A bigger Voice for Small Business

Small Business: Convenient Talking Point?

by | Sep 17, 2009 | ASBL News

News

Small Business: Convenient Talking Point?

By mooncat
Left in Alabama
September 17, 2009

Early this year, right after Rep. Parker Griffith (D, AL-05) voted AGAINST the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he told me he voted that way because he was concerned about the negative effect the newly clarified law might have on some small businesses.

The impetus for the bill was wage discrimination suffered by Ms. Ledbetter over many years of employment at Goodyear.  That's a huge company with thousands of employees.  The bill that came to a vote did not differentiate between large corporations and small businesses that might have only 10 or 15 employees.  A business person with two or three stores could be faced with huge legal costs because of a piece of legislation targeted at big corporations.

We often hear this "it would hurt small business" excuse from politicians whenever they don't want to do something.  Raise the minimum wage?  It would hurt small business.  Extend unemployment benefits to part time workers?  It would hurt small business.  Reform the health care system so everyone could get health insurance?  Heck no!  There's an infinitesimal chance that might hurt a small business somewhere.
mooncat :: Small Business: Convenient Talking Point?

Congressman Griffith has apparently forgotten about his "concern" for small businesses now, because he has introduced HR3558, a bill that really would hurt small businesses.  Lloyd Chapman, President of the American Small Business League, writes:

Small business advocates are describing an opposing bill, the "Small Business Fair Competition Act" (H.R. 3558), as a "colossal loophole for big business." H.R. 3558 was introduced in the House of Representatives by freshman Congressman Parker Griffith (D - AL) on Monday, September 14, 2009. Several corporate giants such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and British Aerospace (BAE) maintain campuses in Congressman Griffith's district and are currently receiving federal small business contracts. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...txt.pdf)

If H.R. 3558 were to become law, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, British Aerospace and hundreds of other Fortune 500 firms and their subsidiaries would be able to continue receiving federal small business contracts indefinitely. Opponents of H.R. 3558 estimate that millions of middle class firms would be forced out of business or negatively impacted if the bill were to become law.

This statement is the essence of Griffith's bill:

In the case of a solicitation for bids or proposals by the Government for a proposed contract award, if the goods or services to be provided or performed under the proposed contract are substantially the same as the goods or services being provided or performed under a current contract, then the incumbent contractor is eligible to re-compete for the proposed contract as a small business if the incumbent contractor represents in good faith that it is a small business in accordance with this section.

Yes, I'd say that's a loophole -- one that let's companies hold onto the advantages of being a "small business" long after they have become a "big business."  I don't demand that my representatives be geniuses (although it wouldn't hurt) but it really pisses me off when they're this inconsistent.  No fair using the small business excuse to vote against something you imagine might be unpopular with big donors and then turn around and introduce a bill that stiffs small businesses.  I have to call bullshit on this.

Tags: , , (All Tags)

Source:  http://www.leftinalabama.com/diary/4764/small-business-convenient-talking-point 

Griffith's small-business bill generates debate

by | Sep 17, 2009 | ASBL News



News


Griffith's small-business bill generates debate


By Trevor Stokes


Times Daily




September 17, 2009



A House bill introduced Monday by U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith that’s meant to divert federally-mandated contracts to small businesses and away from multinational giants may have the opposite effect, according to critics.






The Small Business Act, approved during the Bush administration, was meant to boost small businesses and gives a government-wide mandate that 23 percent of all contract awards each fiscal year be awarded to small businesses. The 86,265-word bill passed into law in 2004.


However, an analysis from the American Small Business League showed that in 2008, much of the money earmarked for small businesses actually went to large multinational businesses with tens of thousands of employees.


Small businesses are defined by the Small Business Administration in a 44-page table that breaks down categories. For example, a lawyer’s office, book store and jeweler that makes $7 million annually or less is considered a small business – a bakery, mitten manufacturer or newspaper with 500 or more employees would be considered a large business.


