To say the government’s money is tight is to understate the obvious.
What’s also obvious is that if programs get no funding, then the money intended for contracts supporting those programs will dry up too.
That’s likely to happen to more contracts in 2012, Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners, wrote Jan. 30 in his “The Week Ahead” newsletter. Winning a contract and assuming officials have funding approved for it doesn’t work anymore.
“Tougher decisions have to be made on what ‘approved’ projects actually reach the level of ‘funded,’” he wrote.
In these trying days, contractors need to ask agency officials several questions early on in the procurement process, including:
- Will this project be funded?
- Will it be funded in an amount close to the estimate the acquisition office gave in its proposal?
Allen said agency officials may not have the answers right away, but it’s to your company’s advantage to ask.
Without knowing, you could be wasting time — time is usually money — on a project that isn’t going to generate the real green paper. That means you may have lost out twice on one bid.
Allen’s lesson is clear: “Make sure you know that the project you’re spending time on is something the government will spend money on.”
– posted by Matthew Weigelt, Washington Technology, Jan. 30, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/acquisitive-mind/2012/01/program-funding-contract-money.aspx?s=wtdaily_310112.
In response to reader requests to count down the top 10 single federal contract awards, we bring you the biggest contracts of fiscal 2011 that were won by just one company.
In the countdown, we have one joint venture and one company that won three of the top 10 contracts.
There also are five contracts worth over $1 billion each. It’s hard to have a bad year if you capture one of those all to yourself.
Washington Technology created the countdown based on research provided by Deltek.
So starting with No. 10, the 2011 countdown begins….
10. Boeing Co.
Army Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System
AKA: EMARSS
Value: $323 million
Purpose: The Army is using the contract to develop a government-owned, contractor-operated manned aerial reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition system that will be deployed worldwide.
9. Noblis Inc.
FAA Enterprise Communications Support Services Full and Open
AKA: ECSS
Value: $350.2 million
Purpose: Noblis is providing support services to the FAA’s Air Traffic Control Communications Services Directorate. Tasks involve systems engineering, acquisition and program management support, operations management and support, business and financial management, information systems development and support, and studies, analysis and evaluations.
8. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Navy Joint Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare Technologies
AKA: JCREW 3.3
Value: $455 million
Purpose: Lockheed Martin is supporting the development and demonstration of technologies to improve work on improvised explosive devices. Services include antennas, receivers and transmitters, signal generation, communications equipment, scalable open architectures, and other technical services.
7. Science Applications International Corp.
Defense Logistics Agency Tire Successor Initiative
AKA: TSI
Value: $725.5 million
Purpose: SAIC manages the supply chain and materiel support for the government’s aircraft and ground tires. The company will be involved in demand planning and forecasting, order processing and fulfillment, purchasing, inventory management and other services.
6. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Navy Technology Insertion Hardware
AKA: TI Hardware
Value: $758.2 million
Purpose: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors is providing program management, engineering, design, development, logistics and other support for the Team Submarine Common Production Hardware project. The project involves the continuous evolution of display, processor and network systems associated with Navy combat control, sonar and imaging systems.
5. Orbital Sciences Corp.
Missile Defense Agency Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Target Class
AKA: IRBM
Value: $1.1 billion
Purpose: Orbital is providing logistics support to the Missile Defense Agency including inventory storage and maintenance management, pre- and post mission analysis, launch preparation and execution and engineering services.
4. Forfeiture Support
Associates LLC
Drug Enforcement Administration Asset Forfeiture Program Administrative Support Services
Value: $1.7 billion
Purpose: FSA, a joint venture of L-3 and Aecom Government Services, provides administrative support for the government asset forfeiture program. Services include personnel management and supervision, recruitment and retention, training, data analysis, legal process support analysis, and other services.
3. QinetiQ Group
NASA Kennedy Space Center Engineering Services Contract
AKA: KSC
Value: $2 billion
Purpose: QinetiQ provides a variety of services such as development of ground support systems, processing launch vehicles and payloads, flight systems sustaining engineering, ground systems engineering and other technical services.
2. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Navy Acoustic Rapid Commercial Off the Shelf Insertion
AKA: A-RCI
Value: $2.1 billion
Purpose: Lockheed is supporting the Naval Sea Systems Command integrate a sonar system that integrates and improves towed array, hull array, sphere array, and other ship sensor processing. The work includes the rapid insertion of COTS based hardware and software.
And the largest contract of fiscal 2011 went to….
1. Hewlett-Packard Co.
NASA Agency Consolidated End User Services
AKA: I3P ACES
Value: $2.5 billion
Purpose: NASA has hired HP to consolidate management of end-user services, devices and products. Services include a customer contract center, email, calendaring, systems administration, and integrated hardware and software maintenance.
About the Author: Nick Wakeman is the editor-in-chief of Washington Technology. Published Dec. 14, 2011 at http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2011/12/14/top-single-award-contracts-2011.aspx?s=wtdaily_151211&Page=4.
The Internal Revenue Service in recent years has awarded contracts to at least 20 companies with delinquent taxes totaling $5.2 million, according to a new watchdog report.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found IRS procurement officials often fail to verify if agency contractors have paid federal corporate and payroll taxes. And, even when officials discover the tax delinquencies, a loophole in federal acquisition law prevents the IRS from terminating the contract, the report said.
“Although IRS contractors are not considered employees, they are conducting business and doing work on behalf of the agency whose mission is to ensure taxpayers meet their tax responsibilities,” Inspector General J. Russell George wrote. “As a result, we believe IRS contractors should be held to the same ethical standards as IRS employees and paid preparers concerning their compliance with the nation’s tax laws.”
The IG reviewed 135 current IRS contactors with awards of at least $250,000 issued between October 2006 and December 2008, and determined that 20 of the firms owed federal taxes. Six of the companies had delinquent tax liabilities totaling $943,000 when they first won the contracts. As of March 2009, the amount the six companies owed had increased to $4.9 million.
In 13 cases, an IRS contracting official conducted a tax check, as required by federal acquisition law. But the reviews shed relatively little light on the significance of the tax liabilities, failing to distinguish the type of taxes owed, the age of the debt, or if the contractors had established a plan to repay the funds.
IRS procurement officials failed to conduct a tax check for the seven other firms. But, it’s unclear whether the checks would have prevented the businesses from winning the awards. Federal guidelines bar the IRS from using tax-indebtedness to exclude a company from obtaining a contract. Regulations permit the agency to verify a bidder’s tax record only at the time of the initial award to determine if the debt could jeopardize the performance of the contract.
Federal acquisition guidelines also do not require the IRS to conduct a tax check when contracts are being considered for renewal, allowing companies to continue receiving federal payments without having to answer for their debt, the IG said. The IRS renewed the contracts of 17 of the 20 companies with delinquencies.
IRS employees, meanwhile, face disciplinary action, including termination, if they fail to file accurate and timely income taxes.
“If the IRS continues to conduct business with contractors that do not comply with the nation’s tax laws, an adverse message will be sent to the American taxpayers as to the fairness of the tax administration system,” George wrote. The problems TIGTA identified are not new in federal contracting. In February 2004, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 27,000 Defense Department contractors owed nearly $3 billion in federal taxes. In June 2005, an audit of 33,000 civilian agency contractors identified $3.3 billion in delinquent federal taxes. And, in March 2006, GAO found that 3,800 General Services Administration contractors owed $1.4 billion in federal taxes.
A 2009 bill that former Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., sponsored would have prevented any company with “a seriously delinquent tax debt” from winning a government contract or grant. The legislation cleared the House, but not the Senate.
In January 2010, President Obama issued a governmentwide memorandum directing the IRS commissioner to review the certifications that firms bidding on federal contracts submit to demonstrate they are up-to-date on their taxes. The memo also required the Office of Management and Budget director to issue recommendations on ensuring tax delinquent contractors are not awarded new contracts, and to develop plans to make contractor tax certifications available in a governmentwide procurement database. Those plans have not yet been announced.
The IG recommended the IRS ensure that all required tax checks are conducted before contracts are awarded and that senior agency executives meet and review Obama’s 2010 memorandum. The IRS concurred with those recommendations but disagreed with another IG suggestion that would require an annual tax check on all IRS contractors.
