H.R. 4754, the Change Order Transparency for Federal Contractors

© Marzky Ragsac Jr. – Fotolia.com

Amends the Small Business Act to provide prospective construction contractors with information about an agency’s policies on the administration of change orders to allow such contractors to make informed business decisions regarding the pricing of bids or proposals. This legislation is meant “to help businesses plan by increasing transparency on federal construction projects.”

While this seems simple, be aware that since there’s a LOT of construction work done for the Federal Government, this bill really adds to the potential for success by small businesses.

A change order is a document signed by both contractor and customer, and is used to record an amendment to your original construction contract. It usually contains:

• A revised scope of work (usually an addition to the original agreement)
• Pricing for the new work
• Additional modifications, e.g., an extended delivery schedule to accommodate new scope of work

We know that change orders happen all the time, and we want to be sure that small businesses which may not be able to wait or retool, can also continue to work and be successful in this field.

“Many times, small contractors are already cash strapped, U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), chairman of the U.S. House Small Business Committee noted, so major construction changes that result in delayed payments can put them out of business. ‘H.R. 4754 safeguards these contractors and requires agencies to publish their change order process up front, in their solicitations, so they have all of the information they need that can affect their bottom line,’ he said.” (Source)

We don’t write as often about construction projects in this blog; we write about services because that is what we know. But the reality is, a LOT of money is spent on construction so take heed, small businesses, this means YOU.


H.R. 2333, the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act

© Reddogs – Fotolia.com

This bill amends the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the maximum amount of outstanding leverage (i.e., borrowing power) made available to any licensed small business investment company from $150 million to $175 million. This bill was signed into law on June 21, 2018.

According to a press release from the Small Business Investor Alliance (SBIA), “Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) are highly regulated private equity funds that invest exclusively in domestic small businesses. Created in 1958, the small businesses backed by SBICs have created 3 million new jobs and supported an additional 6.5 million jobs, according to a recent Library of Congress study.

The individual fund limit was last raised in 2009 to $150 million; the current push to $175 million keeps pace with inflation and increases the amount of capital fund managers can deploy to small businesses nationwide.”

While this may not seem like much, remember that many of the small businesses that are being invested in by these funds are fairly small, and the investments are correspondingly small. Also, it is worth remembering that these SBICs are not singular companies, but multiple entities that are available for small business investment start-up capital.

This is a case of Congress remembering that small businesses are the engine of job growth, and although larger businesses create numbers, this is how the economy grows.

If you’re looking for investment capital, particularly if your business model seeks outside capital, these SBICs are a good alternative to private equity or even outside investors.


House Small Business Committee Calls for a Status Update on FAR Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting

© olly – Fotolia.com

This post was reprinted from the PilieroMazza Weekly Report for September 21, 2018.

Last week, House Small Business Committee Chairman Steve Chabot and Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez sent a letter to the acting administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy requesting a status update of Federal Acquisition Regulation Case Number 2016-011, titled “Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting.”

Section 1651 of Public Law 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (2013 NDAA), made significant changes to the limitations on federal subcontracting, which were reflected in corresponding regulations made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on May 31, 2016.

Section 1651 of the 2013 NDAA and SBA regulations require that the limitations on subcontracting for full or partial small business set-aside contracts, HUBZone contracts, 8(a) contracts, service-disabled veteran-owned small business contracts, women-owned small business, and economically disadvantaged women-owned small business contracts be evaluated based on the amount paid by the federal government, rather than the previously used cost of labor, or cost of manufacturing calculation.

Significantly, the 2013 NDAA and SBA regulations exclude from the limitations on subcontracting the work performed by first-tier subcontractors that are considered “similarly situated entities.” It has been 6 years since the 2013 NDAA was signed into law and Congress has respectfully requested a status update and timeline. You can find the article here.


H.R. 2056, the Microloan Modernization Act

© wei – Fotolia.com

The SBA’s Microloan Program is designed to provide small amounts of capital across a broad spectrum of small businesses mostly owned by low-income individuals. Think of businesses that can be started for a 25-50k sum, and this is where the SBA gets the lending authority, as those borrowers may have less collateral.

H.R. 2056 amends the Small Business Act to increase from $5 million to $6 million the total amount of loans outstanding and committed to any particular intermediary (excluding outstanding grants) from the SBA business loan and investment fund for the remaining years of the intermediary’s participation in the program.

There is some complicated terminology in this aspect, but basically an intermediary is a lending agency (like a bank). So the amount each lending intermediary can have outstanding is increased, which allows for more loans. Yay! More loans means more businesses start up.

