When a parent ignores bad grades but still gets their wayward teen a new car, the lesson is that screwing up is not only ok—it might even get you rewards. Likewise, when the government re-hires screw-up contractors, it’s a safe bet that those contractors aren’t putting change at the top of their priority list.

Unfortunately, many contract managers have unwittingly been rewarding bad behavior because there was no way for them to know the rap sheet of the contractor they were hiring. But a longstanding effort to fix this problem received a boost last week when Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) introduced the Federal Contracting Oversight and Reform Act of 2010. This legislation mirrors a bill introduced in the Senate by Russell Feingold (D-WI), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) two months ago that further strengthens a comprehensive database tracking how well government contractors do their jobs. Now Congress needs to act on it.

Attempts to create a contractor performance database goes back years. Currently, numerous databases exist across several federal agencies—eight at the General Services Administration alone. Several legislative attempts to create a single governmentwide database culminated in the 2009 Defense Authorization Act’s creation of the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). But an idea that started out strong got watered down during the sausage-making process, thanks to lobbying from contractors. The version that finally emerged is accessible only to federal contracting officers and key members of Congressional committees. It also tracks only civil and criminal proceedings filed against the contractor by the federal government—excluding state and local governments — and limits even those to complaints resulting in a penalty or conviction. This provision leaves out complaints that could show a pattern of problems or those that end in settlements.

The proposed legislation tries to right some of those wrongs. Among other things, it would expand the performance period covered by the database from five to ten years; prohibit contractors from entering into contracts above $500,000 unless they certify their disclosure information; empower inspector generals to monitor disclosure; and create an improved federal contractor ID numbering system.

These changes can potentially save taxpayers millions in fees to contractors who don’t deserve our business. Examples of deadbeat contractors successfully coming back for seconds at the contracting buffet are rampant. In one instance, the Government Accountability Office found the Army contracted with a German company even after it was debarred for shipping nuclear weapons parts to the North Korean government. And then there’s the twenty something arms dealer who continued to win contracts after selling corroded Chinese ammunition to the U.S. government.

Though the Act is not perfect — the database needs to be available to the public—it represents several large steps toward the goal of one-stop contractor review shopping. The House bill has a few cosponsors so far, but it needs more to push it through a jam-packed legislative season, and the Senate version faces an equally cramped calendar. Taxpayers should let their representatives in Congress know they want to see the Act pass this year so government can stop rewarding bad behavior.