David Grant, chief of agencywide shared services at the IRS, wrote in his response that there is no justification in federal law or regulation for annual tax verifications. “A tax check is cursory,” Grant wrote. “Unverified that is not actionable as the contractor has had no due process in regard to the tax check information and the tax liability has not been finally determined.”
– by Robert Brodsky - GovExec.com – January 10, 2011
The federal government is the newest occupant in the peep-show district of the business world.
It has moved in with its business partners peep show, a place where anyone — no matter their age — can get a glimpse of what’s happening between government contractors and their partners.
The place where everything’s transparent — the USAspending.gov website — is giving intimate peeks into business relationships with its new subcontracting award information, which went online in December.
To grab people’s attention, the government can advertise that it’s the only place where people have an opportunity to watch company relationships grow closer and then apart as business changes.
The government’s massive website of contracting data posted its first subcontracting award information in December, wrote Jacob Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, on the OMB Blog last month. It’s another step toward the ultimate goal of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. For the first time, the public can track a government agency’s payments to a contractor and the contractor’s payments to its subcontractors.
Until now, two companies’ relationship was for the two companies alone. Government officials had regarded the details of relationships between contractors and subcontractors as something they shouldn’t release, said Kevin Plexico, senior vice president for research and analysis services at Input.
That has changed now, though, as officials pull back the curtain on companies’ partnerships.
In early December, Lew wrote that USAspending.gov had roughly 930 subcontracting awards posted, accounting to about $750 million in federal funding.
“We expect this number to increase significantly over time, but it represents a critical milestone in our efforts [to provide] the public with unprecedented transparency into how and where tax dollars are spent,” he wrote.
The show will include some veterans who are used to having their spending figures available for all to see. As prime contractors, they’ve had to do it for years. It comes with being a federal contractor. However, there will be some companies who’ve never shown that much information before.
The transparency requirements “may be uncomfortable for the subcontractors, who, by the way, are not typically exposed to this kind of reporting,” Plexico said.
Nevertheless, the data might be good. The peeks at companies could impress other businesses interested in potential partnerships.
As the amount of subcontractor data increases, “it should be a useful tool for companies and agencies to gain insight into partner relationships and patterns,” Plexico said. The data could also help companies find qualified subcontractors and give more insight into their past performance.
– Posted on Federal Computer Week website, http://fcw.com, by Matthew Weigelt on Jan 03, 2011
Filed under Contracting News · Tagged with 8(a), ARRA, contract awards, federal contracting, federal regulations, government trends, HUBZone, preference, recovery, SBA, SDVOSB, small business, woman owned business
Small businesses won a record $96.8 billion in federal prime contracts in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 (Oct. 1, 2008-Sept. 30, 2009), an increase of more than $3 billion from FY 2008, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration’s fourth annual small business procurement scorecard released today. This dollar amount represents 21.89 percent of all federal spending – an improvement over FY2008. Additionally, performance in each of the government’s socioeconomic subcategories increased for FY2009.
There was an increase in both dollars and contracting share for every small business category. This represents real progress, but not enough, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that the 23 percent goal is met and exceeded,” SBA Administrator Karen Mills said. “Federal contracts awarded to small businesses are a ‘win-win’ – providing small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs, and offering innovative services and essential goods to the government at great value to the taxpayers.”
Small Business Goaling Summary Report
Small Businesses:
2009 Goal 23%
2009 Percentage 21.89%
2009 Contract Dollars $96.8 billion
2008 Percentage 21.5%
2008 Contract Dollars $93.2 billion
Women Owned Small Business:
2009 Goal 5%
2009 Percentage 3.68%
2009 Contract Dollars $16.3 billion
2008 Percentage 3.40%
2008 Contract Dollars $14.7 billion
Small Disadvantaged Businesses:
2009 Goal 5%
2009 Percentage 7.57%
2009 Contract Dollars $33.5 billion
2008 Percentage 6.76%
2008 Contract Dollars $29.3 billion
Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business:
2009 Goal 3%
2009 Percentage 1.98%
2009 Contract Dollars $8.8 billion
2008 Percentage 1.49%
2008 Contract Dollars $6.4 billion
HUBZone:
2009 Goal 3%
2009 Percentage 2.81%
2009 Contract Dollars $12.4 billion
2008 Percentage 2.34%
2008 Contract Dollars $10.1 billion
SBA is required to report to the President and Congress on achievements by federal agencies and departments against their annual goal to ensure greater accountability. The small business Procurement Scorecard fulfills that requirement by providing an assessment of federal achievement in prime contracting and subcontracting to small businesses by the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies. It also measures progress that departments are making to ensure small business opportunities remain an integral part of their acquisition of goods and services to meet mission objectives.
