Small business owners across the State of California are contacting United States Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and asking for their help to halt the flow of government small business contracts to Fortune 1000 corporations.
To date, fourteen different federal investigations have all found that billions of dollars in contracts earmarked for legitimate small businesses have instead found their way into the hands of some of the largest companies in the United States and Europe.
The bill, H.R. 1873 the “Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act,” passed through the House of Representatives last week and will allow large companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Rolls-Royce and L3 Communications to keep their existing federal small business contracts for up to five more years.
Small business owners are asking Senators Boxer and Feinstein to amend the bill and push for the immediate removal of all Fortune 1000 corporations and other large companies from federal small business contracting programs and to force all firms with existing federal small business contracts to re-certify on an annual basis.
The campaign to garner the support of Senators Boxer and Feinstein has been organized by the Petaluma, California based American Small Business League. If Senators Boxer and Feinstein can convince the Senate to add a provision in the new legislation to close the loophole that allows Fortune 1000 corporations to obtain small business contracts, the ASBL predicts that up to $60 billion a year in federal small business contracts would be re-directed to legitimate small businesses in California as well as every other state in the country.
Federal procurement for small businesses is centralized within 50 miles of Washington D.C. and an annual re-certification provision would de-centralize that procurement and spread those purchases and contract dollars more equitably around the nation.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Fact 9: SBA Myth vs. Fact Press Release Debunked by American Small Business League
Fact 9. SBA's re-certification proposal is the same as the unpopular “grandfathering” plan proposed by the SBA in 2004.
Proof - In their response to the ASBL press release the SBA said, “No proposal for a ‘grandfathering’ provision was ever made...” Yet, it was published in the Federal Register in volume 69, 70200, No 232 on December 3, 2004. And, multiple publications prove otherwise. Also, in a June 9, 2005 story in the Miami Herald titled, “Small Business Seek Fair Fight for Contracts,” SBA spokesman Gary Jackson admitted that the SBA would pursue a five-year grandfathering plan. Again, in the Chicago Tribune on June 21, 2005 in a story titled, “SBA Hearing Fields Opinions on Small Business,” an SBA spokesperson talked about a five-year plan. Several other stories were written about the SBA grandfathering proposal.
The SBA grandfathering plan would allow any firm with an existing federal small business contract to keep it for five more years. The five-year re-certification plan will allow any firm with an existing small business contract to keep it for five more years.
As far as the federal small business contracts currently held by Fortune 1000 firms, grandfathering and 5-year recertification are virtually identical.
Proof - In their response to the ASBL press release the SBA said, “No proposal for a ‘grandfathering’ provision was ever made...” Yet, it was published in the Federal Register in volume 69, 70200, No 232 on December 3, 2004. And, multiple publications prove otherwise. Also, in a June 9, 2005 story in the Miami Herald titled, “Small Business Seek Fair Fight for Contracts,” SBA spokesman Gary Jackson admitted that the SBA would pursue a five-year grandfathering plan. Again, in the Chicago Tribune on June 21, 2005 in a story titled, “SBA Hearing Fields Opinions on Small Business,” an SBA spokesperson talked about a five-year plan. Several other stories were written about the SBA grandfathering proposal.
The SBA grandfathering plan would allow any firm with an existing federal small business contract to keep it for five more years. The five-year re-certification plan will allow any firm with an existing small business contract to keep it for five more years.
As far as the federal small business contracts currently held by Fortune 1000 firms, grandfathering and 5-year recertification are virtually identical.
One Question For Senator John Kerry, Representative Nydia Velázquez and Representative Henry Waxman
If the "Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act" becomes law, will contracts to Fortune 500 firms with existing federal small business contracts continue to be counted towards the federal governments small business-contracting goal?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Fact 8: SBA Myth vs. Fact Press Release Debunked by American Small Business League
Fact 8. Since 2002, 14 federal investigations have found billions of dollars have been diverted from legitimate small businesses to Fortune 1000 companies and subsidiaries across the country.
Proof- The SBA’s assertion that there have not been 14 federal investigations is blatantly false. These reports and key statements are readily available on the ASBL website. In this response the SBA tries again to mislead by diverting attention from the fact that only a very small percentage of the contracts that the federal government reports as going to small businesses are actually formal set aside contracts. Again, the SBA fails to mention, that the policy allowing Fortune 1000 firms to acquire a small business and keep the small business status for 20 years was originally drafted by the SBA.
