Are the known benefits of job creation by ‘Smalls’ more valuable to our country than the perceived savings achieved through contract award bias towards ‘Bigs’?
There has been tremendous fallout over the Bill introduced by Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) on Jan. 18 titled “the Small Business Growth and Federal Accountability Act” (H.R. 3779) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc112/h3779_ih.xml because federal agencies have regularly ignored the government’s annual 23-percent small-business contracting goal.
However, as a result of the accountability “teeth” (heretofore nonexistent) that this bill establishes, federal agency management will now be forced to weigh the penalties for missing the small-business goal against awarding a contract to a large company that they feel could save money in execution efficiency and on the cost of contract management personnel.
As many of you know this pro/con argument has been in play for as long as there have been agency Small Business goals – at all levels of government. However, our team has done extensive research on the subject and there is no analysis available or empirical proof for record that any savings are enjoyed by federal agencies through the practice of bundling and bias towards Bigs.g
Do you buy the argument that a large firm can perform scaled functions better than a multiple of small firms, and that the efficiency and management savings (real or imaginary) that correlate to budget dollars justify agency bias towards Bigs? And, even if it does; do the known benefits of “job creation” by Smalls positively net-out any perceived benefit to the betterment of our country’s overall economic well-being?