SBA-designated microloan intermediary lenders may expend up to 50% (currently, 25%) of the intensive marketing, management, and technical assistance grant funds they receive from the SBA to provide information and technical assistance to small business concerns that are their prospective borrowers.

This provision allows funds to be set aside for essential help and consulting to these borrowers in cases where they need assistance getting started with basics like marketing, management, or technical assistance. Yay again, because this allows for more recipients to get more assistance, and that’s always a good thing.

The SBA shall:

  • compare the operations of a representative sample of eligible intermediaries that participate in the microloan program and of eligible intermediaries that do not,
  • study the reasons why the latter do not participate,
  • recommend how to encourage increased participation by intermediaries in the microloan program, and
  • recommend how to decrease the associated costs for intermediary participation.

The Government Accountability Office shall evaluate:

  • SBA oversight of the microloan program, including oversight of participating intermediaries; and
  • the specific processes the SBA uses to ensure program compliance by participating intermediaries and overall microloan program performance.

These two sections basically set up studies (this is a very typical action in the world of the NDAA). The SBA shall study what’s working and some things that Congress felt might not be working, and the GAO shall study the SBA’s processes. These are good things, as long as the studies get done and published. There are no deadlines or due dates here, something I wish would get added in more often.

This may not seem like much, but this is the engine of people leaving low-income situations by starting up their own businesses. YAY – more and more good!


NDAA FY 2019 – What’s Ahead for Small Business

© Burlingham – Fotolia.com

On May 24, 2018, the House passed H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act FY2019. This bill authorizes FY2019 appropriations and sets forth policies for Department of Defense (DOD) programs and activities, including military personnel strengths. It does not provide budget authority, which is provided in subsequent appropriations legislation.

Rep. Mac Thornberry’s (Chair, Armed Service Com.) comments on included reforms:
“For the 58th year, the House has passed an NDAA, one that puts the men and women in uniform first and is another large step in rebuilding and repairing our long-neglected military. Our service members selflessly fight for our freedom every day, and in return, we must ensure that they have the best training, equipment, and support our nation can provide. This bill also continues to reform the Pentagon to help speed up decision-making and get equipment to our warfighters faster.”

The provisions set ahead in the NDAA for 2019 in regards to small business(es) are promising. Rep. Steve Chabot’s (Chair, Small Business Committee) comments regarding small business protections:

“Small businesses play an immeasurable role in keeping America safe and strong. Not only are they the lifeblood of the economy, but they also the lifeblood of our nation’s industrial base. The common sense reforms in this bill will open new avenues for small businesses to flourish in our economy.”

In a series of posts, we will look into six NDAA FY19 bills that will impact small business, summarized below:

H.R. 2056, the Microloan Modernization Act

(Sec. 3) This bill amends the Small Business Act, with respect to the Small Business Administration (SBA) Microloan Program (assisting low-income individuals to start and operate a small business), to increase from $5 million to $6 million the total amount of loans outstanding and committed to any particular intermediary (excluding outstanding grants) from the SBA business loan and investment fund for the remaining years of the intermediary’s participation in the program.

(Sec. 4) SBA-designated microloan intermediary lenders may expend up to 50% (currently, 25%) of the intensive marketing, management, and technical assistance grant funds they receive from the SBA to provide information and technical assistance to small business concerns that are their prospective borrowers.

(Sec. 5) The SBA shall:
● compare the operations of a representative sample of eligible intermediaries that participate in the microloan program and of eligible intermediaries that do not,
● study the reasons why the latter do not participate,
● recommend how to encourage increased participation by intermediaries in the microloan program, and
● recommend how to decrease the associated costs for intermediary participation.

(Sec. 6) The Government Accountability Office shall evaluate:
● SBA oversight of the microloan program, including oversight of participating intermediaries; and
● the specific processes the SBA uses to ensure program compliance by participating intermediaries and overall microloan program performance.

H.R. 4754, the Change Order Transparency for Federal Contractors

Amends the Small Business Act to provide prospective construction contractors with information about an agency’s policies on the administration of change orders to allow such contractors to make informed business decisions regarding the pricing of bids or proposals.

This bill was received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on May 9, 2018.

H.R. 2333, the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the maximum amount of outstanding leverage (i.e., borrowing power) made available to any licensed small business investment company from $150 million to $175 million. This bill was signed into law on June 21, 2018.

