Labels and Tags

Accountability (71) Adequate documentation (7) ADR in procurement (4) Allocation of risks (6) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (14) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (3) Compliance (35) Conflict of interest (32) Contract administration (26) Contract disputes (4) Contract extension or modification (9) Contract formation (1) Contract interpretation (1) Contract terms (3) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (20) Conviction (4) Cooperative purchasing (3) Corrective action (1) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (37) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (10) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (5) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (12) Governmental functions (27) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (13) Integrity of system (31) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (33) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Offer & acceptance (1) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (34) Past performance (12) Planning policy (34) Politics of procurement (52) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (95) Principles of procurement (25) Private vs public contract (17) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (79) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (31) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (17) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (11) Recusal (1) Remedies (17) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (14) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (13) RFQ vs RFP (1) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (60) Sole source (48) Sovereign immunity (3) Staffing (8) Standard commercial products (3) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (23) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (33) Transparency (63) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (3)

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Little big men

SBA contract errors are result of deception
In 2003, the Government Accountability Office uncovered more than 5,300 large businesses that were receiving federal small-business contracts.

An analysis of the most recent small-business data by the American Small Business League (ASBL) found that of the top 100 recipients of federal small-business contracts, 60 were actually large businesses. Those large businesses received 64.5 percent of the contract dollars awarded to the top 100 companies.

For the last seven years, the Small Business Administration has persistently argued that the diversion of billions of dollars in federal small-business contracts to many of the largest companies in the world is simply the result of "miscoding," "computer glitches" and "simple human error."

The SBA Office of Inspector General has a different explanation. In a March 2005 report, the inspector general found large businesses had received small-business contracts by making "false certifications" and "improper certifications." A similar investigation by the SBA Office of Advocacy found large businesses had received small-business contracts as a result of "vendor deception."

Visualize a federal database of suppliers with several dozen fields. One of those fields signifies whether a firm is a small business or a large business.

SBA has consistently maintained that the error rate on this field is thousands of times higher than any other field. More astonishing, SBA claims that when federal contracting officials and government suppliers "miscode" this field, 100 percent of the time they "miscode" the field in a way that reports small-business contracts to large businesses.

Lloyd Chapman is president of the American Small Business League, an advocacy group based in Petaluma, Calif.

No comments: