GovernmentExecutive.com

In a show of strong bipartisan support, the House Small Business Committee on Tuesday quickly pushed through a bill that would make tougher the practice of "contract bundling."

The bill (H.R. 1873) reauthorizes the Small Business Administration's procurement programs under the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act. It scales back "contract bundling" - the practice of grouping small government contracts together and awarding them as one large contract.

House Small Business Committee Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said the bill was needed to help small businesses gain more opportunities, because the federal government has been "bundling" individual contracts into mega-contracts out of the price range for small businesses to place bids.

"While this may be more convenient for the contracting officer, barring small businesses from the marketplace reduces competition," Velazquez said.

Bill sponsor Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, said over the last five years the federal government has increased its use of contract bundling, causing small business contracts to decline by 55 percent - even as overall government contracting has risen by 60 percent.

The bill seeks to increase small business contracts to 30 percent of federal contract dollars, up from the previous goal of 23 percent. The SBA would be required to negotiate contracting goals with government agencies each year, with the 30 percent goal being the minimum.

"Small businesses are the number one job creators in this country, and we must ensure that this engine not only remains healthy, but also has the support it needs to grow," Braley said.

The measure also enhances the appeals process for small businesses. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy within the Office of Management and Budget would arbitrate disputes between the SBA and the purchasing government agency. Businesses and trade organizations negatively impacted by government agency contracting decisions will also be allowed to appeal on behalf of small businesses.

The markup hearing began with a tribute to the late Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif., a committee member who passed away April 24. "So many times we forget the great people we work with day in and day out," Velazquez said.

COMMENTS

• I would like to add that most contracts are being giving to large corporation, but small business need the contracts to put then in a postion to gain large contracts and business advertisment as-well. Demetrius Pearson Posted December 28, 2007 12:01 PM
• Your comments assume that by combining requirements one saves money. Quite often the combined requirements mean that a CO if setting up a situation that guarantees multiple businesses will be fulfilling the contract - that is all. It does not mean they have increased competition. Actually - it means they have significantly decreased competition. It may sound nice and neat - but, it is often just a way to place large corporate gatekeepers in charge of government contracting. Terry Williams Posted May 7, 2007 12:03 PM
• I agree with Trudy. It's about getting the best value, including pricing for our military customer. With budgets shrinking our customers expect us (COs) to award contracts that allow them to utilize their funds in the most efficent way possible. CO's are often the middle person having to explain why a customer is paying twice as much to a small business, and those customers really don't care or want to hear about mandatory programs to support small business. Not that I'm opposed to supporting small business, but having to then defend ourselves is a double edge sword at times. NOt sure what the answer is but don't spin it in a negative manner at the CO's trying to support the war fighter in the best way possible while ensuring we meet all the edicts that drive the procurement system in the government. GovExec.com reader Posted April 27, 2007 7:17 AM