H.R. 2364, the Investing in Main Street America Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase from 5% to 15% of its capital and surplus, the amount a national bank, a member bank of the Federal Reserve System, a nonmember insured bank (to the extent permitted under applicable state law), or a federal savings association may invest in one or more small business investment companies (SBICs), or in any entity established to invest solely in SBICs. The increase is subject to the approval of the appropriate federal banking agency.

H.R. 5337, the Accelerated Payments for Small Businesses Act (applies only to the Department of Defense)

To amend section 3903 of title 31, United States Code, to establish accelerated payments applicable to contracts with certain small business concerns. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 20, 2018.

H.R. 2763, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Improvements Act (significant portions)

This bill amends the Small Business Act to require:
● the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) annual report on the Small Business Information and Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to be submitted by December 31, and
● each federal agency required to establish an SBIR program to submit its annual report on such program by March 30.

The bill requires (current law authorizes) the Department of Defense (DOD), for any contract under the Commercial Readiness Program with a value of at least $100 million, to:
● establish goals for the transition of Phase III technologies in subcontracting plans, and
● require a prime contractor to report the number and dollar amount of contacts entered into for Phase III SBIR or STTR projects.

The bill authorizes all agencies participating in the SBIR program, during FY2018-FY2022, to provide SBIR Phase II awards for a project to a small business concern without regard to whether such concern was provided a Phase I award for such project.

The bill changes the temporary pilot program that a covered agency may establish for the allocation of SBIR and STTR program funds for awards for technology development, testing, evaluation, and commercialization assistance for SBIR and STTR phase II technologies, or to support the progress of research, research and development, and commercialization conducted under such programs to phase III, to a permanent Civilian Agency Commercialization Readiness Program.

The bill extends until September 30, 2022, the deadline until which the SBA shall allow each agency required to conduct an SBIR program to use not more than 3% of program funds for administrative, oversight, and contract processing costs.


Bills Seek to Increase Opportunities for Women-Owned and Other Minority-Owned Businesses

© DragonImages – Fotolia.com

On July 18, 2018, the House Small Business Committee approved H.R. 6369, the Expanding Contracting Opportunities for Small Business Act, and H.R. 6382, the Clarity on Small Business Participation in Category Management Act. Among other provisions important to women, the bills seek to increase opportunities for women-owned and other minority-owned businesses.

Regarding the news, Vivian Ling, House Small Business Committee – Majority stated:

“This is a very, very modest proposal to update the size formula from a 3-year look-back to a 5-year look-back. I discussed a number of alternatives with SBA, and after much discussion, this was the only option they were comfortable with.”

H.R. 6369 essentially takes three major actions. The first action is that option years are no longer included in the award price for sole source contracts.

To account for this fact, the maximum award prices were changed from $5M to $7M for contract opportunities assigned an SIC code for manufacturing and from $3M to $4M for all other contract opportunities. Exclusion of option years was applied to sole source contracts, those controlled by service-disabled veterans, women, and women in substantially underrepresented industries.

The second action is that the SBA is to notify the House Small Business Committee and the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee when it has established two programs: one to certify concerns of female small business owners, and one to certify concerns of service-disabled veteran small business owners.

This is a significant change requiring certification of “real” WOSBs. Right now the program is self-certified, except in cases using sole source contracts when the contracting officer is required to verify that the business is certified by one of the four designated WOSB certifiers.

The third program is that the GAO will carry out a study to ensure that sole source awards are properly classified and are being awarded to eligible firms. This report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months after the certification programs begin. The SBA must also report to Congress with the actions it took following the GAO study.

H.R. 6382, otherwise known as the “Clarity on Small Business Participation in Category Management Act of 2018,” amends the Small Business Act to require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to report certain information to the Congress and to the President, and for other purposes.

Specifically it requires reporting on:

(i) the total amount of spending government wide in such designation;

(ii) the dollar amount of contracts within such category awarded to each of the following—

(I) HUBZone small business concerns;

(II) small business concerns owned and controlled by women;

(III) small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans; and

(IV) socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.

These changes are a big deal for small firms, especially WOSBs.


Reinforce Accountability to Reenergize Your Leadership Team

© tashatuvango – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jack McGuinness of Relationship Impact.

Reenergizing your leadership can have a massive impact on your entire organization. In his final post in the series, Jack McGuinness tackles the topic of accountability.

The business dictionary defines accountability as “the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and disclose the results in a transparent manner.” Inherent in this definition are three levels of accountability – power, individual and team accountability.