The fourth annual Scorecard is an assessment tool (1) to measure how well federal agencies reach their small business and socio-economic prime contracting and subcontracting goals, (2) provide accurate and transparent contracting data and (3) report agency-specific progress. The prime and subcontracting component goals include goals for small businesses, small businesses owned by women, small disadvantaged businesses, service-disabled veteran owned small businesses, and small businesses in located in HUBZones.
As it does every year, the SBA has closely examined federal procurement reporting and data to ensure the greatest level of transparency possible.
After identifying anomalies in initial reports, the SBA has worked collaboratively – and will continue to work – with agencies across the government to correct as many data issues as possible, and improve the integrity of all small business federal contracting reporting moving forward.
The Recovery Act and small business contracting
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided additional resources to federal agencies in fiscal year 2009, providing additional opportunities for small businesses to win federal contracts. Through early August, small businesses have secured over 30 percent of Recovery Act Contracts. This preliminary data underscores the priority the Administration and the SBA have placed on increasing small businesses access to federal contracts so that they can grow and create jobs.
About the Scorecard
SBA graded 24 agencies on each of the individual prime contracting goals established by Congress and used a new A+ through F letter grade system rather than the previous red, yellow, and green ratings. The new scorecard format was implemented this year to provide greater clarity and transparency on how well each agency is doing in meeting its individual small business prime contracting goals.
Each federal agency has a different small business contracting goal, determined annually in consultation with SBA. SBA ensures that the sum total of all of the goals meets the 23 percent target established by law.
Each agency’s overall grade will show an A+ for agencies that meet or exceed 120 percent of their goals, an A for those between 100 percent and 119 percent, a B for 90 to 99 percent, a C for 80 to 89 percent, a D for 70 to 79 percent and an F for less than 70 percent. An agency’s overall grade was comprised of three quantitative measures: prime contracts (80 percent), subcontracts (10 percent) and its progress plan for meeting goals (10 percent).
The scorecards released Aug. 27, 2010 by SBA, as well as a detailed explanation of the new scorecard methodology, is available online: http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/goals/index.html.
As part of its ongoing efforts to increase access to contracting opportunities for small businesses, the SBA is continuing to work with federal agency procurement staff to strengthen the integrity of contracting data, including providing tools to facilitate public review of data, improvements to systems and training to improve accuracy.
***************
Release Date: August 27, 2010
Contact: Tiffani Clements (202) 401-0035 Hayley Matz (202) 205-6948
Release Number: 10-48
Internet Address: http://www.sba.gov/news
The Obama administration is weighing what could be the most ambitious federal contracting transparency effort yet. In May, the civilian and defense acquisition councils, which craft changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, caught the federal marketplace by surprise when they announced in an advance notice of proposed rule-making that agencies soon might be required to publish copies of their contracts online in a public database.
The councils are seeking public comment on how best to amend the FAR “to enable public posting of contract actions, should such posting become a requirement in the future, without compromising contractors’ proprietary and confidential commercial or financial information,” a May 13 Federal Register notice stated. The announcement referenced seven administration memos and directives issued during the past 18 months calling for increased transparency from federal agencies. But none of those documents mandated – or even suggested – the posting of government contracts online.
A sweeping mandate to post the text of about 30 million contractual actions online would have significant repercussions for both government and contractor officials. Most contracts include proprietary information about a company’s price, employee salaries and technical capabilities that could prove devastating if disclosed to competitors. Virtually every document would have to be redacted, a heavy lift for federal workers, even with an automated process.
“It will take some effort to go through these things and think about what is sensitive and too troublesome to be released,” says Allan Burman, president of the Jefferson Solutions consulting firm and former administrator of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy. “You need a reasoned view from the government, because they can’t just accept what the contractor proposes.”
