Small Business Administration Myth vs. Fact News Release Struggles to Defend New Multi-billion Dollar Loophole for Big Business

Press Release

Small Business Administration Myth vs. Fact News Release Struggles to Defend New Multi-billion Dollar Loophole for Big Business

July 19, 2007

Petaluma, Calif. – In the Small Business Administration’s July 18th news release, they claim that it is a myth that there is a loophole in their latest five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy that will allow the SBA to continue to report contracts to large business as small business awards until the year 2012.
 
Nationally recognized federal contracting expert Professor Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore School of Law disagrees. In Professor Tiefer’s December 5, 2006 opinion on the new SBA policy entitled, “Opinion on the Loophole In SBA Size Standard Regulations,” Professor Tiefer stated: “The Small Business Administration’s latest size standard regulations issued in mid-November will still result in the federal government reporting many of its prime contracts performed by large businesses, as small business contract awards, for at least five years to come. I have reviewed the new regulations. Also, I have reviewed the many independent inquiries about the government's enormous loopholes for large businesses to enjoy contracts purportedly awarded to small businesses. It is clear that, after three years of hesitation about doing something, the SBA simply ducked action for even partially closing those loopholes.”
 
Professor Tiefer is not alone in his opposition to the new SBA five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy. In 2006, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship voted to close loopholes that have allowed the SBA to report billions of dollars in contracts to many of the largest firms in America as small business awards (https://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=296). They voted unanimously to endorse the annual re-certification policy that was originally proposed by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in February of 2003 (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/17_22/20148-1.html). An annual re-certification policy would require all firms claiming small business status to recertify that status annually, as opposed to every five-years as dictated by the SBA’s recently implemented policy.
 
Under the annual re-certification policy, large businesses with existing federal small business contracts and firms holding small business contracts that were acquired or had out grown their small business status, would be allowed to keep the contracts they were awarded. However, the federal government would no longer be allowed to include those contracts towards the federal government’s 23 percent small business contracting goal. This would ensure that firms transitioning from small to large would not be punished for growing, and that only contracts to legitimate small businesses would be counted towards the government’s 23 percent small business contracting goal.
Other supporters of the annual re-certification policy included the SBA itself before the arrival of current SBA Administrator Steven Preston, the SBA Office of Inspector General, and the Office of Management and Budget.
 
SBA Administrator Preston ignored the overwhelming support for an annual re-certification policy and instead initiated the current five-year re-certification policy the SBA had originally proposed in 2005 as a five-year grandfathering policy.
 
The American Small Business League plans to file their fourth federal lawsuit against the SBA to overturn the policy. They believe the five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy is an intentional loophole the SBA has created that will falsify the government’s compliance with the 23 percent small business contracting goal and divert billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Fortune 1000 firms and other large businesses.  
 
###

Under U.S. Small-Firm Programs, Big Dollars Flow To Big Firms

News

Under U.S. Small-Firm Programs, Big Dollars Flow To Big Firms

By By ELISE CASTELLI And M.Z. HEMINGWAY
DefenseNews.com
July 19, 2007

No one would consider Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) a small business.

The San Diego-based science, technology and intelligence giant earned $7.8 billion last year, has more than 44,000 employees worldwide and ranks as the ninth-largest U.S. defense contractor. It is a Fortune 500 company.

Yet SAIC was one of the top recipients of U.S. government-awarded small-business contracts last year — totaling $512 million — according to federal procurement data, as analyzed by the market research firm Eagle Eye Publishers of Fairfax, Va.

Other top small-business contractors from last year: General Dynamics ranked at number 17; L-3 Communications Holdings at number 20; and Lockheed Martin at 22.

Each year, the U.S. government awards these and other large companies billions of dollars in contracts intended for small businesses.

The total amount of small business contracts the government misdirected last year has not yet been tallied, but the figure is almost certainly in the billions of dollars. In 2005, the figure was almost $12 billion.

These misdirected contracts and task orders typically fall into four categories. Many end up going to companies that had once been small businesses but which grew into large businesses or that were acquired by large corporations. Some aren’t given to companies at all, but rather to state or local governments or nonprofit groups. And in some cases, agency contracting officials simply miscode contract awards by mistake as being small-business awards.