We believe that all three are important in building a great leadership team and a recent HBR article supports our assertion. The article breaks down team performance as follows – in the weakest teams, there is no accountability; in mediocre teams, bosses are the source of accountability; and in high performance teams, peers manage the vast majority of performance problems with one another.

For many leadership teams this last level of accountability where peers hold each other accountable presents a significant challenge. In his bestselling book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni had the following to say about accountability – “Once we achieve clarity and buy-in, it is then that we have to hold each other accountable for what we sign up to do, for high standards and behavior. And as simple as that sounds, most executives hate to do it, especially when it comes to a peer’s behavior.”

Not surprisingly, there is a strong relationship among the three tips we are presenting in this blog post series. Specifically, leadership teams require a purpose to be accountable to and the skill of engaging in productive dialogue (including giving and receiving feedback) is instrumental to a team’s ability to hold each other accountable. The following are a few steps for helping leadership teams move from poor or mediocre accountability to an environment where a healthy balance exists between individual, power and peer accountability:

  1. To start, the formal leader needs to clarify and reinforce the importance of the three levels of accountability. Most importantly, the leader must model the behaviors she expects for the team. This includes receiving feedback well and providing timely, direct and respectful feedback. She also needs to clarify that the leader’s role does not exist to settle problems or constantly monitor the team; rather it is focused on creating an environment where peers address concerns immediately, directly and respectfully with each other.
  2. Next, the leadership team needs to focus on its unique purpose and gain agreement on specific individual and collective accountabilities for decisions and actions required to achieve the purpose. Most importantly, the leadership team needs to take action and demonstrate its ability to effectively perform and adjust course as required.
  3. Periodically the leadership team should to step back and reflect on progress from two perspectives – what results is the team achieving and how is the team achieving the results. In our experience, reflecting on tangible business issues is the most effective mechanism for addressing a leadership team’s ability to engage in productive dialogue and hold each other accountable directly and respectfully.

Truly great leadership teams are resilient and have the capacity to reenergize and get back in sync after inevitable periods of dysfunction. Team members of great leadership teams recognize that they serve as stewards of their organizations supporting a unique enterprise-wide purpose. Great leadership teams also do the hard work necessary to engage in productive dialogue and hold each other to high performance and behavior.

This post originally appeared at ChiefExecutive.net at https://chiefexecutive.net/tips-reenergizing-leadership-team and was reprinted with permission.


Foster Productive Dialogue to Reenergize Your Leadership Team

© kritchanut – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jack McGuinness of Relationship Impact.

As Jack McGuinness stressed in Part 1 of this series, great leadership teams never succeed by accident. In this post he explains how to get your team talking.

In her landmark study on the science of team self-awareness, Amy Edmonson coined the term ‘psychological safety’ to describe “the shared belief that it’s safe to ask one another for help, admit mistakes, and raise tough issues.” She goes on to suggest that “psychological safety is meant to suggest neither a careless sense of permissiveness, nor an unrelenting positive effect but rather a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.”

Most importantly, Edmonson’s research discovered that the highest-performing teams were “the ones with the highest reported errors – teammates were comfortable openly discussing mistakes. On these teams, they weren’t afraid to tell the leader that something had gone wrong.”

Unfortunately, as we see everyday in our work with leadership teams psychological safety is hard to come by. In Relationship Impact parlance we refer to psychological safety as ‘productive dialogue’ or the ability for teams to challenge, debate and discuss their most important issues in a manner that progresses the issues and leaves minimal relational scars. Over the past 9 years we have worked with close to 100 teams and the number one challenge we have seen and continue to see is the inability of leadership teams to engage in productive dialogue.

As an example, last summer we began to work with the leadership team of a trade association and the lack of productive dialogue was palpable. The CEO was serving as a referee and managing conflict among his VPs individually and behind closed doors; staff were visibly uncomfortable talking to colleagues in other departments without sanction from their VPs; and leadership team meetings lacked substance and were often cancelled.

Fostering an environment where productive dialogue can thrive is challenging and requires hard work and commitment on the part of each leadership team member. Below are a few steps that will get the work started:

  1. Start by taking some time to help the team get to know each other at a deeper level. We regularly use Patrick Lencioni’s Personal Histories Exercise, which asks team members to describe struggles they faced earlier on in life. This never fails to provide teams with interesting insights into why colleagues might behave as they do. After the exercise we often hear comments such as ‘wow that explains a lot’ or ‘now I understand why he approaches decisions like that.’
  2. Next, invest time to help team members become aware of how they are ‘showing up’ to each other. We use psychometric instruments such as MBTI, DISC, or SDI to enable individuals to step back and reflect on what they value most and how this influences how they behave. We use these instruments as non-threatening discussion starters where teammates are asked to provide feedback to each other – ‘I appreciate that you are a results oriented person but sometimes I feel like you steamroll your ideas.’
  3. Perhaps most importantly, use the dialogue from steps one and two to help team members make behavioral commitments that will strengthen the effectiveness of the leadership team at the current point in the team’s journey. Team members should make commitments based on the input from their teammates and proactively ask for feedback when they struggle to live up to their commitments.
  4. Finally, team members must promise to ask for and provide feedback. As Tasha Eurich suggests in her book Insight, giving and receiving feedback is not easy – “In a misguided attempt to cling to the comfortable mental image we have of ourselves, it’s tempting to react by getting angry and defensive or trying to run away (either literally or by not listening, shrugging it off, pretending it never happened).” However, without feedback there can be no improvement so we encourage teams to use the newfound insights they discover from steps one and two above and take the leap. We have witnessed the power of feedback transform individuals and teams – recently one senior executive client commented ‘I’ve been doing these things for over 15 years and no one ever told me how damaging they were.’

In the final post in this series, Jack McGuinness will explain the importance of peers holding each other accountable.

This post originally appeared at ChiefExecutive.net at https://chiefexecutive.net/tips-reenergizing-leadership-team and was reprinted with permission.


To Reenergize Your Leadership Team, First Confirm Your Purpose

© Rido – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jack McGuinness of Relationship Impact.

All leadership teams have the opportunity to serve as force multipliers for their organizations where the team’s impact goes far beyond the contributions of individual team members. Leadership teams work hard to shape long-term visions and missions that rally employees, shepherd the execution of strategies that set their organizations apart from competitors, and define values that form strong cultural foundations.

Unfortunately, many times these efforts fall short. A recent survey of senior executives conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership indicated that only 18% of executives rated their teams as “very effective.” In the same survey 97% of executives agreed that increased leadership team effectiveness would have a positive impact on organizational results.

Great leadership teams never succeed by accident. Without nurturing, leadership teams can actually become organizational impediments as characterized by duplication of effort, finger pointing, “real” meetings happening after “official” meetings, unhealthy interdepartmental competition, delayed decision making and churning over and over on the same issues. Here’s how to reenergize your leadership team for maximum organizational impact.

Confirm Purpose

A leadership team’s purpose should serve as a guidepost for focusing the team and the organization on what is strategically most important at any given point in time based on the environment in which the organization operates. Absent of a specific purpose that goes beyond ‘leading the organization’ and ‘carrying out the organization’s strategy’, leadership teams will struggle to have a force multiplier impact.

Unfortunately, it is quite common for leadership teams to come together and immediately begin to do business or at least attempt to do what each member believes the group’s business should be.

Earlier last year we were asked to work with the global leadership team of a professional services firm to strengthen its effectiveness. It quickly became clear that each business unit VP was diligently executing strategies designed to maximize business unit growth but were missing opportunities to enhance the long-term potential of the organization.

This seemingly unintentional lack of coordination had a reverberating effect including increasing tension among VPs, customer confusion due to multiple touch points, and emerging competition among business units for limited resources. In short, this leadership team had failed to establish (or at a minimum had lost sight of) its unique enterprise-wide purpose.

As articulated in the book Senior Leadership Teams, a leadership team’s purpose should encapsulate what the formal leader (CEO/president) needs “this group of enterprise leaders to do that cannot be accomplished by any other set of people.” Below are four steps that leadership teams can use to shape or redefine their purpose:

  1. Start with the organization’s strategy and identify the most critical areas that must be tackled for the strategy to be successful. In the case of the professional services firm the critical need was to focus on diversification beyond a customer that represented over 70% of revenue.
  2. Next, identify the interdependencies among leadership team members that will drive the strategy. The leadership team of the professional services firm identified that every VP from the leaders of resource management, sales, finance and each service line was needed to develop a coordinated diversified growth strategy.
  3. Once the interdependencies are defined the leadership team needs to narrow them down to the critical few that the leadership team is uniquely positioned to address and drive. The leadership team of our professional services client identified a few critical priorities including shaping and executing an integrated sales approach for the three services they offer, developing new products and services that leverage their current offerings, and building a support infrastructure that enables them to scale effectively.
  4. Finally, the formal leader needs to take this input and shape a compelling leadership team purpose. The president of our professional services client developed the following purpose statement: ‘the long-term viability of our firm depends on our efforts to capture new customers and expand into new markets.’

