Strong passwords are especially important for government websites
May 31, 2010 by cs
Many government procurement web sites are secure sites that require vendors to establish passwords in order to gain access. What many people don’t understand is that there is a real need for selecting good passwords.
Identity theft could be just a minor consequence of establishing a weak password on a government site. Actual theft — theft of payments made by the government to a vendor — can result from lack of serious attention being given to password selection.
A data security firm earlier this year analyzed 32 million passwords that a hacker stole from an application developer called rockyou.com, and published a report of the findings earlier this year – including the 10 most-commonly used passwords. As you can see below, all 10 of these most-commonly used passwords are terrible:
- 123456
- 12345
- 123456789
- Password
- iloveyou
- princess
- rockyou
- 1234567
- 12345678
- abc123
Hackers and others intent on stealing or changing your on-line information can easily guess any of these 10 passwords. In fact, people who want to do you harm have sophisticated automated programs that guess at probable passwords until they discover the correct letter/number combination.
You might be curious about Entry No. 7, “rockyou.” You might think it’s uncommon enough to be a good password. Hardly. “Rockyou” is actually the name of the web site for which the users created the password. These users’ Amazon.com and Audible.com passwords are probably “amazon” and “audible,” respectively!
It is estimated that nearly half of all passwords can be easily guessed — they include the users’ names, common dictionary words, and strings of consecutive numbers, according to the report.
Weak passwords represent a problem on any web site. But weak passwords — and lack of password security — on government web sites can cause especially serious problems.
Let’s take Central Contractor Registration, for example. CCR is the federal government’s vendor database, containing information on more than 600,000 businesses. All of the data is entered by vendors themselves, including bank routing information on each business. This information is used by federal agencies to facilitate electronic payments for contract work performed.
A hacker who successfully guesses at a CCR registrant’s password can both steal and edit that vendor’s bank routing number. Armed with bank account information, the evil-doer might be able to withdraw funds from a vendor’s bank account. In addition, by changing a vendor’s bank routing information in CCR, an even more insidious act is set in motion. A hacker can just sit back and wait for the government to electronically transfer contract payments … right into the hacker’s off-shore account on the other side of the world.
In this scenario, the vendor has delivered a product or performed work for the government, the government paid, and the hacker benefitted — all caused by either selection of a weak password or by sloppy handling of a password.
As Michael Hardy, managing editor of the 1105 Government Information Group, recently observed: “You might think that after nearly two decades of data breaches, identity theft and other online risks, your average end user would understand by now the importance of creating strong passwords and protecting them. You would be wrong.”
To paraphrase, you should give serious thought to the selection of passwords — especially on government web sites — and then keep them secret.
“Everyone needs to understand what the combination of poor passwords means in today’s world of automated cyberattacks: With only minimal effort, a hacker can gain access to one new account every second — or 1,000 accounts every 17 minutes,” said Amichai Shulman, Imperva’s chief technology officer, in a written statement that accompanied the release of the report referenced earlier in this article. ”The data provides a unique glimpse into the way that users select passwords and an opportunity to evaluate the true strength of passwords as a security mechanism. Never before has there been such a high volume of real-world passwords to examine.”
© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.
Pentagon reports progress on anniversary of procurement reform law
May 31, 2010 by cs
In the year since President Obama signed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act into law, the Defense Department has made significant strides in gaining control over the cost and development of its procurement programs, Pentagon officials testified on Wednesday.
Many of the changes have focused on the front end of the acquisition process, according to Nancy Spruill, director of acquisition resources and analysis in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
“The department is committed to making trade-offs among cost, schedule and performance to significantly reduce cost growth in major defense acquisition programs,” Spruill told the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.
The law, which legislators have described as the most significant change to the Pentagon’s purchasing system in two decades, addressed the ballooning cost of Defense weapons system acquisitions. For example, it includes a provision that presumes any weapon program that exceeds its original costs by more than 25 percent will be terminated. If the program is not canceled, then it must be restructured and reviewed again.
To reduce the risk of cost overruns, additional reviews will be conducted early in the process, scrutinizing the schedule, cost limitations and technological maturity of major weapon programs, Spruill said. The department also has increased the size and capabilities of its cost estimating staff and is using contract fee structures that are better tied to delivered accomplishments, she said.