Industry officials say the initiative is not worth the effort, particularly given that citizens generally can obtain copies of government contracts through Freedom of Information Act requests. In addition, since December 2007, contract summaries – including the name of the vendor, cost of the award, place of performance and nature of the work – have been available on USASpending.gov.
Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, a contractor trade association, says a very small percentage of citizens would understand the highly technical language buried in the text of federal contracts. “The public is not missing out on much,” he says. “You are not gaining a whole lot, but you are creating a heck of a lot of work for the government.”
But federal watchdogs argue taxpayers have a right to know how the government is spending their money. Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based group that has advocated posting contracts online, says the technology exists to protect proprietary data and provide a window into the often arcane federal procurement process. “The administration’s proposal is a refreshing shift after so many years of watching billions of dollars fly out the door and only coded summary data to justify that spending,” he says.
The idea of posting copies of contracts online is not new. During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., introduced a follow-up to their 2006 Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act, which created USASpending.gov. The 2008 legislation, co-sponsored by Obama’s Republican rival for the presidency, Arizona Sen. John McCain, would have required federal agencies to post online searchable copies of all contracts they awarded; details about the bidding process; assessments of work already performed; and information on civil, criminal or administrative proceedings against award recipients.
Despite the high-level support, the legislation never moved out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. An identical bill in the House also floundered. A Senate Democratic source familiar with the measure says some in the George W. Bush administration “questioned whether it was possible to do everything that the bill tried to do.” Among the concerns raised was the feasibility of going through every contract line by line searching for private information to redact.
“It’s certainly a worthy goal to provide people information about who is getting contracts,” Burman says. “I think on balance people would argue that sunshine and openness are good things. But, there is an element of cost associated with all of this.”
OMB spokeswoman Jean Weinberg says the administration is examining the operational challenges associated with publishing copies of contracts. Officials are looking forward “to reviewing the comments [to the Federal Register notice] and having further discussions with agencies and industry to ensure we are appropriately considering their concerns while continuing to promote open government and transparency,” she adds.
Some agencies have experimented with posting contracts online. The Treasury Department has published hundreds of contracts to companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. And the General Services Administration released a heavily redacted copy of its contract for the redesign of Recovery.gov, the administration’s central repository for Recovery Act data.
But those efforts have been scattershot and limited to high-profile circumstances. Amey says the administration should consolidate its efforts and create a one-stop shop on USASpending.gov for all federal spending – contracts, proposals, solicitations, audits, performance data, grants and leases.
“POGO envisions an electronic system that allows certain fields or protected data to be redacted from public disclosure,” Amey says. “The result will be a system that reduces paper shuffling and finally allows the public to see details, not scant coded summaries, about goods and services the government buys each year. This effort is a win-win for the government and taxpayers.”
– By Robert Brodsky – Government Executive magazine - August 1, 2010
Filed under Contracting Tips · Tagged with 8(a), acquisition, contract awards, contractor performance, debarment, DOT, federal contracting, federal regulations, FPDS, fraud, government contracting, government trends, green construction, GSA, insourcing, market research, OIG, procurement reform, SDVOSB, service disabled, small business, woman owned business
There are several new developments in the government contracting arena which will have an effect on how you do business with federal, state and local agencies in the future.
New rules soon will affect woman-owned and small disadvantaged-owned businesses; more transparency is being called for in both monitoring functions and contract award decision-making; a sharper focus is being given to federal contract awards to small businesses; federal contract spending is predicted to drop; and government acquisitions are ”going green.”
To help you track these developing trends, the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) presents this quick reference guide:
- The National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) recently submit comments on the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)’s proposed rule for the Women’s Procurement Program on behalf of its members. You can find NAWBO’s views here, read the Small Business Administration’s summary of the Mar. 2, 2010 proposed rule here, and read the full text of the proposed rules here. On July 28, 2010, the head of the SBA told the House Small Business Committee that the women’s small business contracting program will start before the end of 2010; details here.
- There are new rules also being proposed for changes in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program; an article containing details can be seen here.
