Search Results

By Ann Sullivan The federal government will shut down midnight on Saturday barring any action from Congress to extend funding. Known as “stopgap funding,” the Congress must pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the government operating until enactment of FY24 appropriations funding for federal agencies. Stopgap funding is not new, and neither are shutdowns. Not since Fiscal Year 1997 has the federal government received full-year funding before September 30. Three shutdowns have occurred in the last decade; 2019 was the longest on record. If the Congress avoids a shutdown by approving a CR, federal agency funding is extended at prior-year funding levels. Agencies are often prohibited from using CR funds for “new starts” in programs, activities, and contracts. For federal contractors, this requires working with the agency’s contracting officers to understand any anticipated changes with respect to contract funding. If contracts are expiring, the agency often issues “bridge” contracts to continue the work until full fiscal year funding is secured. During a government shutdown, federal employees are furloughed, and contracting work is paused—meaning contractors will not get paid for any work performed during the shutdown. There are, however, exceptions for federal agencies. Approved carve-outs during a shutdown include: Employees and programs that are considered “essential” for protecting human life or property; health programs (e.g., medical care of patients, drug approvals), security programs (e.g., national security, border protection, care of prisoners), transportation programs (e.g., air traffic control), financial programs (e.g., key elements of banking system), programs funded outside of annual discretionary appropriations (e.g., US Postal Service), activities authorized by laws that permit obligations ahead of appropriations (e.g., contract authority), benefits payments covered by mandatory spending (e.g., Social Security) and programs that carry out core constitutional powers (e.g., granting pardons). We suggest that contractors consult with the relevant federal agency contract managers this week as to whether the goods or services that may be provided pursuant to specific contracts are to be continued notwithstanding a shutdown. As a general matter (and there will be specific exceptions, so please be proactive with contract officers), contracts for goods generally will continue and be compensated for as funds obligated to the contract should be unaffected. Contract for services of all types will be very contract specific, thus it is very important to consult with contract managers before the shutdown (as they may not be available during the shutdown) to understand the impact of a government shutdown on a given services contract. Although Congressional negotiations change on a continual basis, we expect the Senate will pass a Continuing Resolution (CR), funding the government for another seven weeks. At issue is whether the bill will contain additional Ukraine aid and disaster relief funding – as of this writing, the latest bipartisan package includes $6 billion for both. The House is less predictable because there is little to no consensus among Republicans on how to move forward with FY24 funding. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) floated the idea of a 30–45-day CR that includes a border security bill and a debt commission to cut federal spending. He indicated he will try and pass this version of the CR after the House votes on four appropriations bills. The appropriations bills the Speaker is referring to include: State/Foreign Operations, Agriculture/Rural Development, Homeland Security, and Defense. Whether a CR will get through the House remains unclear, as well as whether the Speaker will put a Senate-passed CR on the House floor for a vote at all. In order for the bill to make it to the President’s desk, the House and Senate versions must agree.