There is no single definition for what the U.S. Small Business Association (SBA) considers a small business. SBA has a 42-page guide outlining the different definitions for each industry sector. Size definitions in some cases are measured by average number of employees, in other cases, by average revenues over three years.

For example, the size standards for most manufacturing, engineering and research work range from 500 to 1,000 employees. However, for administrative and educational services, companies are considered small if they earn average revenues of between $3.5 million and $32.5 million annually.

Agencies have considerable incentive to play loose with the rules governing the award of small-business contracts: By law, they must award 23 percent of their contract dollars to small businesses.

The problem is that when $12 billion in small-business contracts is misdirected to non-small businesses, that money does not contribute to the development of small businesses as the law intended.

Now, the Small Business Administration aims to crack down on the problem.

On July 1, after a four-year effort, the agency put into effect new rules intended to close loopholes that permit large companies to win and keep small-business contracts.

Two days later, SBA Administrator Steven Preston wrote to the chief executive officers of the top 800 contractors, asking them to voluntarily identify small-business contracts they hold with the government and to recertify them as “other than small.”

“With your cooperation, we can correct remaining discrepancies so that all large firms are removed from the small-business database within the year,” Preston told the CEOs in the letter.

Arthur Collins, the SBA’s director of government contracting, said he thinks the new rules and Preston’s appeal to the corporate community will fix the problem of misdirected small-business contracts within the next year or so.

Small-business advocates say the measures don’t go far enough and are fraught with loopholes.

The Problem

Many contracts were awarded properly to small businesses, either as procurements specifically set aside for small businesses or through traditional procurements. But many of those contracts were for long terms — 10 or 20 years, in some cases.

During the course of those contracts, those small companies either grew into large companies or were bought by large companies. However, the contracts continued being counted by the government as small-business contracts. That means when a federal agency would issue a task order on an existing small-business contract or would renew an option to extend that contract, it counted as a small-business procurement — even if that company no longer qualified for the designation.

“Long-term contracts” include multiple-award contracts, governmentwide acquisition contracts and General Services Administration schedules, all of which allow agencies to place multiple orders with a vendor without having to start new procurements, SBA’s Collins said. Last year, the U.S. federal government spent 52 percent of its contracting dollars through long-term contracts, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

An example of the problem is ViaSat, a military communications contractor based in Carlsbad, Calif., which sits at number 74 on the top small-business contractors list. It received $96 million in small-business contract revenues last year, according to Eagle Eye Publisher’s list. But the company is hardly small — it has more than 1,000 employees, offices in six countries and annual revenues of more than $430 million.

The company no longer advertises itself as a small business, but it is ranked as such in the government’s contracting database because it was a small business seven years ago, when it won a $12 million Pentagon contract for a battlefield data collection system. At the time, it had 400 employees and revenues of $75 million.

ViaSat is a small firm that grew, a classic Small Business Administration success story. But it also represents what the SBA inspector general has called the top procurement challenge in federal government: large businesses getting small-business awards and agencies getting small-business contracting credit for it.

In his letter to corporate CEOs this month, Preston acknowledged the problem.

“For many years, regulations have allowed government agencies to count contracts as ‘small’ for the life of the contract, even if the small business was subsequently purchased by a larger firm,” Preston’s letter said. “This policy was appropriate when typical contracts had a short life, from one to five years. But today, major small-business contracts run for up to 20 years, leading some to question the classification of almost $12 billion in federal small-business contracts.”

Preston said “the vast majority” of those contracts in question belong to small companies that were subsequently purchased by large corporations, or were miscoding errors when contracts were awarded to a small division or subsidiary of a large corporation.

For their part, large corporations that receive small-business contract revenues say the problem of misdirected and miscoded small-business revenues lies with the government, not them.

“We’re not competing as a small business; we’re obviously not a small business,” said Rob Doolittle, a spokesman for General Dynamics. “I’m confident that we’re in compliance with regulations as they’re written.”