In the next two posts in this series, Jack McGuinness will introduce two other essential tips for reenergizing your leadership tips, starting with fostering productive dialogue.

This post originally appeared at ChiefExecutive.net at https://chiefexecutive.net/tips-reenergizing-leadership-team and was reprinted with permission.


WOSB Sole-Source Authority Dispute

This is a guest post by Alice Lipowicz, editor, Set-Aside Alert.

A recent federal audit that found nearly 90% of sole-source contracts awarded to Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) were improper is getting significant pushback from the Small Business Administration.

The report by SBA’s Acting Inspector General (OIG) Hannibal Ware said four of the five recommendations it made were left unresolved by the SBA.

Most significantly, the SBA and the OIG aired more broadly their disagreement on whether WOSB sole-source awards currently are allowed at all.

While Congress approved authority for such awards in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, the SBA and OIG interpretations of the law clash.

The OIG says Congress authorized such awards on the condition that a formal WOSB certification program would be in place.

The SBA, on the other hand, “disagrees with the view that the NDAA of 2015 expressly or implicitly required SBA to establish a certification program concurrently with the sole source authority set forth in the NDAA,” Robb Wong, SBA’s associate administrator for government contracting and business development, wrote to the OIG.

Legal risks

The ongoing conflict about the current legality of the WOSB sole-source awards potentially is risky for small business contractors.

The disagreement may discourage contracting officers from making WOSB sole-source awards. The dispute potentially could be raised in a protest or a court case in an attempt to overturn a WOSB sole-source award.

The SBA currently plans for a formal WOSB certification program to be launched in January 2020. The OIG is urging strongly that the deadline be moved up to June 2019, which the OIG said was previously the launch date set by SBA.

The SBA also accused the OIG of errors in its data and also went on to describe “unique and complex” problems and “structural issues” in the WOSB program, owing to requirements in the law that created the program.

OIG report

The audit found that 50 out of 56 sole-source WOSB contracts reviewed–or 89%–were non-compliant. Those improper contracts totaled $52 million. Irregularities included companies with incomplete or no documentation and contracts awarded in incorrect industries.

As a result, the government’s WOSB achievement may be “overstated,” the report said.

The inspector general made five recommendations for improvements. SBA resolved only one.

On the OIG’s advice to initiate debarments of WOSB firms that violated rules, the SBA said it would complete those actions by September 2020. OIG said that is too late.

Also unresolved was a recommendation for SBA to take a more active role in correcting errors in procurement data from other agencies. Wong said that recommendation was “vague” and not likely to help.

The OIG also wanted SBA to conduct quarterly eligibility reviews of all newly-certified WOSBs and EDWOSBs. That was unresolved. The Women Impacting Public Policy group said they found that recommendation “demeaning” because it applies only to women-owned firms.

SBA’s comments

Wong, in his OIG letter, was critical of the report’s reliance on Federal Procurement Data System-NextGen data, which he said is prone to human error. “SBA’s OIG has not verified that the actions recorded in FPDS are actual contract award actions, or actual sole source awards,” he wrote.

SBA reviewed the OIG’s data for 17 contract actions for which allegedly no documents were on file. Of those, five contracting officers acknowledged they had misclassified the vendor as a WOSB, Wong added.

Furthermore, Wong said the OIG had not taken into account the multi-faceted problems and “structural issues” of the WOSB program, as established by law and regulation.

He noted that WOSB and EDWOSBs set-asides are the only ones limited by NAICS industry codes. Also, it is the only program that, by law, requires participants to provide documents to three government databases certifying their eligibility as WOSBs or EDWOSBs. Contracting officers must review the documents.

These rules have been confounding, Wong wrote, adding that most firms and contracting officers are not aware of the need to submit or review such documents.

Those issues have contributed to “limited success” in the WOSB program, and should have been given more weight in the OIG’s evaluation, according to Wong. Wong did not respond to Set-Aside Alert’s request for further comment.

More information:
OIG report
WIPP statement

Copyright © 2018 by Business Research Services Inc. Story reprinted with permission from June 20 edition of Set-Aside Alert. Founded in 1992 Set-Aside Alert is the only comprehensive news and information source focused solely on small business federal contractors. Check them out at www.setasidealert.com. The publisher Business Research Services is a veteran-owned small business.


css.php