By: Eliza Joyner On May 10, the House Small Business Committee held the first of two hearings to review the SBA’s recent final rules 1) Affiliation and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs and 2) Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) Moratorium Rescission and Removal of the Requirement for a Loan Authorization, effective May 11 and May 12 respectively. The sole witness testifying before the Committee was Patrick Kelley, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Capital Access at the SBA. Similar to the Senate Small Business Committee hearing on April 26, members expressed bipartisan concern over the implementation of the regulations – specifically, the removal of the moratorium on SBLC licenses and how these changes could steer lenders away from making small-dollar loans. At times, members used the hearing to make policy statements on telework and SBA’s capabilities, creating a partisan back and forth between Mr. Kelley and Republicans. Chair Roger Williams (R-TX) and Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) opened the hearing by referencing the two procedural notices released by SBA the night before the hearing – 1) a notice on the Affiliation and Lending Criteria regulation and 2) a notice on the removal of the loan authorization in the SBLC Moratorium Recession regulation. The Chair and Ranking Member were disappointed that the SBA released the notices so close to the effective date of the regulations. Further, at the time of the hearing, the SBA had not released the requested SOP guidance, despite assurances by Mr. Kelley that it would be available by May 3. The SOP has since been released and can be accessed here. Ranking Member Velazquez asked Mr. Kelley if he would consider delaying the implementation of the rules to allow lenders and borrowers to familiarize themselves with the SOP. Mr. Kelley said no, stating that lenders wanted them to be implemented. Tensions rose when Republican members questioned Mr. Kelley about the SBA’s protocols on telework and requiring employees to return to the office. Mr. Kelley failed to give specifics regarding the number of employees reporting in person to SBA headquarters. This prompted the question of SBA’s capacity to undertake the increased oversight responsibility brought by these regulations. Specifically, Vice Chair Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) questioned Mr. Kelley on the Office of Credit Risk Management’s (OCRM) ability to regulate new SBLCs entering the program, considering OCRM’s declining staffing levels and the employees working remotely. Representative Dan Meuser (R-PA) and Representative Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) questioned Mr. Kelley on the impact of SBA’s Affiliation and Lending Criteria regulation, which removes certain underwriting requirements for loans under $500,000. Mr. Kelley was adamant that the new criteria and the removal of the “red tape” for smaller dollar loans is supported by banks and lenders and has been the standard for over two decades. Representative McGarvey asked why the underwriting requirements were removed for smaller loans but kept for larger ones, and if this disparity could create an environment where federally regulated lenders with strict underwriting requirements will have to compete with non-regulated SBLCs. Mr. Kelley said no, reiterating that banks and credit unions are the very institutions that have sought out these changes. In a rare moment of appreciation, Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) said she was pleased that the SBA will hold all new Community Advantage (CA) SBLCs to the same requirements that exist in the CA Pilot Program. This includes a requirement that a minimum of 60% of the number of loans made by CA SBLCs must be made to underserved markets. Loan loss requirements for CA SBLCs can be found here. In conclusion, members of the House Small Business Committee share the concern with their Senate counterparts that these regulations jeopardize the integrity of the 7(a) program. Primary interests remain on the potential for predatory lending, program abuse, and the SBA’s capacity to provide adequate oversight to new lenders. Expect part two of this hearing on May 17 to focus on the newly released SOP, and how these regulations will be implemented at the SBA. We also expect Republican members to touch on Mr. Kelley’s departure from the SBA following his testimony in this hearing last week.

By: Eliza Joyner Bipartisan disapproval for two SBA final rules took center stage in a Senate Small Business Committee hearing on April 26. The hearing was to review the SBA’s two recent final rules, 1) Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) Moratorium Rescission and Removal of the Requirement for a Loan Authorization and 2) Affiliation and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs, effective mid-May. Issued together, the rules are meant to increase access to capital for underserved small businesses by increasing lender participation and streamlining 7(a) and 504 loan requirements. Despite their intended purpose, there have been bipartisan concerns that the regulations open SBA’s 7(a) lending program to fraud and abuse while also removing critical guidelines and program safeguards. These concerns were brought up in a March SBA oversight hearing with Administrator Guzman as well as in a joint letter from Chair Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Ranking Member Joni Ernst (R-IA). During opening statements, the Chair and Ranking Member said they were surprised that none of the Committee’s concerns were implemented into the final rules, despite assurances by the Administrator that they would be considered. The primary concern discussed at the hearing was the SBLC Moratorium Rescission rule which lifts the pause on licensing new SBLCs and adds a new type of institution called a “Community Advantage SBLC.” Most of the questions were directed to witness Patrick Kelley, the Associate Administrator (AA) for the Office of Capital Access (OCA) at SBA. Chair Cardin and Ranking Member Ernst shared concern that removing the moratorium will allow an influx of unregulated lenders into the 7(a) program and give SBA authority that can be exploited in the future. Committee members expressed worry that the lack of guidelines in the rule toward underserved lending will steer the Community Advantage (CA) program toward high-dollar, large-lender loans, and away from the small-dollar lending that the CA program has successfully administered in the past. Specifically, the rule does not include the requirement for CA SBLCs to make at least 60% of loans in a defined “underserved market.” AA Kelley assured the Committee that such lending guidance will be included in a forthcoming Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidance expected in early May. Contributing to the concern of Committee members surrounding exploitation is the inclusion of FinTech lenders in the program and the potential of predatory lending to small, underserved businesses. Ranking Member Ernst and Senator Risch (R-ID) referenced past fraud and abuse perpetrated by FinTech lenders in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and questioned Mr. Kelley as to how the SBA expects to prevent this going forward. Mr. Kelley said that unlike in the CARES Act, SBLCs must abide by 7(a) program guidelines. Witness Sheldon Shoemaker, Deputy Inspector General at the SBA, supported Mr. Kelley by explaining that the 7(a) program and the PPP vary dramatically but insisted that FinTechs will require strong oversight by the SBA. Accordingly, there was discussion about the capability of the SBA’s Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) which oversees all SBA lenders. Chair Cardin expressed concern over the new heightened responsibility of OCRM to provide oversight to new SBLCs, considering the office remains understaffed. What emerged from the hearing was a clear and bipartisan consensus that Congress must pass legislation to make the CA pilot permanent and enact necessary changes to the program. Specifically, Chair Cardin touted his legislation, the Community Advantage Loan Program Permanency Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) in the House. In closing, Chair Cardin asked the two final witnesses, Hilda Kennedy, President of AmPac Capital in California, and Chris Pilkerton what suggestions they have for Congress to ensure that the CA program remains targeted on the smallest, underserved businesses. Ms. Kennedy said that codifying lending standards was of the utmost importance, as was a clear definition of “underserved.” Mr. Pilkerton stated that as the large influx of capital comes through the program, OCRM must be given the resources needed to effectively oversee new SBLCs. In conclusion, these rules sparked an often rare, bipartisan support for legislative action for the CA program through the Community Advantage Loan Program Permanency Act, likely to be considered by the Committee this year. Chair Cardin and Ranking Member Ernst are dedicated to continuing the conversation over these rules and exploring ways the Committee can protect America’s smallest businesses.