“We believe these steps will result in more thoughtfully structured programs that reinforce our stated preference for an evolutionary acquisition approach,” Spruill said.
A key federal watchdog, however, said Defense’s acquisition improvements were a mixed bag.
In March, the Government Accountability Office examined 42 major weapon programs and found progress in the technology, design and manufacturing knowledge at key points in the acquisition process. But, the report also found some weaknesses. A majority of the programs experienced substantial requirements changes, software development challenges or workforce issues, investigators said.
“Most programs are still proceeding with less knowledge than best practices suggest, putting them at higher risk for cost growth and schedule delays,” Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management at GAO, told the subcommittee.
GAO’s findings disappointed lawmakers. “DoD has still not fully implemented a ‘knowledge-based approach’ to its weapons acquisitions program,” said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., chairman of the subcommittee. “It boils down to the need for the department to take some common-sense steps in its processes.”
While Defense has made steep cuts to some of its weapon systems, its portfolio of major acquisition programs still is growing, from 96 in December 2007 to 102 in July 2009, according to GAO.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently proposed ending all or part of at least six major defense acquisition programs that are over cost, behind schedule or no longer meet the department’s needs.
Pentagon officials also reported progress in increasing the department’s acquisition workforce and insourcing functions currently being performed by contractors. During the next five years, Defense plans to hire 9,000 more civilian employees and convert 11,000 contract positions to government jobs.
By the end of March, Defense had brought on 3,200 new acquisition employees, said John Roth, the Pentagon’s deputy comptroller for program and budget. Hiring projections for the rest of fiscal 2010, which ends on Sept. 30, remain on target to meet the department’s needs, he said.
– By Robert Brodsky – May 19, 2010 – (C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tech firm’s use of 8(a) status questioned
May 28, 2010 by cs
The owner of an Alaskan technology engineering firm that holds sole-source federal contracts worth millions of dollars might have used his small and disadvantaged business to direct taxpayer funds to his other defense contracting companies, according to a new report from the Small Business Administration inspector general.
Investigators found that for nearly five years, Patrick Simpson relied on the status of Alaska Native Technologies LLC as a certified 8(a) small business to enter into business arrangements on behalf of other companies he owned.
Simpson is not disadvantaged and therefore ineligible to run Alaska Native Technologies’ day-to-day operations. But the company qualifies for 8(a) status because a native Alaskan tribe owns a majority share. Simpson reportedly directed ANT funds for rental equipment, office space and consulting services to companies he privately owned. The tribe retained only 25 percent of the ANT’s net profits, the report found.
“It appears that ANT’s primary purpose is to benefit Mr. Simpson, which is contrary to what Congress intended when it allowed firms owned by Indian tribes to participate in the 8(a) program,” the IG found.
The watchdog agency recommended that SBA officials conduct a thorough review of ANT’s operations to determine whether it should be disqualified from the 8(a) program.
In an April 8 response, Joe Jordan, SBA’s associate administrator of government contracting and business development, promised “appropriate action will be pursued if Alaska Native Technologies LLC is found to be ineligible for the 8(a) Business Development Program.” An agency spokeswoman declined to provide an update on the company’s status in the program.
ANT officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The company’s website says ANT specializes in design, development, service and maintenance activities “in support of our nation’s defense.” Its Defense Department business includes a contract to develop an underwater glider for the Navy to forecast ocean conditions.
The firm has won more than $27 million in federal contracts since 2004, according to USASpending.gov, a federal contracting database.
Simpson formed Alaska Native Technologies in January 2003 as a spinoff division of his research-and-development company, Scientific Fishery Systems Inc., the report said. ANT is 51 percent owned by the Native Village of Eyak through its holding company, Alaska Native General Services LLC, and 49 percent owned by Skookum Technologies Inc., another business Simpson owns.
But the financial statements of ANT do not indicate shared ownership between Skookum and Alaska Native General Services, the IG said, and the tribe told investigators the only document formalizing the arrangement was a memorandum of understanding between the two entities.