Griffith, a member of the House Committee on Small Business, introduced the 283-word Small Business Fair Competition Act (H.R. 3558) that gives a framework of what companies would be eligible to re-compete for governmental contracts worth millions and billions of federal dollars.


The bill would allow businesses with current governmental contracts to compete as small businesses as long as they are currently small or “the incumbent contractor was a small business at the time of initial award of the current contract to the incumbent.”


The last stipulation is what bothers small business advocates.


“With H.R. 3558, Congressman Griffith has created a colossal, anti-small business loophole to divert federal small business funds to some of his largest campaign contributors,” American Small Business League President Lloyd Chapman said. “This is one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen of a member of Congress selling legislation to the highest bidder.”


Griffith, in a released statement, said “If passed, this bill will put an end to an outdated regulation on small business that punishes our entrepreneurs for their own success. This regulation puts a ceiling on motivation to grow small business, effectively putting a cap on how far our local economies can develop. That is the exact opposite of the American dream. This is a pro-small business bill that supports and promotes our men and women who build success stories from the ground up.”


Source:  http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090917/NEWS/909179991/1011/NEWS?Title=Griffith-8217-s-small-business-bill-generates-debate







Bidding against a small business that's outgrown that status

by | Sep 17, 2009 | ASBL News

News

Bidding against a small business that's outgrown that status

By Matthew Weigelt
FCW.com
September 17, 2009

Rep. Parker Griffith’s small-business bill leaves a lot of gray areas regarding small-business set-asides, even though legislation likely would shake up how agencies view individual contracts undergoing a recompete.

For instance, how would the government handle a recompete if the new procurement is a governmentwide acquisition contract or an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract or a blanket purchase agreement, asked a reader named Pattie.

“Current wording [of the bill] would only support full and open competition or multiple award schedule contract[s] where the incumbent holds the schedule that is being used,” she writes. “Text is brief and to the point, but in this case it’s too brief.”

For those who have yet to read the 300-word bill, it’s at the bottom of the post. The bill would allow agencies to still consider an incumbent contractor to be a small business if the company was a small business at the time of a initial contract award, even though it may no longer be small at the time the recompete rolls around and is in danger of reverting to a small business again if it is not awarded the contract.

Lloyd Chapman, president of the American Small Business League advocacy group, said the bill would create “a colossal, anti-small business loophole.”

Griffith’s office didn’t respond to an e-mail yesterday for background information on the legislation and a statement on it.

The questions to answer are:

How do you think the Small Business Fair Competition Act (H.R. 3558) would affect small-business contractors?

Would it add anything to the competition between small businesses for set-asides?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Small Business Fair Competition Act.'

SEC. 2. REPRESENTATION BY CONTRACTORS AS SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) Eligibility of Incumbent Contractors To Re-Compete as Small Businesses — In the case of a solicitation for bids or proposals by the Government for a proposed contract award, if the goods or services to be provided or performed under the proposed contract are substantially the same as the goods or services being provided or performed under a current contract, then the incumbent contractor is eligible to re-compete for the proposed contract as a small business if the incumbent contractor represents in good faith that it is a small business in accordance with this section. Such representation may be made if —

(1) the incumbent contractor meets the definition of a small business concern applicable to the solicitation and has not been determined by the Small Business Administration to be a concern other than a small business; or

(2) the incumbent contractor was a small business at the time of initial award of the current contract to the incumbent, is no longer a small business at the time of the solicitation, and will revert to being a small business (as defined in the solicitation for the proposed contract) if not awarded the proposed contract.

(b) Small Business Set-Aside — In the case of a proposed contract referred to in subsection (a) being awarded to the incumbent contractor, the Government may qualify the contract as a small business set-aside for the duration of the contract.

(c) Incumbent Contractor Defined — In this section, the term 'incumbent contractor,' with respect to a contract, means the contractor currently performing the contract.

(d) Amendment of Federal Acquisition Regulation — The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to implement this Act.