By: Eliza Joyner The President released the FY2024 budget request last Thursday, so it seems appropriate for a quick refresher on how the government is funded each fiscal year. Budget vs. Appropriations As the media begins throwing around the terms budget and appropriations – often incorrectly and interchangeably – let's start with those terms. Think of your own personal budget. You set topline spending levels for categories such as rent, food, travel, etc., and these spending levels act as a guideline for how much money you want to spend in each category. The government budget works in the same way, except the spending categories apply to government programs and agencies, rather than your monthly allocation for the grocery store. The appropriations process is meant to use these topline budget numbers asking, what new or existing programs at each federal agency should be funded? What should be eliminated? Compare it to reviewing your budget and taking note of the allocations you set for yourself, but also factoring in other necessary spending costs you will need in the future. Maybe while assessing your budget, you realized that you needed extra money for transportation this month. The appropriations process is supposed to consider these needs and adjust accordingly. This may mean than your weekly grocery allowance shrinks, but you now have additional money to spend on other necessities. President’s Budget Request Unlike other legislation, the appropriations process generally follows an annual timeline. It kicks off when the President’s annual budget request is drafted. The key word is should, as it rarely shakes out in regular order. This budget request is formulated by the President, who considers input from federal agencies on what are necessary levels of funding for agency programs. It is important to keep in mind that the President’s Budget is just a request — Congress has the power of the purse. Wonky Terms Galore: Omnibus? Minibus? FSGG? The meat of the process begins with Congressional Appropriations Committees, ideally after receiving the President’s budget (but not always). Since all revenue measures must start in the House, these appropriators get to work drafting the spending bills first. There are 12 subcommittees within the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, each with specific jurisdiction over particular federal agencies and their programs. For example, the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee (FSGG) handles funding levels for the Small Business Administration (SBA), Treasury Department and other agencies in financial services. This subcommittee drafts a bill solely relating to funding for those programs. So how does a subcommittee like FSGG determine funding levels for each program in a federal agency and decide which ones should stay or go? Each subcommittee holds multiple hearings where they invite witnesses from federal agencies to testify on the needs of their programs. Subcommittees also welcome fellow lawmakers to submit appropriations requests based on constituent submissions. They also draft a written report to accompany the bill. By the way, although a subcommittee may forgo hearings or a markup in some cases, it does not prevent subsequent consideration of an appropriations bill by the full Appropriations Committees or their respective chambers. Once a funding level is set and a bill is drafted, the bill (usually) charts the following path: Appropriations Subcommittee vote -> full Appropriations Committee vote -> heads to the House floor for a vote. The same process happens in the Senate. After the House and the Senate have each voted on its versions of an appropriations bill, a conference committee meets. That committee consists of equal number of House and Senate members who reconcile any differences between the spending bills before sending them to the President’s desk for signature. The President must sign the appropriations bills into law by October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year. Otherwise, the government shuts down. A way to avoid a shutdown and give additional time to work on the bills after this deadline is for Congress to pass a “continuing resolution” (CR). A CR funds the government at the previous fiscal year levels. This has happened every year for the last 24 years. In an ideal world, the President would sign all 12 appropriations bills into law at once - called an “omnibus.” This rarely happens, and usually there is the passage of a “minibus,” a grouping of a few appropriations bills together. At the end of last year, however, Congress did pass an omnibus. Why is that? At the end of a Congress, which lasts two years, all bills expire. This means, that if these bills were not signed into law, all 12 bills would have had to be redrafted when the 118th Congress began in January. Earmarks are still here. Something new happened last Congress – the return of the famous earmark. Earmarking allows lawmakers to recommend set asides for programs that would benefit their state, district or locality using federal dollars. Congress banned earmarking in 2011 when the provision became associated with allegations of corruption. However, they are still back with a new set of rules and a new name: “Community Funding Projects” or "Congressionally Directed Spending." Each Member of Congress has a limit on how many funding requests they can submit, and some have said they do not want to do them at all. Last fiscal year's funded projects can be found here. Many Members have posted specific instructions on how constituents can submit a request on their official websites. It is key for federal contractors to follow the appropriations process throughout the year, or as we say: follow the money.