Doolittle said GD is included on the list because companies it has acquired are classified as small businesses and in the midst of contracts.

Lockheed Martin spokesman Scott Lusk responded similarly: “We don’t compete as a small business, but we have acquired companies that had small business contracts.”

Babak Nouri, the assistant vice president and director of small business at SAIC, said the company is reviewing Preston’s letter and considering whether to comply. He added there is a large administrative burden in complying with the request.

The Fix

In the past, businesses that won a contract when they were small could keep their size status for the life of the contract, even if the business was bought by a larger firm or became a bigger firm itself.

Under the new rules, small businesses holding government contracts must recertify their size after the first five years of a contract and every time the government exercises a contract option after year five. The new rules also require companies to recertify their standing within 30 days of any acquisition or merger with another company.

“We want to ensure good, genuine opportunities are available for small firms,” Collins said.

The new recertification rules apply to the long-term contracts already in existence, meaning it won’t be long before the government scrubs its database of large businesses representing themselves as small, Collins said.

“We feel over the next 12 to 15 months, we’ll purge the database of contracts that have fallen into this category,” he said.

Loopholes Remain

Small business advocates contend the new rules will do little to achieve the results Collins promises.

The rules will let large firms already benefiting from their small-business acquisitions to continue to do so for at least the next five years, said Lloyd Chapman, president of the American Small Business League. Without mandating recertification for small companies already merged into large firms, big businesses will rob small businesses of $300 billion in business over the next five years, Chapman said.

“They’re already reporting awards to Fortune 1000 corporations as small businesses and adopted polices to continue to allow the diverting of billions meant for small businesses to the largest companies in the world,” Chapman said. “The policy will bankrupt thousands of small businesses.”

Two small business advocates in Congress agree.

“This recertification rule fails to address 80 percent of the problem with miscoded contracts,” said Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, has scheduled a hearing Wednesday on small-business recertification.

“Five years still leaves a pretty big hole,” Kerry said in a statement. He said he would like to see alternate recertification periods that are fewer than five years, but not as potentially burdensome on small business as annual recertification could be.

Exceptions

Despite the new rules, some large firms — firms with more than 500 employees — can still be counted as legitimate small businesses because they have partial certifications as small businesses, said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president of FedSources, a federal market research and consulting firm in McLean, Va.

These partial certifications are allowed because each industry sector has its own definition of what constitutes a small business. This occurs mostly in large industrial areas such as telecommunications, aircraft manufacturing and scientific research, Bjorklund said.

“The government is doing some gaming with codes because it wants a class of companies, but it also wants to get credit for small business,” he said.

For example, Honeywell International, a 118,000-employee technology and manufacturing conglomerate that generated $31 billion in sales last year, is considered a small business for several products, including communication equipment and aircraft parts. Last year, Honeywell brought in $162 million that otherwise would have gone to small firms, according to FedSources data.

The government could do more to reach its small-business goals by pursuing more set-aside awards for small and disadvantaged businesses, Bjorklund said.

By the way, if you’re wondering which is the top company on the small business contractors’ list, it’s Chugach Alaska Corp. of Anchorage, Alaska. The company, which provides everything from base operating services to telecommunications and educational services, has more than 6,300 employees worldwide and received $658 million in small business contract revenues last year. In all, the company boasted total revenues of more than $890 million last year. •

Amy Doolittle contributed to this report.

Top Defense Contractors Are Now Small Businesses Under New SBA Policy

Press Release

Top Defense Contractors Are Now Small Businesses Under New SBA Policy

July 9, 2007

PETALUMA, CA -- On June 30th, a Small Business Administration policy went into effect that will allow the federal government to count hundreds of contracts to many of the nation's largest defense and aerospace contractors as federal small business contracts through 2012.

The SBA's new five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy will allow the federal government to include billions of dollars in contracts to firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, L3 Communications and General Dynamics towards the government's 23 percent small business contracting goal.

In 2005, the SBA included over $650 million in government contracts to defense giant L3 Communications towards the government's small business contracting goal. For 2006, the SBA reported over $500 million to SAIC as small business contracts.

