FY1998
and FY2000, when the FPI operated at a $2.4 million and $12.8 million loss in those respective
fiscal years. The FPI’s sales have decreased in each of the past three fiscal years. The recent string
of declining earnings represents a break with past trends. Between FY1993 and FY2008, when
the FPI’s sales decreased in one fiscal year, they almost always increased in the subsequent fiscal
year. The FPI’s sales in FY2012 were the lowest they have been, in nominal dollars, since
FY2001. The FPI has reported an operating loss for each of the last four fiscal years, even in
FY2009 when the FPI’s sales peaked at $885.3 million.
Figure 1. Sales and Earnings for the Federal Prison Industries, FY1993-FY2012
(Sales and earnings in millions of dollars)
1,000
80
900
60
800
40
700
20
600
Ea
s
rn
le
500
0
in
Sa
gs
400
-20
300
-40
200
-60
100
0
-80
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Fiscal Year
Sales
Earnings
Source: CRS presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Prison
Industries.
Notes: Sales and earnings amounts reported in Figure 1 are in nominal dollars.
16 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Work Programs, http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/
work_prgms.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Inmate Participation in the FPI
Under current law, all physically able inmates who are not a security risk are required to work.17
Those inmates who are not employed by the FPI have other labor assignments in the prison. FPI
work assignments are usually considered more desirable because wages are higher and because
they allow inmates to learn a trade. However, this is not to discount the importance of regular
prison work assignments. Both regular and FPI work assignments can provide inmates with “soft
skills” (e.g., punctuality, learning the importance of doing a job correctly, following directions
from supervisors). Also, both types of work assignments can contribute to institutional order by
reducing inmate idleness. Nevertheless, regular prison work assignments provide for the
operation and maintenance of prison facilities; hence, these work assignments will exist as long
as BOP operates prisons. The availability of FPI work assignments is more volatile.
Data show that the number of FPI work assignments available to inmates has not kept pace with
the growing federal inmate population. As shown in Figure 2, even though the number of inmates
employed by the FPI generally increased between FY1970 and FY2001, starting in FY1988 the
proportion of the federal inmate population employed by the FPI started a steady decease. There
has been a noticeable decrease in the number of inmates working for the FPI since FY2007, when
the number of inmates holding FPI work assignments peaked at approximately 23,200 inmates.
Since FY2007, the number of inmates working for the FPI decreased to approximately 13,400 in
FY2012.
17 Title XXIX, §2905 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647) required that all offenders in federal prisons
must work (the act permitted limitations to this rule on security and health-related grounds).
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Figure 2. Federal Inmates Employed by the FPI and Proportion of Total Inmate
Population Employed by the FPI, FY1970-FY2012
25,000
35%
30%
20,000
25%
15,000
20%
15%
10,000
10%
5,000
5%
0
0%
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Fiscal Year
Number of Inmate Workers
Proportion of Inmates Working
Source: CRS presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Federal
Prison Industries.
Effect of Correctional Industries on Recidivism
Although there have been many studies on the recidivism rate and societal factors that may
contribute to it, there are only a handful of rigorous evaluations of the effect that participation in
correctional industries (i.e., FPI) has on recidivism. What research exists suggests that inmates
who participate in correctional industries are less likely to recidivate than inmates who do not
participate. However, questions about the methodology used in most evaluations of correctional
industries means that there is no definitive conclusion about the ability of correctional industries
to reduce recidivism.
A 2006 analysis of two different studies of correctional industries programs evaluated the impact
of these programs on recidivism.18 The results of the analysis indicated that inmates who worked
in correctional industries were less likely to recidivate than those who did not. However, the
researcher concluded that given the limited number of rigorous evaluations of correctional
18 Doris Layton MacKenzie, What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and
Delinquents (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 102.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
industries programs, it was not possible to make any definitive conclusions about the ability of
these programs to reduce recidivism.19
Another analysis conducted in 2000 that summarized the results of four evaluations of
correctional industries programs also found that inmates who participated in correctional
industries programs were less likely to recidivate.20 However, the researchers reported that they
could not rule out sampling error as a possible explanation for the positive effect. The researchers
also reported that many of the studies included in the analysis lacked stringent methodological
rigor, thereby preventing the researchers from concluding that the programs lead directly to
decreased re-offending.