By Ann Sullivan At the risk of sounding like a grump, I’m a little tired of events in Washington celebrating women’s history month given the lack of progress that has been made in women contracting with the federal government. Two new data points show a big disconnect when it comes to women entrepreneurs and the federal government’s attempt at helping them grow. A full 99% of women surveyed said they found the federal government’s attempt at providing programs and resources ineffective. And the one that got me was that 42% of women who got SBA WOSB certified thought the certification wasn’t worth the effort required to get it. If there was ever a reason why we need groups like the Women’s Procurement Circle (WPC), look no further than Bloomberg Government’s research showing a decline in contract awards to WOSB companies. We have our work cut out for us and small steps will not result in moving the needle. Bold Congressional action will be required to engage more women in the federal contracting space and federal agencies need to do more than simply increasing their outreach. As we all know, the key to success in any sector is adequate capital, which women owned firms struggle to secure. Wouldn’t it be great if we were able to celebrate the vital role of women in our history by garnering greater success for today’s women entrepreneurs. The facts don’t back up empty accolades, especially in the federal contracting arena. What we need is commitments from federal agencies and the Congress to enable more women owned companies to win federal contracts. It’s up to us to hold them to it.

By Eliza Joyner On December 14, the Senate Small Business Committee held a hearing to evaluate the ways in which SBA and Congress can increase outreach to underserved communities though the Community Advantage, Microloan and general 7(a) loan program. In the wake of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) oversight, much of the conversation centered around ways to increase lending to underserved communities without jeopardizing program guardrails and increasing fraud. The prevalence of fraud in PPP serves as a reminder of what can happen when program safeguards are not in place. Democrats and Republicans alike discussed the success of the program in reaching micro-businesses and underbanked communities because of the programs expanded lender participation and relaxed regulations. Committee Chair Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) specifically remarked on the fraud exacerbated by FinTech lenders. As unregulated lenders who took advantage of the speed of loan dispersal, FinTech’s participation “opened the floodgate to fraud.” Senator Marshall (R-LA) noted that in contrast, regulated community lenders such as CDFIs and CDCs are far more likely to know their customer and can therefore better assess a business’s ability to pay back a loan. Witness Annemarie Murphy, President of SBA Lending for First Bank of the Lake, noted her concern over the two recent SBA proposed rules: Affiliation and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs (Affiliation Rule) and Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) Moratorium Rescission and Removal of the Requirement for a Loan Authorization (SBLC Proposed Rule). In her opinion, together the Affiliation and SBLC Proposed Rules will prove to be catastrophic to the 7(a) program. Ms. Murphy stated that these proposed rules will essentially remove lending standards and welcome unregulated entities (including FinTechs) into the 7(a) program that will be stripped of its “prudent guardrails.” For context, the Affiliation Rule loosens or removes requirements for how lenders underwrite 7(a) loans and the SBLC Rule lifts the existing forty-year moratorium on the number of non-federally regulated SBLCs and creates “Mission-Based SBLCs.” The other main topic of discussion was how to encourage small dollar lending in the 7(a) program. Witness Mr. Gaines of the Wisconsin Women’s Business Initiative Corporation argued that outreach and continuing education is the key to reaching microbusinesses. Barriers such as language and geographical location often hinder underserved communities. Other witnesses recommended making the Community Advantage (CA) program permanent – arguing that mission lenders aren’t going to make the investment to become a CA lender when the program has a sunset of less than two years. Making the program permanent will give prospective lenders confidence that joining the program is worth their time. Overall, Committee Members agreed on the importance of SBA’s lending programs and were encouraged on ways the Committee can work to improve outreach. We will continue to work on improving these programs in the next Congress and welcome the bipartisan tone of this hearing.

