Bill Overview
Title: Federal Contracting Fairness Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes various revisions to the Small Business Administration 8(a) Business Development program, which assists small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals participate in federal contracting. For example, the bill (1) allows participants to opt in to a ramp-up period if they meet certain requirements, and (2) increases the threshold for certain sole-source loans.
Sponsors: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: Small business owners in the 8(a) program
Estimated Size: 200000
- The legislation affects the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) Business Development program.
- The SBA 8(a) program is designed to aid small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, so these are the businesses primarily impacted.
- The number of small businesses participating in the SBA 8(a) program is limited, and only a subset of these will qualify for the changes the bill introduces.
Reasoning
- The total budget for the first year is $15,000,000 USD with a 10-year total of $179,500,000 USD, indicating a medium-scale impact potential based on federal contracting provisions and small business growth projections.
- The Small Business Administration's 8(a) program serves a niche category of small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, limiting direct impact to this group.
- The primary beneficiaries are small business owners and potentially their employees within the targeted demographic, but the policy will also indirectly affect competition and supply chains linked to these businesses.
- Furthermore, about 5,000 to 7,000 small businesses are currently estimated to be in this program which forms a small subset of the 200,000 American target estimated field for this particular group.
- Cantril Wellbeing Scores are used to simulatively measure the subjective satisfaction or wellbeing before and after implementation to assess the policy's qualitative impact.
Simulated Interviews
Small business owner (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a game-changer for my business, allowing us to gain more contracts and possibly expand faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
IT services provider (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about the new ramp-up options, it provides flexibility and less pressure as we grow.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive policy update. It might simplify access and increase the success rate for my clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Construction company owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I could see this policy giving me more opportunities to secure contracts early on, it's a welcome change.
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 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Marketing consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might indirectly benefit my business by increasing the budgets of my clients, allowing them to invest more in marketing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Legal advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potentially increased demand for legal services in small business contracting, which would be beneficial for my firm.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been thinking about joining the 8(a) program, and these changes might now make it worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Restaurant owner (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any help these businesses can get is valuable, even though I'm not directly involved anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech startup founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will make joining the 8(a) more appealing, as the red tape has been a deterrent for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Freelancer (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might increase the flow of work for me as a contractor for small businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 3: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 5: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The overall impact of the bill is constrained by the relatively small number of businesses in the 8(a) program.
- Administrative costs to implement changes effectively could influence net costs.
- The bill's success in enhancing small business participation in federal contracts depends on efficient execution and sufficient uptake by eligible businesses.