SBA Implements Final Rule Authorizing Women-Owned Small Business Set Asides
On October 7, 2010, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued its Final Rule regarding Women-Owned Small Business (“WOSB”) Set Asides. 75 Fed. Reg. 62258. This Final Rule will take effect on February 4, 2011. The long-awaited rule responds to the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 (“the Act”), Public Law 106-554, which authorized federal contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs or Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (“EDWOSBs”), and endeavored to increase the participation of women-owned firms in federal government contracting. The SBA, under the Bush Administration, proposed an initial rule to implement a WOSB program in December 2007, but the rule was later withdrawn due to criticism that it was too narrow and burdensome to effectively meet the intent of the statute.
This Final Rule remedies many of the perceived shortcomings identified in the 2007 proposed rule, and implements Section 8(m) of the Act. Contracting officers are authorized to set-aside federal procurements worth up to $3 million ($5 million for manufacturing) to eligible WOSBs in industries in which the SBA has determined WOSBs are underrepresented and where the contracting officer reasonably believes that at least two proposals will be received from responsible WOSBs. Unlike some other small business programs, however, a contracting officer is not authorized to award a sole source contract to a WOSB.
The Final Rule sets forth inter alia:
• The requirements for qualifying as a WOSB. A WOSB must qualify as a small business according to 13 C.F.R. Part 121. A WOSB must be at least 51 percent unconditionally and directly owned by a U.S. citizen woman (or women). Also, a WOSB must be controlled by a U.S. citizen woman (or women), meaning that a woman controls the management and daily business operations of the business concern, holds the highest officer position, controls the Board of Directors, and otherwise demonstrates that she holds the decision-making power over the entity.
• The requirements for qualifying as an EDWOSB, i.e., in addition to meeting the eligibility requirements of a WOSB, the owners of an EDWOSB must also show an impaired ability to compete due to diminished capital and credit opportunities.
• The formula used to identify industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented. Currently 83 North American Industry Classification (NAICS) codes are eligible for WOSB program contracting based on this formula, and they include a broad range of NAICS codes, e.g., Residential Building Construction (2361), Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors (3281), Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing (3372), Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing (3391), Legal Services (5411), and Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services (5413). As evidenced by these examples, the qualifying industries are diverse and include the construction, manufacturing and services industries.
• A certification verification process which requires WOSBs to complete Online Representation and Certification Application (“ORCA”) certifications. In some instances, a small business concern can rely on a third party certification, e.g., a state designation, that it qualifies as a WOSB, when it makes its ORCA certification, but the third party certifier must be SBA-approved and listed on the SBA’s Web site. A WOSB may also self-certify, but the self-certifying WOSB will be required to submit a designated set of eligibility documents to the SBA at the time of its self-certification.
The WOSB certification requirement is a unique requirement compared to other socioeconomic programs administered by the SBA. The other programs typically do not require the affirmative submission of eligibility documents to the SBA, and instead only require the submission of eligibility documents in response to a protest or an SBA inquiry. The SBA is touting the requirement as a means of implementing careful oversight, reducing fraud, and ensuring that only eligible business concerns benefit from the program.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
White House Promotes Economic Efforts for WomenBy SEWELL CHAN
Published: October 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — As one of its closing arguments before the midterm elections, the Obama administration is highlighting the impact its economic policies have had on women.
For example, it cited the expansion of the earned-income tax credit, which disproportionately benefits working mothers; work-study money for community college students, 56 percent of whom are female; state aid supporting the jobs of teachers and nurses, who are mostly women; and Democratic opposition to privatizing Social Security, of which women make up 57 percent of beneficiaries.
The policy paper was timed to the Nov. 2 election, as Democrats try to respond to voter discontent over the slow pace of the recovery and the stubbornly high rate of unemployment.
“If the Republicans in Congress have their way, many of the economic policies that have been helping millions of American women not only survive during this recession, but begin to make progress while the economy continues to recover, would no longer be in place,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Obama.
The report, whose tone was less partisan, noted that women were now 47 percent of all workers, 60 percent of part-time workers, 51 percent of managers and 57 percent of undergraduate students. But nearly a half-century after the Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, women earn 77 cents for every dollar paid to men — a gap that has changed little over the past decade.
The gap cannot be explained by differences in education, hours worked or labor-market experience, said Cecilia E. Rouse, an economist who is on leave from Princeton while serving on the Council of Economic Advisers.
Women’s median annual earnings fell by 2.8 percent during the 2007-9 recession, compared with 4.1 percent for men. That recession was the first since the late 1960s in which women’s pay had declined.
Single mothers, black and Hispanic women and older women have been particularly hard hit. During the recession, the unemployment rate for women who are single heads of households rose to 13.6 percent — the highest level in 25 years — from 6.2 percent before the recession.
Some economists who reviewed the report said the administration needed to go further.
The president has improved access to health insurance, but has not done enough to create jobs for workers without a college education or to help with child-care expenses, said Barbara R. Bergmann, an economist at American University.
“Most of the advances women have made have been in the professions and business management,” she said, calling for “a revival of affirmative action to get women into the better-paying blue-collar jobs.”
Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said: “Nobody’s opposed to getting the deficit down in the long run, but we don’t want it to happen too soon because we’re still recovering from a very deep recession. We need to raise government revenues, we don’t need to cut entitlements.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22women.html?emc=eta1
Published: October 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — As one of its closing arguments before the midterm elections, the Obama administration is highlighting the impact its economic policies have had on women.
For example, it cited the expansion of the earned-income tax credit, which disproportionately benefits working mothers; work-study money for community college students, 56 percent of whom are female; state aid supporting the jobs of teachers and nurses, who are mostly women; and Democratic opposition to privatizing Social Security, of which women make up 57 percent of beneficiaries.
The policy paper was timed to the Nov. 2 election, as Democrats try to respond to voter discontent over the slow pace of the recovery and the stubbornly high rate of unemployment.
“If the Republicans in Congress have their way, many of the economic policies that have been helping millions of American women not only survive during this recession, but begin to make progress while the economy continues to recover, would no longer be in place,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Obama.
The report, whose tone was less partisan, noted that women were now 47 percent of all workers, 60 percent of part-time workers, 51 percent of managers and 57 percent of undergraduate students. But nearly a half-century after the Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, women earn 77 cents for every dollar paid to men — a gap that has changed little over the past decade.
The gap cannot be explained by differences in education, hours worked or labor-market experience, said Cecilia E. Rouse, an economist who is on leave from Princeton while serving on the Council of Economic Advisers.
Women’s median annual earnings fell by 2.8 percent during the 2007-9 recession, compared with 4.1 percent for men. That recession was the first since the late 1960s in which women’s pay had declined.
Single mothers, black and Hispanic women and older women have been particularly hard hit. During the recession, the unemployment rate for women who are single heads of households rose to 13.6 percent — the highest level in 25 years — from 6.2 percent before the recession.
Some economists who reviewed the report said the administration needed to go further.
The president has improved access to health insurance, but has not done enough to create jobs for workers without a college education or to help with child-care expenses, said Barbara R. Bergmann, an economist at American University.
“Most of the advances women have made have been in the professions and business management,” she said, calling for “a revival of affirmative action to get women into the better-paying blue-collar jobs.”
Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said: “Nobody’s opposed to getting the deficit down in the long run, but we don’t want it to happen too soon because we’re still recovering from a very deep recession. We need to raise government revenues, we don’t need to cut entitlements.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22women.html?emc=eta1
Here's one for the fairer sex! Women really are more generous, for a new study has found that they are significantly more likely to make a donation to charity.
Researchers at the Indiana University have found that women across nearly every income level give significantly more to charity than men—in some cases twice as much.
The researchers studied the donating patterns of 8,000 American households.
They found that women gave more in all income brackets apart from one, those with incomes between 23,509 dollars and 43,500 dollars.
The research also said that there were several factors that contributed to the growing generosity of women.
Among them were that women''s income has grown and that the number of American women who earn more than their husbands now stands at 26 per cent.
Debra Mesch, of the institute that led the study, said that the results are so decisive that charities can stop wondering about whether women give more.
“I think the general assumption is that women might be more likely to give, but that they give less money,” the Daily Mail quoted Mesch as saying.
However, women gave more often than men to both different charities, and in the total number of dollars, she added.
The data used for the study was not broken down by gender, so researchers looked solely at households headed by single men or single women, including adults who have been divorced, widowed or never married.
Previous research had shown that women encourage their husbands to give, but generally it is the women that make donations within married households.
However Suzie Upton, of the American Heart Association, disputed the findings of the research.
Upton claimed her organisation had no data to show that women are more generous, despite the Dallas based charity targeting women in it''s fundraising.
She said: “We target lots of our efforts to women, not because they are more generous, but because they are the decision makers for themselves and for their families.”
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/women-are-more-generous-than-men/701129/
Researchers at the Indiana University have found that women across nearly every income level give significantly more to charity than men—in some cases twice as much.
The researchers studied the donating patterns of 8,000 American households.
They found that women gave more in all income brackets apart from one, those with incomes between 23,509 dollars and 43,500 dollars.
The research also said that there were several factors that contributed to the growing generosity of women.
Among them were that women''s income has grown and that the number of American women who earn more than their husbands now stands at 26 per cent.
Debra Mesch, of the institute that led the study, said that the results are so decisive that charities can stop wondering about whether women give more.
“I think the general assumption is that women might be more likely to give, but that they give less money,” the Daily Mail quoted Mesch as saying.
However, women gave more often than men to both different charities, and in the total number of dollars, she added.
The data used for the study was not broken down by gender, so researchers looked solely at households headed by single men or single women, including adults who have been divorced, widowed or never married.
Previous research had shown that women encourage their husbands to give, but generally it is the women that make donations within married households.
However Suzie Upton, of the American Heart Association, disputed the findings of the research.
Upton claimed her organisation had no data to show that women are more generous, despite the Dallas based charity targeting women in it''s fundraising.
She said: “We target lots of our efforts to women, not because they are more generous, but because they are the decision makers for themselves and for their families.”
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/women-are-more-generous-than-men/701129/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)