The IG found that Alaska Native General Services might no longer exist. According to the report, the holding company has not filed biennial financial statements with the Alaska Department of Commerce since November 2005, it has no Federal Employer Identification Number for tax verification, and a recent Dun & Bradstreet search could not verify its location.
The SBA approved Simpson’s business partner as general manager of Alaska Native Technologies. But the IG investigation revealed Simpson was heavily involved in managing the day-to-day activities, including signing timecards and issuing employee clearances.
Nondisadvantaged individuals are allowed to provide management services to a tribally owned business if they receive SBA’s approval. Simpson did not request such approval, the IG said.
Simpson entered ANT into contractual arrangements for a host of products and services, according to the IG. The report said he billed ANT for rental equipment and office space; subcontracting, consulting and professional services; and the lease of a boat for a half-dozen businesses he owned.
The line between the companies was blurred in other ways. Simpson transferred key employees from Scientific Fishery to ANT to serve as the company’s general manager and chief systems engineer, investigators found. He also transferred one of Scientific Fishery’s defense contracts to ANT.
In a 2008 report, the Defense Contract Audit Agency questioned the validity of $124,000 in fees paid to PKS Consulting, another Simpson entity, for consulting services reportedly provided to ANT.
Auditors found that 140 hours per month of consulting services in fiscal 2006 was excessive, particularly given Simpson’s role in managing his other businesses. Simpson was unable to provide DCAA with documentation supporting these fees, the report said.
– By Robert Brodsky – May 21, 2010 – (C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Startup Accelerator ATDC Celebrates 30th Anniversary
May 27, 2010 by cs
Georgia Tech’s startup accelerator, the Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC), celebrated 30 years of helping launch and build technology companies with a “Startup Showcase” attended by more than 500 persons on May 24th. At the event, ATDC added four companies to its long list of graduates.
Georgia Tech President G.P. “Bud” Peterson was the main speaker, reviewing the ATDC’s history and congratulating members of the Committee of Twenty – Georgia Tech alumni whose interest in technology startups during the late 1970s led to formation of the incubator.
“It’s really a pleasure to be here to celebrate this 30-year anniversary and to be able to reflect back on some of the great successes of the ATDC,” Peterson told a crowd of entrepreneurs assembled in the ballroom of the Georgia Tech Hotel. “There are many, many positive things that have resulted from this organization and its interaction with people in this community, the greater Atlanta area, the state of Georgia – and all across the country.”
Stephen Fleming, Georgia Tech vice president and executive director of the Enterprise Innovation Institute, reviewed progress made by the ATDC in expanding membership and increasing program offerings over the past year
“If you are a Georgia technology entrepreneur, we will help you no matter where you are located in the state or what your background is,” he said. “In addition to our brick-and-mortar facilities in Atlanta and Savannah, we are spreading across the rest of the state, which is part of our mandate.”
Nearly a year ago, ATDC opened its membership to all technology companies in Georgia. On the day of the Showcase, ATDC had 321 members. “That makes us the largest technology incubator, as far as I know, in the world,” Fleming added.
The startup accelerator still focuses on companies that are developing new technologies, but no longer emphasizes raising venture capital. That’s because many entrepreneurs are now bootstrapping their operations or have independent sources of funding, Fleming said.
Even with the incubator’s reduced fund-raising focus and the down economy, ATDC companies still raised a total of at least $150 million in venture capital during the past year, Fleming said.
ATDC is also expanding the geographic breadth of its operations beyond its physical incubators in Atlanta and Savannah. At the Showcase, Fleming announced that ATDC would begin offering educational programs in Gwinnett County, along with regular office hours to meet entrepreneurs – though there are no current plans to provide incubator space there.
He also noted that ATDC has resumed its focus on biosciences companies with the hiring of two staff members – Nina Sawczuk and Harold Shlevin – both with long experience in the life sciences industry.
Fleming congratulated representatives from four companies that had met requirements for graduating from the incubator. The four – CommerceV3, Endgame Systems, Izenda Reports and Purewire – joined 120 other companies on a list of ATDC graduates that goes back to 1986.
