Bill Overview
Title: Strengthening Subcontracting for Small Businesses Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires federal agencies to consider when evaluating offers for contracts the extent to which, in a subcontracting plan, the offeror proposes to use small businesses as subcontractors in the performance of the contract.
Sponsors: Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
Target Audience
Population: Small business owners
Estimated Size: 32000000
- The bill focuses on federal contracts and the requirement that federal agencies consider small businesses in subcontracting plans.
- Small businesses in the U.S. will likely benefit from this bill as it increases their potential to win subcontracts.
- Any firms or individuals involved in U.S. federal procurements might be indirectly impacted.
- Approximately 32 million small businesses exist in the U.S. as of 2021, but not all engage in federal subcontracting.
- This bill does not impact the global small business community directly as it is specific to U.S. federal contracts.
Reasoning
- Small businesses potentially impacted by this policy make up a large segment of the U.S. business landscape, but only a fraction engage in federal subcontracting.
- Most directly impacted will be those who pursue federal contracts or have plans to begin doing so.
- There are indirect impacts on large businesses who will need to adjust subcontracting practices, but their economic scale often buffers wellbeing changes.
- The policy implementation is limited by budgetary constraints, affecting only a subset of potential beneficiaries in the initial years.
- The policy aims to support small businesses, improving their competitiveness and possibly enhancing entrepreneurship and local economies.
Simulated Interviews
Small IT Business Owner (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me a better chance to secure more government contracts.
- It could help me grow my business and hire a few more people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Marketing Agency Owner (Boise, ID)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't deal much with federal contracts, so I doubt this policy affects me directly.
- It might change if I choose to bid on governmental projects later.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Defense Contractor Executive (Arlington, VA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might complicate current subcontracting plans, but large companies will adjust. It'll require strategic changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Owner of a Small Construction Firm (Miami, FL)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A great opportunity to expand into government contracts, which I've been considering.
- It could mean steady work and improved financial security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Innovation is my focus but securing more contracts can be a growth opportunity.
- It's not immediately impactful but worth considering long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Subcontracting policy doesn't affect me as I work freelance and have no current plans for government contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Non-Profit Director (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Important policy for fostering small business growth but doesn't directly impact our current projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Manufacturing Firm Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps me remain competitive against larger firms.
- Opportunity to secure more work in government projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Entrepreneur in Eco-Friendly Products (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It inspires confidence in pursuing government contracts soon.
- Might create new opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Healthcare Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy encourages me to look at more government-focused projects.
- Might need to adjust how we strategize subcontracting roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The extent of the U.S. government contract market that will be influenced by this requirement.
- Potential administrative burdens placed on agencies to incorporate this new standard into their evaluation processes.
- The ability of small businesses to meet the qualification requirements for subcontracts, affecting the effective allocation of contracts.