Source:  http://fcw.com/blogs/acquisitive-mind/2009/09/small-business-fair-competition-act-set-aside-status.aspx

Griffith's small-business bill generates debate

by | Sep 17, 2009 | ASBL News

News

Griffith's small-business bill generates debate

By Trevor Stokes
Times Daily
September 17, 2009

A House bill introduced Monday by U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith that’s meant to divert federally-mandated contracts to small businesses and away from multinational giants may have the opposite effect, according to critics.

The Small Business Act, approved during the Bush administration, was meant to boost small businesses and gives a government-wide mandate that 23 percent of all contract awards each fiscal year be awarded to small businesses. The 86,265-word bill passed into law in 2004.

However, an analysis from the American Small Business League showed that in 2008, much of the money earmarked for small businesses actually went to large multinational businesses with tens of thousands of employees.

Small businesses are defined by the Small Business Administration in a 44-page table that breaks down categories. For example, a lawyer’s office, book store and jeweler that makes $7 million annually or less is considered a small business – a bakery, mitten manufacturer or newspaper with 500 or more employees would be considered a large business.

Griffith, a member of the House Committee on Small Business, introduced the 283-word Small Business Fair Competition Act (H.R. 3558) that gives a framework of what companies would be eligible to re-compete for governmental contracts worth millions and billions of federal dollars.

The bill would allow businesses with current governmental contracts to compete as small businesses as long as they are currently small or “the incumbent contractor was a small business at the time of initial award of the current contract to the incumbent.”

The last stipulation is what bothers small business advocates.

“With H.R. 3558, Congressman Griffith has created a colossal, anti-small business loophole to divert federal small business funds to some of his largest campaign contributors,” American Small Business League President Lloyd Chapman said. “This is one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen of a member of Congress selling legislation to the highest bidder.”

Griffith, in a released statement, said “If passed, this bill will put an end to an outdated regulation on small business that punishes our entrepreneurs for their own success. This regulation puts a ceiling on motivation to grow small business, effectively putting a cap on how far our local economies can develop. That is the exact opposite of the American dream. This is a pro-small business bill that supports and promotes our men and women who build success stories from the ground up.”

Source:  http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090917/NEWS/909179991/1011/NEWS?Title=Griffith-8217-s-small-business-bill-generates-debate

New Bill Will Create More Loopholes in Federal Contracting Programs

by | Sep 16, 2009 | Press Release

Press Release

New Bill Will Create More Loopholes in Federal Contracting Programs

September 16, 2009

A new bill introduced into the House of Representatives could create yet another loophole in federal small business contracting programs, which would divert more federal small business contracts to corporate giants.

The Small Business Fair Competition Act (H.R. 3558), was introduced by Congressman Parker Griffith (D - AL) on September 14, and would allow firms that have outgrown the federal government's small business size standards, because of a government contract, to compete and be counted as a small business once that contract is competed again.

Since 2003, more than 15 federal investigations have found that billions of dollars in federal contracts intended for small businesses have been awarded to Fortune 500 corporations and other clearly large firms around the world.  In Report 5-15, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General referred to the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations as, "One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today." (https://www.asbl.com/documents/05-15.pdf)  

During fiscal year (FY) 2008, 60 of the Top 100 recipients of federal small business contracts were large businesses, according to an analysis by the American Small Business League (ASBL). (https://www.asbl.com/documents/20090825TopSmallBusinessContractors2008.pdf)  

To date, Congress has not passed legislation to stop the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations, and now H.R. 3558 has the potential to create yet another loophole allowing small business contracts to go to some of the largest corporations in the world. During FY 2008, corporate giants Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and British Aerospace (BAE) received federal small business contracts.  All four firms maintain campuses located in Congressman Griffith's district.
 
"With H.R. 3558, Congressman Griffith has created a colossal, anti-small business loophole to divert federal small business funds to some of his largest campaign contributors," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. "This is one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen of a member of Congress selling legislation to the highest bidder." 

The ASBL has launched a campaign in opposition to H.R. 3558 and is encouraging members of Congress to support H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act of 2009. 

-###-