GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: SBA to stop certifying small disadvantaged businesses

• 61050
  

  I need to correct a comment regarding 8a as being a vehicle for women to use to obtain some type of advantage in federal contracting. The 8a program is NOT open to women unless you can show social and economic disadvantage and you have to have massive amounts of evidence. Even though the federal government themselves recognize women are disadvantaged through the findings and recommendations of the glass ceiling commission, the SBA does not. I have submitted an 8a package and as a caucasion woman I was told I had to have "more evidence." So, to be clear the 8a program is NOT open to women it is only opened to minorities who belong to the pre-defined groups the SBA has already "determined" to be socially and economically disadvantaged.

  Jeannette Posted October 16, 2008 1:29 PM
• 61001
  

  The 8(a) and SDB certifications are the only business development programs the SBA has to offer disadvantaged woman/minority owned firms. I agree the SBA should not evaluate these certifications packages, they should be out-sourced to expert federal government certifying consulting firms. Have these 3 third party firms evaluate the eligibility criteria, while allowing the SBA to make the final determination based on the recommendations of these certifying firms. With only 9,100 certified 8(a) firms and 3 SBA Eligilibity offices, I don't think the SBA is doing a good job at getting these firms certified. Who ever stated the 8(a) program is a huge waste, obviously has never experienced barriers with the federal government procurement process. We need to assist and offer equal opportunities for minorities and women within the federal contracting arena. Do you remember the $27 billion small business fraud scandal in 2006? Larger firms where claiming they were small in the CCR while taking away the government contracting opportunities a small business would have had. There has to be some kind of accountability.

  Government Business Solutions Posted October 15, 2008 11:23 PM
• 60949
  

  Frankly I am quite disgusted with the whole process because while I qualify to become 8a, I don't want to and instead want to go the SDB route. My application was submitted and I was told that it would go behind the 8a applications and that it could take up to a year to get on the radar screen. There are many many opportunities that my company could have competed in but because we are not 8a and we are ONLY small, woman-owned, and minority-owned, we are kept out of the opportunity afforded the 8a companies. To obtain certification through WBENC or NMSDC you and your company must still go through a heavy validation process and yet that doesn't matter to the federal government. If there is anything I can do to help address this situation, just let me know when and where.

  Tammy E Camper Posted October 15, 2008 9:21 AM
• 60614
  

  It seems that the article might have caused some confusion regarding SDB certification vice 8(a) certification. Although they are intertwined in that all 8(a) participants must be certified as SDB, the certification process for 8(a) participation is separate from the SDB process. A careaful reading of the interim final rule in its entirety indicates it applies only to the SDB certification process, not the 8(a) process. And thus, the 8(a) certification process is still a SBA program requirement.

  S. Goedtel Posted October 8, 2008 12:10 PM
• 60509
  

  If the SBA certification process is being eliminated and there is no real benefit to such a desigation any longer anyway, then the entire designation of "small disadvantaged businesses" should simply be eliminated entirely. Retaining it for purely statistical purposes to track whether certain goals for awarding government contracts to SDB's will undoubtedly give rise to potential fraudulent practices and inappropriate contract awards as some small businesses self certify such a status if only in the hope that certain agencies may give such companies an award in close call cases for no other reason than to ensure their agency-wide statistics for awarding contracts to such firms are met or exceeded. Continuing to keep the statistics and to mandate certain goals for awards to companies with such a designation will guarantee that fraud will occur.

  Michael G. McCormack Posted October 7, 2008 12:03 PM
• 60507
  

  The simple matter of fact is that the LAW(P.L. 95-507)has provided for self-certification since 1978. The LAW (P.L. 99-661) established Setasides for small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) in 1987.

  The Clinton, through executive fiat, established a three-year moratorium on these setasides. Then, in 1999 the Administration instituted the Regulations which violated the law, requiring an onerous process for certification.

  The agencies violated the law, honoring the regulations. They need to now comply the LAW, which said: "Contractors may accept, in good faith, the written representation by firms that they are owned and managed by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals."

  OBEY the LAW.

  Hank Wilfong, MBA, CPA Posted October 7, 2008 11:51 AM
• 60501
  

  In other words, the competitive advantage remains, but the criteria no longer exist. Some great idea! Steve C...your comments are right on, but your conclusion is wrong. Read Mike's post.

  Jon Posted October 7, 2008 11:21 AM
• 60499
  

  Having worked for SBA in the 8(a) program area for a number of years, I didn't see the SDB certification providing much benefit even with the Price Evaluation Adjustment. Certification wasn't that time consuming. Frankly, if you're doing away with the independent certification, you should just scrap the reporting because self certification is, more often than not, incorrect and the agencies encourage certification because they want to meet goals.

  The 8(a) certification is not that easy to attain, but the benefits are potentially substantial to the participants. Many of the federal procuring agencies like the program because they can "sole source" the work (ie no competition). Of course that's for smaller projects only (except for the Alaska Native Corporations that have huge sole source contracts and probably shouldn't), but it's great in a pinch at the end of the year and these small projects help the firm to develop and hopefully graduate and continue on in business with much greater experience. I think the test should be how do participants perform five years after completing the program. Statistics are kept and the results are not stellar and that's concerning.

  Finally, there are problems with every program and the 8(a) program, if run correctly, requires staff at a pretty high cost to the government. Is it worth it? That's up to the taxpayer to decide.

  S. Goldstein Posted October 7, 2008 11:12 AM
• 60498
  

  ..and of course, it is going to fall back on the contracting officer to validate in some way. Contracting officers have enough to "validate" already. When the entity self certifies, and it turns out to be bogus..guess who is going to get the blame... the already overworked contracting officer. I fail to see why many are so surprised with the ever increasing retirements within the aquisition community

  Getting mored tired by the day Posted October 7, 2008 11:12 AM
• 60497
  

  They want the business then this makes all the sense in the world. The taxpayers all ready overpay for the products provided by the business, Besides as we saw earlier this year even when the gov't screws up its always blamed on a "glitch" its never anyone's fault

  Dan ketter Posted October 7, 2008 11:06 AM
• 60492
  

  This is an open invitation to fraud.

  Kate Posted October 7, 2008 10:51 AM
• 60466
  

  This is sheer stupidity, and laziness. The instances of fraud are now going to skyrocket. Someday there will be a 20/20 show talking about this, of course unless 60 minutes gets there first. This is like getting a mortgage without income verification.

  Mike Posted October 7, 2008 6:59 AM
• 60464
  

  Well it's about time. The SDB and 8(a) programs are a huge waste of tax dollars, and are essentially a welfare program for companies who woulsn't be selected to do work to begin with because they lack the resources, skills and expertise necessary to do the work.

  Steve C. Posted October 7, 2008 6:26 AM