Small business owners around the country are outraged at the new policy and are pledging to take their complaints to Congress and federal court.

When the SBA originally proposed their grandfathering plan in 2005, it would have allowed the SBA to continue to report awards to any firm that had small business contracts towards the federal government's 23 percent small business procurement goal for five more years. This would have included: small business contracts found by the SBA Inspector General as being fraudulently obtained, contracts to large businesses the SBA acknowledged were miscoded as small business contracts, contracts to large businesses that had accidentally claimed small business status, contracts to firms that had outgrown their small business status and contracts to firms that had been acquired by a large business.

When the SBA asked for public comment on the proposed policy in 2005, they were bombarded with over 6000 angry comments opposing the grandfathering policy. Small business owners and small business groups, including the NFIB and Chambers of Commerce across the country, were strongly opposed to the proposed plan.

Even after the SBA received an overwhelmingly negative response to the proposed policy, SBA spokespersons told reporters for the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune in June of 2005 that the SBA still intended to implement the five-year grandfathering plan.

Shortly after new SBA Administrator Steven Preston was confirmed, he directed that the unpopular five-year grandfathering policy be renamed five-year re-certification and implemented. The net effect of the five-year re-certification and the five-year grandfathering policy are identical. Under the five-year re-certification policy, the same large businesses that would have benefited from the five-year grandfathering policy will be allowed to maintain their small business status until the year 2012. This will allow the SBA to continue to report contracts to hundreds of Fortune 1000 firms and other large businesses as small business awards for at least five more years.

SBA critics like the American Small Business League believe the real purpose of the SBA's five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy is to artificially inflate the federal government's small business contracting statistics to create the false impression that the government has reached the Congressionally mandated 23 percent small business contracting goal.

ASBL estimates if the policy is allowed to take full effect, legitimate small businesses across America could lose over $300 billion in federal small business contracts over the next five years.

New SBA Grandfathering Policy to Face Legal Challenge

Press Release

New SBA Grandfathering Policy to Face Legal Challenge

July 2, 2007

PETALUMA, CA - The Small Business Administration's new five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy went into effect on Saturday, June 30th. Under the controversial new policy the federal government can officially count federal contracts to hundreds of Fortune 1000 firms towards the government's 23 percent small business procurement goal through the year 2012.

When a 2002 investigation by the General Accounting Office found the SBA had reported contracts to thousands of big business as small business contracts, the SBA responded by saying the contracts had been "miscoded."

The new five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy will now allow the SBA to officially report the miscoded contracts and thousands of other government contracts to Fortune 1000 firms and other large businesses as small business awards for at least five more years. Without the new policy, the SBA could no longer claim the federal government was reaching the minimum 23 percent small business procurement goal required under current federal law.

Small business owners around the country are outraged and the American Small Business League is preparing to take the SBA to federal court to stop the new policy. The ASBL believes the new SBA five-year grandfathering/five-year re-certification policy will destroy thousands of legitimate small businesses by forcing them to compete head to head with Fortune 1000 firms for even the smallest federal small business contracts. Additionally, the ASBL projects if the new SBA policy is allowed to stand, up to 300 billion dollars in federal small business contracts will be diverted to the top 2 percent of American firms over the next five years.

Over a dozen federal investigations have found billions of dollars in federal small business contracts actually went to hundreds of the largest corporations in the United States and Europe. Many of the investigations attributed the problem to SBA policies, which allowed the government to include contracts to firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, L3 Communications, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Rolls Royce, General Dynamics, SAIC and Bechtel towards the federal government's 23 percent small business contracting goal.

The American Small Business League plans to file their case this summer in federal court. Their legal challenge will be based on three fronts: (1) The SBA does not have the governmental authority to adopt such a broad reaching federal policy, (2) The new policy is inconsistent with previous annual re-certification policies adopted by the Office of Management and Budget, (3) The new SBA policy is inconsistent with the specific wording and the Congressional intent of the Small Business Act as it was passed in 1953.

The ASBL has won three previous federal lawsuits against the Small Business Administration.