Legislative History
While the FPI was originally created in 1934 through P.L. 73-461 and implemented by Executive
Order 6917, the current statutory authority for the FPI was first codified in the 1948 revision of
the “Crimes and Criminal procedure” statutes.21
Concerns about whether the mandatory source clause has prevented private businesses from
competing for federal contracts has led Congress to include language in certain legislation that
modified how federal agencies procured products under the FPI’s mandatory source clause.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) required that the FPI meet specific requirements
to ease the potential impact of its activities upon the private sector. Before approving the
expansion of an existing product or the creation of a new product, the act required the FPI to
• prepare a written analysis of the likely impact of the FPI’s expansion on industry
and free labor;
• announce in an appropriate publication the plans for expansion and invite
comments on the plan;
• advise affected trade associations;
• provide the FPI’s Board of Directors with the plans for expansion prior to the
Board making a decision on the expansion;
• provide opportunity to affected trade associations or relevant business
representatives to comment to the Board of Directors on the proposal; and
• publish final decisions made by the Board of Directors.
19 Ibid., p. 103.
20 David B. Wilson, Catherine A. Gallagher, and Doris L. MacKenzie, “A Meta-analysis of Correctional-based
Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol.
37 (2000), p. 356.
21 P.L. 80-772, codified at 18 USC §4121 et seq.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Crime Control Act of 1990
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647) required each federal department, agency, and
institution that is required to purchase products pursuant to the FPI’s mandatory source clause to
separately report acquisitions of products and services from the FPI to the General Services
Administration for entry into the Federal Procurement Data System.
The Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act
of 1992
The Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-564)
modified the reporting requirement established by the Crime Control Act of 1990 so that federal
departments, agencies, and institutions reporting data to the Federal Procurement Data System on
acquisitions from the FPI report their data in the same manner as they report data on non-FPI
acquisitions.
General Accounting Office Act of 1996
The General Accounting Office Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-316) amended the authorizing legislation
for the FPI22 so that the Attorney General, the Administrator of General Services, and the
President, or their representatives were the arbitrators of disputes as to the price, quality,
character, or suitability of products produced by the FPI. Prior to this, disputes were arbitrated by
the Comptroller General, the Administrator of General Services, and the President, or their
representatives.
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) required the Secretary of
Defense to use competitive procedures for the procurement of the product if it is determined that
the FPI’s product is not comparable in price, quality and time of delivery to products available
from the private sector. In doing so, the act required the Secretary of Defense to conduct research
and market analysis with respect to the price, quality and time of delivery of the FPI products
prior to purchasing the product from the FPI to determine whether the products are comparable to
products from the private sector.
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-314) amended
10 U.S.C. Section 2410n to require the Secretary of Defense to use competitive procedures for the
procurement of the product if it is determined that the FPI’s product is not comparable in price,
quality and time of delivery to products available from the private sector. With respect to the
market research determination, the act made such determinations final and not subject to review.
The act required that the FPI perform its contractual obligations to the same extent as any other
contractor for the DOD. Under the act, contractors or potential contractors cannot be required to
22 18 U.S.C. §4124(b).
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
use the FPI as a subcontractor or as a supplier of products or services for performance of a
contract. It prohibits the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract with the FPI under
which an inmate worker would have access to sensitive information.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199) modified the FPI’s mandatory
source clause during FY2004 by prohibiting funds appropriated by Congress for FY2004 to be
used by any federal executive agency for the purchase of products or services manufactured by
the FPI unless the agency making the purchase determines, pursuant to government-wide
procurement regulations, that the products or services are being provided at the best value.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) permanently extended the provision in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199) related to the FPI’s mandatory source
clause. The provision prevents federal agencies from using appropriated funds for purchasing the
FPI products or services unless the agency making the purchase determines, pursuant to
government-wide procurement regulations, that the product or service provides the best value for
the agency.
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2004
The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-177) required the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency to only make purchases from the FPI if he determines that the
product or service best meets the agency’s needs.
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) amended 10 U.S.C.