By Laila Hawkins In the Semiannual Report to Congress, SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed the integrity of key SBA contracting and counseling programs. The SBA is charged with maximizing procurement and contract award opportunities for small businesses. The report covers SBA’s Implementation of the Women-Owned Small Business Certification Program, released in September 2022. In FY2020, the government awarded $27.1 billion (4.8%) of federal contracting dollars to WOSBs. Of the $27.1 billion, $1.2 billion was spent through WOSB set-aside or sole source awards. The objective of this report was to determine whether SBA implemented controls to prevent ineligible firms from being certified/obtaining WOSB set-aside contracts. The OIG identified three primary issues areas regarding the program: 1. Inadequate verification requirements for WOSB certifications 2. Lack of oversight for third-party certifiers 3. An unreliable database and certification platform (beta.certify) The report notes that SBA’s current average processing time for WOSB determinations is 112 days, even though SBA is required issue determinations within 90 days. These delays caused a serious backup in the applicant portal – as of September 2022, there were 8,352 applications waiting for a certification decision. Regarding inadequate verification requirements for WOSB certifications, OIG found that SBA approved all 25 firms reviewed but did not ensure that the business was small. OIG also found that SBA approved three of the 25 firms without documenting how the business resolved doubts that a woman controlled the business. In response to these concerns, the OIG gave six recommendations to the SBA regarding its oversight of the WOSB certification program: 1. Update and implement standard operating procedures to ensure consistent eligibility reviews 2. Update application instructions and require WOSB applicants to submit documentation for program officials to verify that the business meets small business size standards 3. Perform eligibility examinations for the three WOSB firms that did not have adequate evidence that a woman controlled the business and take appropriate action 4. Implement a plan to mitigate or remedy beta.certify issues affecting SBA’s ability to maintain records, accurately report data, and work with other federal databases, minimizing the possibility of awarding contracts to ineligible businesses 5. Assess the technological resources, staffing levels, and service contracts needed to reduce application wait time and ensure application reviews are conducted in a prompt manner in accordance with regulatory requirements. Use the results of the assessment to improve processing times 6. Develop standard operating procedures to ensure program officials assess third-party certifications, establish a risk-based sampling plan for selecting files to review, and document the results of the compliance reviews Thus far, SBA’s planned actions have resolved three recommendations, 3, 5 and 6. The SBA partially agreed with recommendations 1 and 6 and disagreed with recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The OIG responded with some suggestions for improvement, leaving the recommendations open until SBA management can provide evidence that it has properly implemented the suggestions. As we continue to advocate for strengthening the WOSB federal contracting program, specifically increasing WOSB direct awards and set-asides, we understand the value of integrity in the program. The WOSB certification is the gateway to the program and its functionality is instrumental to success.

When the 4400+ page FY23 NDAA final text came out last week, the MSGI team created a provisions of interest summary for our clients within 24 hours. While there are many important changes included for contractors, we are particularly excited about these three we championed on behalf of our clients: 1. Sec. 871 – Expands reporting requirements for the SBA procurement scorecard. Requires each agency to include the number and total dollar amount of sole source and set–aside awards made to SBA’s contracting programs: 8(a), women–owned small businesses (WOSBs), HUBZone small businesses, and service–disabled veteran–owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). HUBZone Contractors National Council has been saying this is necessary for a long time. 2. Sec. 873 – Strengthens SBA's annual report on contract consolidation by requiring federal agencies to share bundling data with the SBA, including other data requirements. This chips away at the usage of category management, making it harder to consolidate contracts by increasing reporting requirements. Good data is a critical piece to successful advocacy and these provisions serve as building blocks to the success of our other policy priorities. 3. Sec. 822 – Allows prime or subcontractors to request modification for economic inflation. Guidance from DoD’s AUSD must be issued 90 days after NDAA passage - the final conference report (aka: final bill) has passed the House, with the Senate teed up to pass it soon. We can't count the number of contractors that have come to us looking for solutions on this issue. Sharing our document here in case it is helpful. Advocacy is a powerful tool, and we work every day to find practical policy solutions for practical business problems. Drop us a line if you want to discuss how we can help you solve some of your business pain points.

