Bill Overview
Title: SUCCESS Act
Description: This bill establishes a pilot program that permits certain commercial construction and engineering services enterprises to maintain eligibility for certain small business contracts during a transitional period after they otherwise exceed the applicable small business size standards for such contracts.
Sponsors: Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
Target Audience
Population: People working in small to medium enterprises transitioning from small business size standards
Estimated Size: 300000
- The SUCCESS Act focuses on enterprises involved in commercial construction and engineering services.
- Small business contracts typically have size standards that classify a business as a 'small business.'
- The act is intended for businesses that are transitioning out of the 'small business' category based on their growth.
- This transitional period allows these enterprises to maintain access to small business contracts, which would otherwise not be possible once they exceed the size limits for small businesses.
Reasoning
- The SUCCESS Act targets small to medium enterprises transitioning out of small business classification in the commercial construction and engineering sectors. Given a budget of $150 million in the first year, the policy can potentially support enterprises to retain small business contracts as they grow.
- With a global estimate of 1,000,000 people in this transitioning phase and 300,000 specifically in the U.S., we have a substantial target population that stands to benefit economically and socially from the policy, which will likely reflect in their wellbeing scores.
- Given the budget constraints, not all eligible enterprises or individuals might benefit equally. Those in regions with a higher density of such enterprises, like urban centers with robust construction sectors, might experience more significant impacts.
- The policy may temporarily improve growth potential for businesses, offering stability and competitive edge as they scale up, translating indirectly into improved wellbeing for individual workers due to job security and potential career development opportunities.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SUCCESS Act is a great initiative. It allows firms like ours to continue bidding for small business contracts as we scale, providing us more time to adapt to the broader market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Civil Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides stability and certainty, enabling us to compete effectively without the immediate pressure of scaling beyond small business limits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Construction Foreman (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining small business contracts as we grow will help secure jobs, including mine. It's a positive step for businesses on the edge of significant growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Architect (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to small business contracts while scaling offers breathing room for adaptation, benefiting both the business and employees in terms of job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Structural Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SUCCESS Act is crucial for our continued growth, allowing us access to important contracts that are vital for our innovation-driven projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
CEO of a Construction Firm (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ability to sustain small business contracts gives us the leverage needed against larger competitors and eases the transition to a bigger market category.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Junior Engineer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would protect my job and growth opportunities as my company scales, facilitating smoother transitions and development in my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Owner of a Construction Business (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act ensures we do not hit a 'cliff' in losing business due to size-related disqualifications, allowing smoother transition and better financial planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Project Coordinator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy buys businesses like ours time, safeguarding jobs and enabling us to gradually build enough capacity to compete at a higher level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired Construction Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy does not impact me directly, I see its benefits for current workers; it stabilizes the market and improves immediate job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 3: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $180000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy aims to bridge the gap for transitioning businesses but must balance against any competitive disadvantages for genuinely small businesses.
- Impact will heavily depend on how businesses use this transitional phase to scale operations and increase competitiveness.
- Administrative and oversight costs are significant given the monitoring of transitional status.