Agencies lower bar to meet small-business contracting goals

News

Agencies lower bar to meet small-business contracting goals

By Elise Castelli
Federal Times
November 4, 2008

One way to meet the government’s goal to increase small-business contracting is to lower the bar. That’s how three agencies met their mark in 2007.
The General Services Administration met four of its five small-business contracting goals for fiscal 2007, according to the Small Business Administration, which negotiates and monitors each agency’s smal-business contracting goals. That’s one more than it met the previous year.
What changed? GSA convinced SBA to lower its small-business contracting goal by 11 percentage points. Instead of having to repeat its 2006 goal of awarding 45 percent of its contracting dollars to small businesses — a goal it missed by 13 percentage points — GSA’s goal in 2007 was lowered to 34 percent. In 2007, GSA spent 34.2 percent of its contracting dollars on small businesses.
In 2004 and 2005, GSA’s goal was 43 percent. It nearly reached that goal in 2004, spending 42.3 percent of dollars on small businesses, but fell short in 2005, spending only 33 percent on small firms.

SBA set GSA’s 45 percent small-business contracting goal for 2006 by reviewing its past contracting data, which included GSA’s building lease deals.
However, GSA was not allowed to count those leases toward its small-business goal because they are not regulated by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which sets rules for small-business competitions and procurements, said Michael Rigas, associate GSA administrator for the Office of Small Business Utilization.
If goals are lowered, as GSA’s goal was, it is not with the intent to allow agencies to get good report cards, said Karen Hontz, director of government contracts at SBA. But neither are the goals meant to be punitive.
“We want the goals to be realistic,” Hontz said.

Three other agencies that didn’t meet their 2006 goals — the State Department, Health and Human Services Department and Agency for International Development — also asked SBA if they could aim lower in 2007. Two of those — State and HHS — succeeded. In 2006, State missed its goal of 40 percent by less than one percentage point. In 2007, it exceeded its lower 36 percent goal by 6 percentage points.
Similarly, HHS missed its 30.3 percent 2006 goal by nearly 7 points, but exceeded its 20 percent 2007 goal by 2 points.
Like GSA, the three agencies claimed special circumstances altered their contracting landscape and justified the lower goals, Hontz said.
For example, State awarded long-term contracts for foreign law enforcement and security training services, which only large businesses can perform, Hontz said.
Similarly at HHS, $1.5 billion worth of vaccine contracts require significant capital investment that small businesses cannot provide, Hontz said.
Although allowed to negotiate lower goals, GSA and State still have goals that are higher than the governmentwide statutory goal to award 23 percent of contracting dollars to small businesses.
Some agencies, like AID, have goals lower than 23 percent because the nature of their work does not lend itself to many small-businesses contracting opportunities, Hontz said.
Though AID may do business with foreign small businesses, those contracts can’t be counted toward the small-business contracting goal, Hontz said.
AID’s goal was lowered from 44 percent in 2006 to 23 percent in 2007 and again to 19.6 percent in 2008.
It contracted with small businesses on 10.4 percent of the $216 million it spent in 2007, giving the agency a red rating, indicating failure, on SBA’s goal achievement report cards.
In renegotiating its goals, AID wanted to set goals that were attainable but still challenging, an AID spokesman for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization said.
To reach the new goal of 19.6 percent, the agency is stepping up outreach efforts to small businesses, the spokesman said. The office held a conference in June and has been holding monthly meetings to let small businesses know about domestic opportunities at AID, he said.




Answering the bailout call

News

Answering the bailout call

Financial rescue plan likely to fuel new business for contractors

By Alice Lipowicz
Washington Technology
November 4, 2008

Seeking to calm the storm that has rocked the global financial markets, Congress and President Bush approved a monumental $700 billion financial services bailout last month. Because the Wall Street rescue package is so massive, it might overwhelm other priorities and reduce federal contracting in the coming months.

But there are some silver linings to the recent clouds.

