This is a deal breaker

     I don't know about you, but WIPP members across the country are outraged, once again, with the response of the SBA with the Final Rule on the Women's Procurement Program.

     After 8 years, the SBA FINALLY issued it's final Rule to Public Law 106-554 of the Small Business Act which was passed in the year 2000!  

   First, a bit of background.  In short, the law sought to address and remedy discrimination against women business owners in federal contracting by creating a program giving contracting officers the ability to restrict competition to women-owned businesses for up to 5% of the total value of all prime contract and sub-contract awards for each fiscal year.  The SBA was given the responsibility to determine which industries (there are a total of 140 industries) women were underrepresented in. 

    Shock of all shocks, the SBA came up with a proposed ruling on December 27, 2007 that said only 1238 women in this country were underrepresented, and they came from 4 out of 140 industries.  This conclusion arose out of a study by Rand Corporation who provided 4 mothodologies to the SBA to determine who was underrrepresented.  3 out of 4 methodologies indicated that 87% of women-owned businesses were underrepresented.   The SBA selected the methodology that concluded that 0% of women are underrepresented.  

   Further, and even more importantly in my book, the proposed Rule concluded that BEFORE an agency can restrict competition for a woman-owned small firm to bid on, the agency must conduct an analysis of its procurement history to determine if there is sufficient evidence of discrimination in the relevant industry.

     Now what agency will do that?

     Last week, after due deliberation, the SBA released the Final Rule (note:  10 months after the proposed rule was issued).   What did it say?

    1.   That the number of industries should be expanded to 31 from 4 (and they issued a new proposed rule on this).

    2.   That their position on whether an agency needs to prove past discrimination still stands.

    Everyone is outraged.  Even all 16 women Senators vehemently disagreed with this ruling.

    This response is a deal breaker.   Expanding to 31 is inadequate - but even if it were expanded to all 140 - this rule cannot work - not if an agency needs to prove past discrimination.

    What are they thinking?    What do you think?