President Peterson took note of ATDC’s best known graduate: Suniva, which became the Southeast’s first manufacturer of photovoltaic cells in 2009. The firm grew out of research in Georgia Tech’s University Center of Excellence for Photovoltaics Research and Education, which is part of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
“Suniva has created more than 150 clean-energy jobs manufacturing high-efficiency solar cells,” Peterson noted. The company was recently recognized by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who called it “the poster child for the new energy economy.”
About the ATDC: The Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) is a startup accelerator that helps Georgia technology entrepreneurs launch and build successful companies. For 30 years, ATDC has helped create millions of dollars in tax revenues by graduating more than 120 companies, which together have raised more than a billion dollars in outside financing. ATDC has provided business incubation and acceleration services to thousands of Georgia entrepreneurs.
Recently, ATDC expanded its mission by merging with Georgia Tech’s VentureLab and with the Georgia SBIR Assistance Program, which are also part of Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute. This change has enabled ATDC to greatly extend its reach to serve more technology companies along multiple growth paths and at all stages of development. ATDC has opened its membership to all technology entrepreneurs in Georgia, from those at the earliest conception stage to the well-established, venture-fundable companies.
Feds warn contractors to turn in IDs or lose cash
May 27, 2010 by cs
The federal acquisition councils are preparing to tighten rules on return of federal contractor employees’ government-issued identification cards once the job is done.
The councils today released a proposed rule that would amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to strengthen requirements about collecting the ID cards from contractors once the cards are no longer needed for work-site access.
Under the rule, the cards must be returned at the earliest of the following events: when no longer needed for contract performance, on completion of employment, or on completion or termination of a contract.
A contracting officer might delay final payment if those requirements are not met, the proposed rule states.
The rule was prompted by an audit of Defense Department Common Access Cards granted to contractors that showed that the cards were not adequately accounted for once the contract was finished, the notice states.
The rule will be published in the Federal Register on May 24, and comments are due within 60 days of publication.
The rule would apply to all forms of government identification cards given to contractor employees.
– by Alice Lipowicz – May 21, 2010 – About the Author: Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer for Washington Technology.
Fixing balance of workers and contractors isn’t a matter of math
May 26, 2010 by cs
The mix of government work done by federal employees and that done by outside contractors is out of balance, but the right balance doesn’t simply mean having those employees do more of the contractors’ work, the Obama administration told Congress Thursday.
In some cases, getting the mix right means hiring more federal workers to manage contractors who in certain cases might be creeping dangerously close to setting policy rather than just following orders.
“While contractors play, and will continue to play, a vital role, there are situations where the mix of work performed by our federal employees and contractors is out of balance — where agencies have contracted out functions that should be performed by federal employees,” Daniel I. Gordon, the Office of Management and Budget’s procurement policy chief, said in testimony prepared for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee.
The hearing drew a standing-room-only crowd for an unexciting subject that nonetheless gets to fundamental issues on the role of government. A key point is how the term “inherently governmental” is defined and how that definition is implemented when agencies determine what work is appropriate for outsiders and what jobs must remain inside.
In a draft policy letter released in March, the administration stuck to a definition that is already in law: A function is inherently governmental if it is “so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by federal government employees.”
Gordon told of conversations with federal employees who complained of contractors making policy. “Contractors are getting much closer to the decision-making process,” he warned during the hearing’s question-and-answer period.
But he also said the administration does not anticipate that plans to right the staff-contractor mix “will lead to a widespread shift away from contractors.” In fact, his written statement continued, “rebalancing does not require an agency to in-source, that is, to convert work from contract to in-house performance.”
Curtailing the Bush administration’s drive to privatize the public’s work has been an important element in the Obama administration workplace agenda. In March 2009, weeks after taking office, President Obama directed officials to “clarify when governmental outsourcing for services is and is not appropriate.” The dividing line “has been blurred and inadequately defined,” he wrote in a presidential memorandum.
Certainly, many jobs done by contractors will likely come back inside the government under Obama administration policies. Rebalancing the mix, however, also could include developing sufficient federal staffing to manage the contractors, Gordon said.