Again, SBA Inspector General Reports 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 all found large businesses were receiving federal small business contracts. The Eagle Eye report from the SBA Office of Advocacy found “vendor deception” -- more evidence of fraud. A report from the Center for Public Integrity found the Pentagon alone had awarded over $47 billion in small business contracts to some of the nations largest defense contractors. Investigative reports by ABC, CBS and CNN all found Fortune 1000 firms were receiving billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Titan Industries, L3 Communications, Rolls Royce and AT&T who did not recently out grow their small business status.
Proof- The SBA’s assertion that there have not been 14 federal investigations is blatantly false. These reports and key statements are readily available on the ASBL website. In this response the SBA tries again to mislead by diverting attention from the fact that only a very small percentage of the contracts that the federal government reports as going to small businesses are actually formal set aside contracts. Again, the SBA fails to mention, that the policy allowing Fortune 1000 firms to acquire a small business and keep the small business status for 20 years was originally drafted by the SBA.
Again, SBA Inspector General Reports 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16 all found large businesses were receiving federal small business contracts. The Eagle Eye report from the SBA Office of Advocacy found “vendor deception” -- more evidence of fraud. A report from the Center for Public Integrity found the Pentagon alone had awarded over $47 billion in small business contracts to some of the nations largest defense contractors. Investigative reports by ABC, CBS and CNN all found Fortune 1000 firms were receiving billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Titan Industries, L3 Communications, Rolls Royce and AT&T who did not recently out grow their small business status.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Fact 7: SBA Refuses to Release Names of Small Businesses Awarded Federal Contracts
Proof- Try and find them. On numerous occasions the ASBL has asked the SBA to release the names of firms reported as small businesses several times. They have consistently refused. As far as the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, the ASBL challenges anyone to try and use it. In 2006, ASBL President, Lloyd Chapman offered a $10,000 reward to anyone that could provide him with an accurate list of the firms the federal government reported as small businesses. No one was able to provide the information. Even experts like Paul Murphy of Eagle Eye Publishers wasn't exactly sure who got the contracts. Dozens of journalist have asked the SBA for the information, but the SBA routinely declined the requests.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Fact 6: SBA Myth vs. Fact Press Release Debunked by American Small Business League
Fact 6. Small businesses are forced to compete with large businesses under the new re-certification rule.
Proof - This was established in SBA Inspector General Reports 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16. The SBA uses the term “set aside for small business.” This avoids addressing the 90 percent of the contracts the government reports as going to small businesses that were not “set aside” contacts. They do not address the thousands of small business contracts that are already in place with hundreds of Fortune 1000 firms and international firms. Once again they try to divert attention from the billions of dollars in existing contracts with large corporations by talking about firms that might be merged or acquired in the future.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Fact 5: SBA Myth vs. Fact Press Release Debunked by American Small Business League
Fact 5. There have been no penalties or consequences for large businesses getting small business contracts.
Proof - The best information to prove this is in the SBA's own statements. They do not provide any information on firms that have been penalized or prosecuted for misrepresenting themselves as small businesses. They use terms like “will be denied” and “subject to fines.” Again the GTSI case is a typical example, they were recommended for debarment by the SBA Inspector General and the SBA did nothing.
A report released in 1995 by the SBA Inspector General is another great example. They found fraud in federal small business contracting and the SBA took no action against those firms. In another instance, the SBA Office of Advocacy commissioned an investigation that found large businesses were guilty of “vendor deception” a synonym for fraud to receive small business contracts. The SBA took no action against those firms. Furthermore, On February 24, 2005 in Report 5-16 the SBA Inspector General found “false certifications” and “improper certifications,” more synonyms for fraud responsible for large businesses receiving federal small business contracts. The SBA took no action against those firms.
Proof - The best information to prove this is in the SBA's own statements. They do not provide any information on firms that have been penalized or prosecuted for misrepresenting themselves as small businesses. They use terms like “will be denied” and “subject to fines.” Again the GTSI case is a typical example, they were recommended for debarment by the SBA Inspector General and the SBA did nothing.
A report released in 1995 by the SBA Inspector General is another great example. They found fraud in federal small business contracting and the SBA took no action against those firms. In another instance, the SBA Office of Advocacy commissioned an investigation that found large businesses were guilty of “vendor deception” a synonym for fraud to receive small business contracts. The SBA took no action against those firms. Furthermore, On February 24, 2005 in Report 5-16 the SBA Inspector General found “false certifications” and “improper certifications,” more synonyms for fraud responsible for large businesses receiving federal small business contracts. The SBA took no action against those firms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