  • The bailout is creating new federal oversight structures that will require support systems that produce some new opportunities for federal contractors.
  • The timing of the bailout — and the fact that funds will be restored to the U.S. Treasury as the government-acquired assets are rehabilitated and sold to investors — will blunt the bailout’s budget effect to some degree.
  • Despite the changing global economy, analysts are predicting relative stability in defense spending for at least a year because of continued national security needs.

It is not clear how the Office of Management and Budget intends to score the bailout asset acquisition spending and subsequent restitution for budget purposes.

Overall, the outlook is uncertain. Predictions are volatile, as are the fluctuations in global stock market valuations.

“We are watching the bailout closely because first, it’s huge, and second, because it’s unique,” said Alan Chvotkin, senior vice president at the Professional Services Council, a trade group for service contractors to the federal government.

RULES REDEFINED
Contractors are likely to see opportunities related to the bailout develop in stages, and defense and domestic priorities will become clearer in time. Meanwhile, experts are advising vendors to take a close look at what is happening in the market rescue program because it could redefine contracting rules and set precedents in unexpected ways.

“This is larger than any other activity at this time and will draw a lot of attention,” Chvotkin said. “It would not surprise me if many of our federal contractors are engaged in providing professional services, information technology and financial services in support of the bailout.”

The value of the new opportunities that will be created is unclear, said Deniece Peterson, principal analyst for industry analysis at Input Inc., a market research firm in Reston, Va. She authored a study on the bailout Oct 16.

“The value will depend on how much infrastructure will be required to implement the bailout,” Peterson said. That is not known, but there are some hints. For one, there might be substantial requirements for information security and cybersecurity for the agencies and firms overseeing the bailout, she said.

Congress authorized the purchase of as much as $700 billion in troubled mortgage assets to stabilize the nation’s credit markets — an amount nearly as high as the projected fiscal 2008 expenditure for the Iraq War. The sale of those assets will offset a portion of that amount, but the amount and timing of those sales is not known.

SUPPORT ROLE
The 451-page legislation creates the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allows the Treasury Department to buy shaky assets from any financial institution. Unlike Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War, the asset buying is considered an emergency need. Its authorization expires Dec. 31, 2009, but can be extended as long as two years.

Contractors are needed to help run the asset relief program through the new Office of Financial Stability and Office of the Special Inspector General for the TARP. Treasury has published solicitations for financial institutions with expertise in custodian, accounting, auction management, and other infrastructure services; securities asset management services; and whole loan asset management services. The government announced Oct. 14 it had hired Bank of New York Mellon as custodian of the fund.

Contractors might be hired directly by the government or as subcontractors by the financial services firms overseeing the asset purchases and sales, Peterson said.

“Treasury is expecting the financial institutions to have the resources they need,” she said. The “government is also expecting the firms to have data safeguards in place.”

If the firms are not ready to provide all that for the hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgage loan assets, there could be a substantial opportunity for IT software, cybersecurity and infrastructure firms, she said.

Because TARP is an emergency need, Congress gave the Treasury secretary authority to waive the Federal Acquisition Regulation if it is in the public’s best interest. To protect taxpayers, Congress requires justifications, and there must be plans to include minority and women contractors.

Treasury also issued guidelines to curb conflicts of interest among contractors. The FAR exception is raising the most hackles. “It was completely unnecessary to put that provision in the bill,” said Lloyd Chapman, founder of the American Small Business League. “It continues the Bush administration’s track record of loopholes to divert contracts to large businesses.”

Peterson agreed that the language is controversial. “Without the structure of the FAR in place, there is concern among Congress and industry observers that the outcome will resemble a ‘mini-earmark’ situation where select vendors benefit and there is no certainty that the government is receiving the best value for its money,” she said. Conversely, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has stated an intention to follow FAR and use women and minority contractors when possible, she added.

Chvotkin said the contracting related to the bailout is likely to happen in three phases, and more small-business contracts are expected to be generated in the second and third segments. The first phase might consist of hiring financial agents; the second phase would be establishing and supporting oversight offices, which will generate a demand for financial analysis and IT systems; and the third phase would be monitoring, auditing and distributing assets.

Related activities in restructuring AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae also will need contractor support, he said. “Over time, this crisis will level out, and I would expect you would see normal procurement processes and requirements,” Chvotkin said. “Every time Congress writes in exceptions due to urgency, you see reluctance to ask for those waivers.”

Presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have promised top-to-bottom reviews of federal budgets if they are elected. The outcome might free funding for their priorities in health care, energy and tax reform, while also reducing underperforming, costly or lower-priority programs, Peterson said.

But economic pressures might force either candidate to take more drastic measures.

DEFENSE SPENDING SAFE
Meanwhile, there is much speculation about the effect of the bailout on the country’s defense contracting budget. Industry experts have said that although the exact impact is unknown, it is unrealistic to think military weapons programs and IT spending will remain untouched.

However, there are suggestions that defense budgets won’t change much at least for a year. As long as global threats against national security remain high, military spending will not likely be altered substantially, Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank, said in an Oct. 15 report.

“Demand for defense goods is driven mainly by overseas threats and domestic politics,” Thompson wrote. “Military spending always spikes when threats arise, regardless of economic or fiscal conditions. Threats usually trump politics.”

Thompson also said weapons programs might survive because spending on military personnel is likely to moderate, it takes a long time to change military spending priorities, and weapons spending will be fiercely defended from the security point of view and as a spur to the economy.

Alice Lipowicz (alipowicz@1105govinfo.com) is a staff writer at Washington Technology.

Source:  http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/23_16/33828-1.html?page=1

Washington Post Story Minimizes Government Contracting Scandal - McCain and Obama Ignore It

Press Release

Washington Post Story Minimizes Government Contracting Scandal - McCain and Obama Ignore It

November 3, 2008

Petaluma, Calif. - The following is a statement by American Small Business League President, Lloyd Chapman

A recent Washington Post story about the diversion of billions in government small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms looks more like it was written by the White House press office than the newspaper that broke the story on Watergate. (https://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=1179)

The story seems "un-Washington Post-like." Titled, "Agencies Counted Big Firms As Small," with a Bush Administration excuse for a subtitle - "SBA Says It Will Correct Data On Federal Contracts." The first sentence begins with "US government agencies make at least $5 billion in mistakes…"

Just $5 billion in mistakes; the SBA has it under control, no big deal.

Here's the truth. Federal investigators have released a series of investigations since 2003 that found the Bush Administration has diverted hundreds of billions of dollars in government small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms and thousands of other large businesses. (https://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html) Several investigations uncovered fraud. (http://www.sba.gov/IG/05-16.pdf) ABC, CBS, CNN (https://www.asbl.com/media2.php) and every major newspaper in the country have covered the issue. ( https://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=1121

The Washington Post sampled $13 billion of the $89 billion in prime contracts the Bush Administration reported as going to small businesses during 2007. They found at least $5 billion or 38.5% of the $13 billion sample went to Fortune 500 firms.

Using the Washington Post's sample, 38.5% of the $89 billion equals $34.2 billion in small business contracts diverted to Fortune 500 firms for 2007.

Now consider this, the 38.5% number is just for Fortune 500 firms. What about the thousands of other large business? How much did they get, 30%, 40%, 50%?

Lets be conservative and say 30%. If these contracting officials can't tell Fortune 500 firms like Xerox, Home Depot and Rolls Royce from a small business they are certainly going to have trouble differentiating the average large business from small businesses.

What about subcontracts? The Washington Post did not even look at that. The SBA Office of Advocacy says the Bush Administration reports $135 billion a year in prime contracts and subcontracts go to small businesses. That's another $46 billion in subcontracts.

Add the 38.5% for Fortune 500 firms to the 30% for all other large businesses. That is 68.5% of the $135 billion, or $92.4 billion a year.

$92.4 billion a year for the eight years of the Bush Administration, equals $739.2 billion in small business contracts diverted to many of the largest contributors to George W. Bush and Congress, by mistake of course, year after year.

Senators McCain and Obama have never mentioned this staggering problem and no journalist has ever asked them a single question on this issue.

-###-