That’s needed because, as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the top Republican on the subcommittee, told the hearing, “our acquisition workforce grew only 11 percent while contract spending increased almost 60 percent between fiscal year 2002 and 2008.”
In one example, Jeff Neal, the Department of Homeland Security chief personnel officer, acknowledged that the number of employees who manage contractors “took a nose dive” during the past several years. “The capacity issue is one I’m worried about,” he said.
The chairman of the federal workforce subcommittee, Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), expressed particular concern about the overuse of DHS contractors. He said the department is “too heavily reliant on contractors to provide services that are critical to the agency’s mission.”
Representing government contractors was Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president of the Professional Services Council. He complained that a Defense Department effort to reduce contracting “has increasingly turned into a numbers game to meet personnel and dollar value quotas.”
His organization released a statement that said, “DOD agencies have in-sourced commercial functions — such as maintenance, audio visual services and pilot training service — that do not require in-house government performance.”
But it’s also clear that much work that fits even a narrow definition of inherently governmental has been awarded to contractors, or a least that that was the plan during the Bush years.
Mark Whetstone offered a personal example. He works for Citizenship and Immigration Services and is president of the American Federation of Government Employees unit that represents the agency’s workers.
Whetstone was an immigration information officer when the Bush administration tried to move that position to private contractors. Immigration information officers investigate and adjudicate applications from immigrants. “There was no question that we performed functions that should have been unambiguously reserved for federal employee performance,” Whetstone said.
But had it not been for congressional intervention, “I would not be here today,” he said, “because I and many other inherently governmental employees would likely have been privatized.”
– By Joe Davidson – The Washington Post – Friday, May 21, 2010; B03
What is a Capabilities Statement and why should I have one?
May 26, 2010 by cs
Clients of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) often ask about how to best present themselves to government officials, particularly contracting officers and small business specialists. GTPAC Procurement Counselors — most former contracting officers themselves — consistently advise that there are four key ingredients to making a favorable impression within the government marketplace:
- Familiarizing yourself with the particular agency you are targeting,
- Being prepared to deliver a concise “elevator speech” (a 30-second description of your expertise),
- Presenting a business card which displays your CAGE, NAICS, and NIGP codes, and
- Having a “Capabilities Statement.”
While the first three ingredients are fairly straightforward, here’s what’s important to understand about creating a Capabilities Statement for your business.
A Capabilities Statement should contain particular information and be organized in a certain way for use in the government sector.
For instance, a Capabilities Statement should always identify the company’s CAGE code. The reason for this is that a company has a CAGE code only if it’s registered in Central Contractor Registration (CCR), the federal government’s vendor database. Showing your CAGE code is important because that way contracting officials know you are oriented to the government sector (if you weren’t, you wouldn’t know you have to register in CCR) and are properly registered (federal agencies can’t do business with you unless you’re listed in CCR).
Identifying your PSC/FSC and NAICS codes is important, too, because that means you know what they are and their significance. (There are such codes for every product and service, and government agencies specify their contract opportunities using these codes.)
Similarly, if you are marketing to state and local governments, you should show your NIGP codes in your capabilities statement, because state and local governments use NIGP codes (instead of PSC/FSC or NAICS codes).
Providing point-of-contact information for the references you list is important, too, in case a government official wants to make a call or send an email to one of them. Each reference should also describe the type of work you performed or the products you delivered.
Over a period of time, you’ll want to develop several different versions of your capabilities statement, each tailored to a particular government sector audience. This is just like tailoring a personal resume when applying for a particular job. You want your past work descriptions to match-up with the contracting needs of the agency to which you’re marketing. Small Business Specialists withing government agencies use this information to decide whether to refer you to contracting offices and end-users. Contracting officials use this information to make initial determinations about whether you have the wherewithal to perform.
GTPAC also recommends, in addition to a Capabilities Statement, that you create a one-page briefing sheet on your firm. It, too, should be tailored to each audience or occasion. Briefing sheets can be very helpful as handouts when you are attending trade shows, expos, pre-bid conferences, or face-to-face meetings.
If you need a sample Capabilities Statement or more guidance on this subject, contact your GTPAC Procurement Counselor for help. Remember, too, to attend GTPAC classes to obtain detailed instruction on marketing your business to the government sector.
© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.
Chicago’s minority business program failing, report says
May 25, 2010 by cs
Mayor Richard Daley’s administration has awarded more than $1 billion in contracts in recent years that were based on false claims of compliance with a program designed to boost businesses owned by minorities and women, a watchdog report released Thursday concluded.
Inspector General Joseph Ferguson’s study also said that minority- and women-owned construction firms got paid nearly $20 million less than the city reported in 2008. That amounts to about 16 percent. The city kept inadequate records to determine how much went to the minority- and women-owned firms for other types of work that make up the bulk of city contracts, Ferguson’s report concluded.
“Our investigations and analysis have revealed that the (minority- and women-owned business) program is poorly administered and the administration cannot determine whether or not it is achieving its goals,” the report states. “One official aptly summed up the program as ‘a lot of paperwork and pushing paper.’
“The result of this substandard administration is that the program has been beset by fraud and brokers, and . . . participation is likely far less than the publicly reported statistics.”
The $1 billion figure involves firms that had sustained or “soon-to-be-sustained” allegations of fraud, abuse or mismanagement lodged against them since 2003, Ferguson found. The related contracts involved minority fronts really owned by white men — or disallowed pass-through firms or brokers that did little to no work, it states.
The city’s top attorney quickly blasted the findings. “The report issued today by the inspector general . . . would lead you to believe that the city lacks commitment to the minority- and women-owned business program,” Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said. “We do not.”
The Daley administration views the report “as largely a rehashing of old bad news that relies on the wholesale acceptance that the IG’s office is the expert on all topics in city government,” Georges said.
She noted that the administration fought in court to justify and maintain the program, established in 1985 under Mayor Harold Washington, when its constitutionality was challenged in 2003.
Without the program — which calls for 25 percent of contract payments to go to minorities and 5 percent to women — the amount of city money flowing to minority- and women-owned firms would be lower, Georges said.
The Daley administration has been beset by a series of scandals involving phony front companies awarded contracts intended for minority- and women-owned firms.
In the most notorious case, James Duff, a member of a mob-connected family with close ties to Daley, was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for a fraud involving more than $100 million in city contracts.
Ald. Ed Smith, 28th, the City Council’s longest-serving African-American, said he was disappointed by the report but not surprised.
“We’ve been yelling about this for years,” Smith said. “Every year, we talk about getting the manpower or whatever it takes to administer this program properly and actually make sure it’s doing what it’s supposed to.”
Georges said it is possible that the inspector general would get to oversee the program now run by the Office of Compliance.
– By Hal Dardick and John Byrne, Tribune Reporters – Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune – 8:45 PM CDT, May 20, 2010 – www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-minority-contracts-20100520,0,4192165.story
Changing the World: Forbes Lists ATDC Among the World’s Top Incubators
May 24, 2010 by cs
Forbes Magazine has named Georgia Tech’s science and technology startup accelerator, the Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC), to its new list of the “ten technology incubators that are changing the world.” ATDC is the only incubator in the Southeast to be included on the Forbes list.
In its brief description of ATDC, Forbes noted that the program has graduated more than 120 companies since 1980 and that companies associated with ATDC have collectively raised more than $1 billion in outside financing. “The companies are heavy with Georgia Tech alumni,” the magazine noted, “but that’s not a requirement.”
According to Forbes, the United States has more than 300 incubators that host approximately 6,000 companies. Many of them associated with universities, the incubators provide a broad range of support, from shared laboratory equipment to accounting and secretarial support, the magazine said.
Incubators like the ATDC, Forbes added, “are increasingly drawing intellectual capital from around the world.” The magazine said it worked with CB Insights, a New York firm that tracks private-company funding trends – including venture capital private equity and government-backed deals – to select 10 “especially crackling innovation hubs.”
Forbes is the third leading U.S business publication to cite ATDC’s record of success in helping Georgia entrepreneurs. Inc. Magazine and BusinessWeek had earlier included ATDC on their lists of leading incubators.