Women-owned firm grows and looks toward bright future WASHINGTON, DC — Today, Madison Services Group, Inc. (MSGI) — a boutique government relations firm specializing in government contracting and small business advocacy — is proud to introduce the firm’s new logo and rebranded website. As the firm celebrates its 20th successful year in business, refreshing the MSGI brand identity is one of the many ways the women-owned company is looking toward the future. “Over 20 years ago, I set out to do something that many people thought couldn’t be done – bring small businesses to the forefront in Washington and make a woman-owned company profitable and influential. Looking back on our 20-year history as a firm, I am incredibly proud to say we’ve done just that,” said Ann Sullivan, MSGI’s founder. “We’ve grown significantly in our expertise, experience, capabilities, and impact. I am looking forward to our next steps.” The website’s new look makes it easier to access MSGI resources, including the MSGI blog, which shares the team’s insights on government contracting issues and small business news. “We are proud to unveil our new logo and website to refresh our brand. While MSGI remains the same dedicated team at its core, we are growing and evolving,” said Elizabeth Sullivan, MSGI President. “We look forward to continuing to deliver top-tier advocacy for our clients.” If you have questions or comments concerning the firm’s rebranding, please contact Elizabeth Sullivan at esullivan@madisonservicesgroup.com.

The SBA announced changes to its new Veteran Small Business Certification Program that will replace the VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) program on January 1, 2023. Changes include a one-time, one-year extension to current veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) and service-disabled veteran owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) verified by the VA’s CVE as of January 1, 2023. Self-certified SDVOSBs will also receive a one-year grace period, until January 1, 2024. SBA held a webinar to provide more information about the new veteran business certification program. During this webinar, Larry Stubblefield, Associate Administrator of the Office of Veterans Business Development, discussed the streamlining of the SBA certification process. SBA will use a new platform called "My SBA," which will replace certify.SBA.gov and modernize the certification and lending processes. My SBA will host all certification and lending documents once uploaded, which will reduce the need for businesses to submit the same form multiple times. Due to veteran business feedback during the transition process, the SBA will now have a lighter VOSB program recertification review process. Under the SBA, the VOSB recertification process will require less documents - likely between two to ten during the review. Read more from the SBA here.

By Samantha Holt | Government Relations Analyst Last month, the General Services Administration (GSA) held its inaugural meeting of the Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Committee (GAP FAC). The GAP FAC advises GSA’s Administrator on how the agency’s acquisitions tools and authorities can drive positive regulatory, policy, and process changes. There are three things government contractors should take away from this meeting: 1. While GAP FAC identified climate and sustainability federal acquisition issues as the initial focus, many committee members brought up challenges faced by small business contractors. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Deputy Associate Administrator of the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, Antonio Doss, is part of the Committee and drove this discussion. Some of the issues identified were: Focusing on GSA schedule barriers of entry for small, disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) Creating policies that tackle the climate and sustainability issues but do not create new barriers for SDBs Constructing teaming framework that make it easier for small businesses to bid and win large contract opportunities Introducing strategies that support the longevity of small businesses within federal procurement Creating resources to support small, disadvantaged businesses with the climate and sustainability federal acquisition regulatory, policy, and process changes 2. GSA expressed its willingness to support pushing these and other small business changes with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council. This is important for the small business community because there are often significant lag times between SBA final rulemaking and implementation of these changes in the FAR. 3. All GAP FAC full committee and subcommittee meetings are open to the public. Written comments can be submitted at gapfac@gsa.gov. Additionally, there are three subcommittees – Policy and Practices, Industry Partnerships, and Acquisition Workforce. While subcommittee meetings have not been announced, keep an eye out for them here. The next GAP FAC meeting is on October 27, 2022 from 1pm – 4pm EST.