- Increased calls for transparency, from both within and outside of government, are getting attention. Pointing to the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of contracting misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is now compiling and providing such data on its own. You can find sortable details here. In addition, the Sunlight Foundation combines data from the Federal Procurement Data System and the Federal Assistance Award Data System to create a free, searchable database of federal government contracting and spending, which you can access here. Meanwhile, the General Services Administration (GSA) and federal acquisition councils are seeking advice from the public on how best to publish contract information; details here.
- In recent weeks, the volume has been turned up on the federal government’s contract spending with small businesses. While it’s the government’s policy to award 23% of its contracts to small businesses, numerous reports show that not only has this goal been missed but that large businesses – misclassified as small businesses — are receiving these set-asides. A recent news article by the president of the American Small Business League summarizes this problem. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) documents ineligible firms receiving government contracts designated for service disabled veteran owned small businesses here, and ineligible firms receiving contracts set-aside for small disadvantaged 8(a) firms here. The White House, meanwhile, recently called for the establishment of a pair of interagency task forces to help federal agencies award more contracts to small businesses; details here.
- The president’s proposed FY2011 budget includes $36 billion fewer federal contracting dollars. This is about a 5% cut over the current year ending Sept. 30, 2010. The new budget reflects a freeze on discretionary spending as well as an “insourcing” initiative, meaning fewer contractors and more government workers. Read an article about an analysis of the proposed federal contracting budget here. See details on how insourcing could hurt small businesses here.
- More and more attention is being given to contractor performance as a factor in contract award decisions. Click on the hyperlinks here to read articles about the Navy’s proposed “preferred contractor program” and the establishment of the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) which took effect on April 22, 2010. You also can read about a bi-partisan effort in the Senate that could double the length of time contractors’ performance records remain active in government databases.
- Energy efficiency and savings, green construction, green technology and smarter acquisition decisions — all continue to be emphasized in current government contracting. Recent articles about each of these topics here.
Keep watching www.gtpac.org to see reporting on the latest developments in all aspects of government contracting.
© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.
Filed under Contracting News · Tagged with 8(a), contract awards, federal contracting, fraud, government trends, HUBZone, insourcing, marketing, OMB, preference, procurement reform, SBA, set-aside, small business, woman owned business
Small business owners and advocates told members of the Obama administration on Monday that it must quickly break down barriers to contracting opportunities.
At a jam-packed public meeting in the Commerce Department auditorium, dozens of small business contractors expressed frustration with a system they claim is geared unfairly to large companies.
Entrepreneurs from across the country told officials from Commerce, the Office of Management and Budget, and Small Business Administration that they are losing out on opportunities because of contract bundling, poorly enforced acquisition rules and awards diverted to large companies.
The three agencies co-chair the Interagency Task Force on Federal Contracting Opportunities for Small Businesses, which President Obama created in late April.
The task force has been charged with expanding outreach to small firms and helping agencies meet and exceed the federal statutory goal of awarding 23 percent of all contract dollars to small business. The group must submit recommendations to the White House by the end of August.
For more than three hours, dozens of visibly frustrated small business owners criticized the federal acquisition process. They lashed out at agencies that package small contracts together and awarded them to large firms; others criticized delays in implementing a women-owned small business program or alleged inequities that allow Alaska Native contractors to dominate the small business marketplace.
The administration’s top contracting official said the panel was prepared to listen, and possibly implement, some of the audience’s ideas. “The president is committed to making sure that small businesses get their fair share of federal contracting opportunities,” said Dan Gordon, administrator of OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy.”
Members of the public offered detailed recommendations for the panel, including raising the revenue threshold for remaining in the SBA’s 8(a) business development program and increasing information technology opportunities for Historically Underutilized Business Zone contractors.
Guy Timberlake, president of the American Small Business Coalition, a Maryland-based trade association, called for the simplified acquisition threshold to be increased from $100,000 to $500,000.
Others called on the administration to radically shift its policy proposals.
John Palatiello, president of the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, an industry advocacy group, asked OMB to withdraw its inherently governmental policy proposal and to immediately halt its insourcing initiative. “Let’s make the pie larger for small businesses,” Palatiello said.
Participants also cited what they saw as the lack of enforcement and oversight of small business set-asides, alleging fraud, waste and abuse in the programs, including contracts unfairly awarded to large firms masquerading as small businesses.