Part of Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute, the ATDC now has more than 300 companies in its program. ATDC helps Georgia technology entrepreneurs launch and build successful companies. As part of its incubation and acceleration services, ATDC helps Georgia Tech faculty members and researchers form new companies based on intellectual property developed in the Institute’s $500 million-per-year research program. ATDC also helps companies compete for and win federal grants through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
“Startups play an essential role in creating new jobs and growing the economy,” noted Stephen Fleming, Georgia Tech vice provost and executive director of the Enterprise Innovation Institute. “We are proud of the many companies that have emerged from ATDC – and those currently in our program that are Georgia’s technology leaders of the future.”
On May 24th, ATDC will celebrate its 30th anniversary at its annual startup showcase and celebration. That makes the Forbes honor especially timely, Fleming noted.
“As ATDC prepares to celebrate its 30th anniversary, this recognition demonstrates that it remains relevant and important to the entrepreneur community in Georgia,” he said. “As we enjoy this attention, we thank those who have supported ATDC over many years: the Georgia General Assembly, the Georgia Research Alliance, the Georgia Tech administration and all of the volunteers who have shared their time and expertise with companies. Becoming one of the top programs in the world required long-term investment by many people and organizations.”
Other incubator programs cited in the Forbes list were:
- The Environmental Business Cluster (San Jose, CA)
- Houston Technology Center (Houston, TX)
- The IceHouse (Auckland, New Zealand)
- Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives (Worcester, MA)
- Palo Alto Research Center (Palo Alto, CA)
- The Research Park at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (Champaign, IL)
- The Technology Innovation Center (Evanston, IL)
- University Research Park & MGE Innovation Center at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI)
- Y Combinator (Mountain View, CA)
- by Nancy Fullbright - April 21, 2010
SBA still claims Fortune 500 firms land small business contracts accidentally
May 24, 2010 by cs
In a recent story published by the Medill News Service, Small Business Administration (SBA) Spokesman Mike Stamler continued to maintain that the diversion of billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms is merely random data entry errors.
In the story, Mr. Stamler claims that large companies receive small business contracts, “because of simple human error,” and “miscoding.” For years, the SBA and Mr. Stamler have used “miscoding” to explain why some of the largest firms in the U.S. and Europe receive billions of dollars a month in contracts intended for small businesses. In a May 2007 press release the SBA even claimed the rampant abuses were simply a “myth.”
Mr. Stamler’s remarks stand in stark contrast to a series of federal investigations, going back to 2003, from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the SBA Office of Advocacy, and the SBA’s Inspector General (SBA IG) that have found widespread fraud and abuse in virtually every program managed by the SBA.
In Report 5-16 from March 2005, the SBA IG reported that large businesses had committed fraud by misrepresenting themselves as small businesses through “false certifications,” and “improper certifications.” Another investigation from the SBA Office of Advocacy found large businesses had received federal small business contracts fraudulently through what they referred to as “vendor deception.”
In Report 5-15, the SBA IG referred to the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants as, “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today.” For the last five consecutive years the SBA IG has reported these rampant abuses as the #1 management challenge facing the SBA.
An SBA IG investigation from March 2010 found that the SBA itself awarded federal small business contracts to large businesses during fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
In February of 2008, the American Small Business League (ASBL) sued the SBA for the release of the names of Fortune 500 firms and other large businesses that had received billions of dollars in federal small business contracts. The SBA withheld the information until directed to release it by United States District Judge Marilyn H. Patel. In the court’s ruling Patel stated, “The court finds it curious the SBA’s argument that it does not ‘control’ the very information it needs to carry out its duties and functions.”
“I am stunned that Mr. Stamler has any credibility left with the media. Putting an end to Mr. Stamler’s blatant lies and the SBA’s misinformation campaign is absolutely crucial to ending these abuses,” ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. “I think it is time that journalists ask Mike Stamler or Karen Mills the following question: why is it that all of these computer glitches, miscoding errors or data entry problems, always divert funds away from hardworking American small businesses into the hands of Fortune 500 firms, while at the same time falsely inflating the government’s small business contracting data?”
For video commentary on this issue, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-KHFzpKkIY
– The above statement was issued by the American Small Business League on Mon., 24 May 2010 11:50:38 GMT.