Section 2410n to require the Secretary of Defense to do market research to determine whether the
FPI has a significant market share of the product before purchasing that product from the FPI.23 In
cases where the FPI is determined to have a significant market share, the Secretary of Defense
can purchase a product from the FPI only if the Secretary uses competitive procedures for
procuring the product, or makes an individual purchase under a multiple award contract in
accordance with the competition requirements applicable to such a contract. In cases where the
FPI does not have a significant market share, the DOD is required to determine whether the
product offered by the FPI meets its needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery. In cases
where the FPI product does not meet the DOD’s needs in terms of price, quality, and time of
delivery, the DOD is required to procure the product through competitive procedures. The DOD
is required to consider a timely offer from the FPI.
23 The FPI is determined to have a “significant market share” when the FPI’s sales of a product within a Federal Supply
Code (FSC) constitute more than 5% all sales to the DOD within that FSC.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2011
In the conference report for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-55), Congress expressed concern that inmates did not have
access to meaningful work opportunities.24 In addition, Congress acknowledged that the FPI
functions as a means of preparing inmates for reentry and that if the FPI were allowed to enter
into partnerships with private businesses, it could bring some lost manufacturing back into the
United States while providing inmates with opportunities to learn skills that will be marketable
after release.25 As a part of the act, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. Section 1761(c) to allow the FPI
to participate in the PIECP. The act also allows the FPI to manufacture goods for the commercial
market if they are currently or would have otherwise been manufactured outside the United
States.
Administrative Efforts to Reform FPI
Over the years, critics have asserted that the FPI has an unfair advantage over private business.
They argue that the FPI’s mandatory source clause produces a monopoly-like environment that
usurps and supplants the bidding process for federal contracts. The FPI maintains that the
mandatory source clause is paramount to keeping prison industries in operation. Furthermore, the
FPI asserts that the work opportunities it provides reduces recidivism and enhances the safety and
security of federal correctional facilities by keeping inmates occupied. The FPI has made several
efforts, however, to lessen any effect its industries might have on small businesses by exempting
federal agencies from the requirement to purchase products from the FPI in certain instances.
Efforts have also been taken to reduce the FPI’s reliance on its mandatory source preference.26
In February 2003, the FPI’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution that raises the threshold for
mandatory use of the FPI from $2,500 to $3,000. By raising the threshold, the FPI’s Board of
Directors in essence waived the FPI’s mandatory source clause for purchases up to $3,000 and is
now allowing federal agencies to go directly to the private sector for any purchase under $3,000.
In March 2003, the FPI’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution that now requires that the FPI
approve requests for waivers in all cases where the private sector provides a lower cost that the
FPI does not meet. In April 2003, the Board of Directors requires prison-made products sold by
the FPI to have at least 20% of its value contributed by inmate labor. In the same month the FPI’s
Board of Directors directed the FPI to waive its mandatory source status for products where the
FPI’s share of the federal market is in excess of 20%. This requirement was later modified in
March 2010 so that the waiver of the mandatory source clause only applies in instances where the
FPI’s share is greater than 20% of non-DOD managed products. The modification to the
24 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012, and for Other
Purposes, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2112, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 14, 2011, H.Rept. 112-284
(Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 241.
25 Ibid., p. 242.
26 A previous effort to eliminate the FPI’s mandatory source clause came during the Clinton Administration in 1993
when Vice President Al Gore recommended that the mandatory source provision be eliminated and that UNICOR be
exempt from the FAR in order to better compete with the private sector in terms of delivery schedules and costs.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Prison Industries: Overview and Legislative History
mandatory source clause waiver was made to reflect the way that the DOD procures products
from the FPI per the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008.
In addition to the FPI’s Board of Director’s decisions, federal agencies have begun to evaluate the
FPI’s contract performance. According to testimony at a Senate hearing on the FPI, “while this
[the evaluation of FPI’s contract performance] did not change FPI’s mandatory preference status,
it was an important first step in helping FPI better monitor and improve its own performance ...
[which would assist] FPI as they move toward being more competitive in the federal
marketplace.”27
Author Contact Information
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
27 Testimony of Jack R. Williams, Jr., in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on
Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, Making Federal Prison Industries Subject to
Competitive Bidding, hearing on S. 346, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., April 7, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004).
Congressional Research Service
10