Is it too little too late to help women entrepreneurs?
It took the federal government almost seven years to finally submit a proposed rule that would help women-owned small businesses get a level playing field when it came to the federal contracting procurement process.
Some argue -- most notably the sponsor of the original bill in 2000 -- the new rule doesn’t go far enough to help women business owners.
Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman House Committee on Small Business, sponsored the “Equity in Contracting for Women Act of 2000” that created the Women’s Procurement Program as a way to give women some needed traction when it came to competing for government jobs.
But the program never passed go, mainly because the federal government spent years reviewing and assessing how the plan would be implemented.
Even in the government’s own Q&A that accompanied the announcement last week by the Small Business Administration, the long time delay gets top billing:
“Q. Why did it take so long to implement these procedures given that Congress passed the law authorizing them in 2000?
A. Supreme Court decisions require legislative findings to justify a gender-based preferences program such as the Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Procedures. In general, set-asides and other preference programs are subject to a high degree of Constitutional scrutiny and require careful study and thorough justification. For this set-aside, Congress delegated the complex and controversial responsibility to SBA — we believe a first for a federal agency.
Understanding this hurdle, SBA did attempt timely implementation. The agency completed its initial study in 2001, but during the review process substantial questions were raised, which necessitated an independent review by the National Academy of Sciences. Following the conclusion of this review, SBA contracted with the RAND Corporation, which specializes in government studies, to perform a new analysis, which provides the basis of the proposed rule.”
Velazquez saw the delays as merely stalling tactics.
But now that the procedures are on the table, will it mean women entrepreneurs will finally find parity when playing in the government-contracting arena?
Not quite, Velazquez argues.
“After nearly seven years of studies, delays and empty promises, the Administration had a chance today to finally show its commitment to women-owned firms – unfortunately, this did not happen,” says Velázquez. “These entrepreneurs are being shut out of billions of dollars in federal contracting opportunities, yet their concerns are falling on deaf ears. This is extremely disheartening and it cannot continue.”
What’s got her angry is that the government has limited the number of industries where the program can be implemented to four including, national security and international affairs; coating, engraving, heat treating and allied activities; household and institutional furniture and kitchen cabinet making; and motor vehicle dealers.
After a “rigorous process” of review, the SBA says these were the four industries where women-owned business were underrepresented.
Velazquez is crying foul. “To suggest that the only women who deserve support are in industries as small as kitchen cabinet manufacturing is downright insulting,” she explains. “The Administration needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with an effective program that will help ensure the success of female entrepreneurs across the country – this is what the women of America deserve and it is the right thing to do.”
The House Small Business committee will hold a hearing this month to address the new procedures.
If you’ve got an opinion on this either way contact the SBA pronto. The agency is accepting public comment for about two months. Speak up now or shut up later when you can’t get your foot in the door.
