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: Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]
Target Audience
Population: Employees and associates of commercial construction and engineering enterprises benefiting from small business contract extensions
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill affects commercial construction and engineering services enterprises that are involved with small business contracts.
- It extends eligibility for specific small businesses in these sectors, allowing them to continue benefiting from small business contracts despite surpassing the size standard.
- The broader population includes employees working in these small businesses, as their employment and job stability may be directly impacted.
- Suppliers, contractors, and potentially customers of these businesses could be impacted as well due to the changing size status and capabilities of these enterprises under the pilot program.
Reasoning
- The SUCCESS Act is designed to help small commercial construction and engineering businesses continue to benefit from small business contracts even after they outgrow the small business size standards. This should provide financial stability and job security for employees within these firms.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will likely focus on the most impacted small businesses that are just crossing the size threshold, thereby aiding a select group within the target population.
- People likely to benefit the most are employees of businesses whose contracts form a significant part of their revenue. Their job stability and wellbeing are directly tied to their company's ability to secure contracts.
- In the absence of the policy, these businesses might face sudden financial challenges when they outgrow small business status, possibly leading to job cuts or reduced hours, affecting employee wellbeing.
- There will be individuals who are unaffected by the policy either because they work for larger firms or small businesses who are not reliant on small business contracts. They maintain a stable wellbeing baseline across both scenarios.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager, Small Construction Firm (Houston, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful about the SUCCESS Act since it's supposed to help companies like ours retain government contracts.
- I think it will stabilize our operations and prevent any sudden job losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Civil Engineer, Medium-Sized Engineering Firm (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without this policy, we might lose several key contracts.
- The extension would provide us with crucial time to adjust to new market conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Small Business Owner, Engineering Services (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SUCCESS Act could mean the difference between layoffs and continued growth for us.
- It relieves pressure while expanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Contractor, Small Construction Enterprise (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm less worried about sudden changes under this policy.
- It provides a buffer to move past the cliff without major disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Accountant, Large Construction Company (Dallas, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't affect me directly as our company is well above the small business threshold.
- Nevertheless, it's interesting to see how policy shapes our sector.
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 |
HR Manager, Small Engineering Company (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would help stabilize our workforce by allowing us to maintain certain contracts longer.
- I'm optimistic about the positive impact it could have on our hiring and retention strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired, Former Construction Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm retired now, policies like SUCCESS would have been very beneficial during my business challenges.
- However, my wellbeing is not directly influenced anymore.
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 |
Supplier for Engineering Services (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the SUCCESS Act, my client base stability increases.
- This expected growth of my clients should subsequently benefit my business.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Intern, Engineering Start-up (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm new here, but retaining contracts is crucial for job offers post-internship.
- The policy could secure my potential full-time position here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Office Manager, Small Architecture Firm (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our firm isn't impacted as much by this policy because we've diversified beyond small business-centric sources.
- I think it's a positive move for those companies that haven't.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15500000 (Low: $10500000, High: $20500000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between supporting small businesses and maintaining fair competition in government contracts.
- The potential regulatory and administrative burden for overseeing the size transitions of businesses under the pilot program.
- Potential unintended consequences on market dynamics and competition within the construction and engineering sectors.