“Fortune 500 companies should not be getting small business contracts,” said Lloyd Chapman, president of the American Small Business League, a trade association.
Another source of angst for both industry and government officials is the ongoing parity dispute among the small business set-aside programs. Last year, the Government Accountability Office ruled that HUBZone firms, based on some technical language in their statute, were legally at the top of the small business pecking order. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the decision, but the administration is appealing it.
Gordon told the audience, which was packed with HUBZone, 8(a) and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, that Congress was moving in the coming days to finalize legislation to restore parity to the programs.
Those who were unable to attend Monday’s meeting can e-mail their comments to the task force by June 30.
– By Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com – June 28, 2010
Trying to size-up your competition in the federal contracting marketplace?
Here are three relatively easy ways to do some meaningful market research on-line:
- Go to FedBizOpps (FBO) and use the “Advanced Search” feature there to look for contract opportunities and contract awards in the NAICS category that describes what you sell (look up your NAICS codes here). Set whatever date parameters you’d like (FBO will allow you to search back many years). You also might want to set some geographic limits on your search. Be sure to select both active and archived documents as well as awards. After you hit the Search button, you can then sort through the resulting list (which is compiled by most recent contracts back to the oldest). Drill down into contract awards postings to see which agencies have bought what you sell and who’s won these contracts in the past.
- Whenever you go to FedBizOpps and look at an active solicitation, you should get acquainted with using the two buttons labeled: “Add to Watchlist” and “Add Me To Interested Vendors.” The first one will ensure that you are sent updates on the solicitation. The second button will add you to a list of interested parties; it allows the contracting officer to assess potential interest in the solicitation, and when the “View Interested Vendors” module has been activated, it allows anyone to see the list of interested parties, along with all their contact information. Once you register, this is a good way to “see and be seen.”
- If the “View Interested Vendors” module in FedBizOpps has not been activated for a particular solicitation, you may wish to email the points-of-contact listed in the posting and request that they activate it so that all may see the list. Let them know that you are interested and qualified to participate and wish to pursue a partnering arrangement. If you are a small business – particularly one in a socio-economic category the government gives preference to – be sure to point that out. Contracting officers will understand that your gaining access to the list could help facilitate small business participation in the contract.
Be sure to attend classes conducted by the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) and communicate with GTPAC Procurement Counselors to learn about even more ways to conduct market research, identify opportunities, and find potential subcontracting leads.
© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.
On Wednesday, June 9, United States District Court Judge William Alsup denied the American Small Business League’s (ASBL) motion for a preliminary injunction against the General Services Administration (GSA). The ASBL originally filed the motion in response to GSA actions to remove information from the federal government’s contracting database. Historically, the information has been used to uncover billions of dollars in small business contracts flowing to Fortune 500 firms. (http://www.asbl.com/documents/order_Denying_prelim.pdf)
Investigations by the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General (SBA IG), U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) and inspector generals from a series of other federal agencies have used the field, “small business flag,” to identify large companies masquerading as small businesses to receive federal contracts. Since 2003, these investigations have uncovered billions of dollars in federal small business contracts actually ending up in the hands of Fortune 500 firms and some of the largest businesses in Europe and Asia. The most recent data released by the government indicates that the recipients of federal small business contracts include: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in South Korea, and the Italian firm Finmeccanica SpA. (http://www.asbl.com/documents/20090825TopSmallBusinessContractors2008.pdf)
In response to the court’s ruling, the ASBL announced it intends to pursue a permanent injunction against the GSA to prevent the destruction of the field on all future and historical data available to the public. In the court’s ruling, Alsup stated, “In the present action, plaintiff has not shown that the deletion of the search fields was a significant revision. Nevertheless, it should be given opportunity to do so by obtaining discovery on the pedigree of the change.” In accordance with Alsup’s ruling, the ASBL reportedly plans to subpoena emails and other materials within the GSA. The ASBL believes the information will show that the destruction of the “small business flag” was in fact a “significant revision,” in that it will make it difficult, if not impossible, for federal investigators to uncover billions in fraud and abuse in small business contracting programs.
by Llyod Chapman, American Small Business League (ASBL), June 9, 2010