This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work—for YOU.
Review of NASA’s Internal Controls for Awards with Small Business
“However, of the 67 sampled awards, we identified 20 that were made to firms that self- certified as being owned and controlled by women. Of those 20, we found indications that 7 (35 percent) may have been to companies that falsely self-certified their eligibility as a woman-owned small business.”
Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member... More by Keith Cowing
Comments are closed.
NASA Watch: Your support is needed, support independent journalism.
Thank you for whatever support you can provide. We recently launched this upgraded website which will allow us to expand our coverage. But the design and hosting come at cost, as does adding new services. We're also going looking to add new journalists as we expand.
We'll send a verification code to %EMAIL%.
This is a double problem. Not only are some of these businesses not 8A concerns, many of them that on paper are, would be shown to be actually not 8A. Some companies put 50.1% of their stock in their wives name but no participation by the wives, some put them in their names and have titular but no controlling roles.
This does two things. It debases the spouses being used in this manner and it is against the spirit if not the letter of the law.
We have to compete against companies that are set up this way and contracts are awarded to them and as we refuse to play that game, we lose. Some people need to go to prison over this, that might put the fear of government into them.
I say it is a triple problem if you expand to
include SBIR, STTR, and academic grants.
All the academic professors I’ve worked with have a side company (wife
owned) so they can apply for both SBIR and academic awards and then just shift
the money internally to pay the same people to do the work. Taken a step further is a NASA civil servant
I know who awards research grants to fund graduate degrees for the employees of
his wife’s company who also was awarded the STTR for his developments at NASA. Talk about triple dipping. NASA pays for his salary, pays for his wife’s
company employee salaries and allows her company to make money from selling the
product commercially.
A simple test. Ring the firm and listen to the voice. If a white man answers the firm is unlikely to be run by a black woman – further investigation required.
Except for one-person firms, the person answering the phone is almost never the person in charge.
Ask who ever answers for the boss.
While I certainly don’t approve of any sort of prejudice or preferential treatment in our society, I find it disappointing that it’s felt necessary to legislate in order to assure fair and proper business conduct. It would be nice to think that after everything that history has (or at least should have) taught us, that we could all behave appropriately simply because it’s the right way for human beings to behave.
In complying with minority policies, I wonder how often government contracts are awarded to a candidate who was not only not the best choice, but was actually not a very good choice, all else being equal. While the sentiment is laudable, I can see this concept being carried too far, with society as a whole being weakened by it, including the minorities and the disadvantaged.
Business is business, and as long as the rules are being obeyed, I think contracts should be awarded to those who are demonstrably likely to give the best performance for the price. Our society provides other means for assisting the minorities and the disadvantaged which don’t adversely affect other people or contracts.
If I’ve used any out of date or incorrect terms, please excuse me. It’s hard to keep track when those who decide what’s politically correct change their nomenclature so often.
the same can be said for veteran’s preferance for government jobs.
Now THAT is politically incorrect.
I agree that any preference distorts a selection process, but veterans compete for hiring as individual employees and so do not directly influence selection of contractors.
Actually it does as there are Veteran Owned Small Businesses and then there are Disabled Veteran Owned businesses. These are in the preferences tables.
Actually the whole contract setaside strategy causes problems for NASA. Supposedly it is to create new companies that will grow and become big companies. But as soon as they grow “over the line” of 500 or 1000 employees they can’t compete for their own contracts and lose to some new company with even less experience, or create complicated and inefficient partnerships. Or big companies split off groups that join figurehead leaders to create artificial small business “teams”; every time the contractor changes work is disrupted and experience is lost. Usually the winner is whatever bidder is willing to exaggerate the greatest in estimating cost savings; once the contract is awarded everything the government wants is a contract change and prices go up.
I think that percent will increase. Women are involved in many kind of small business. That business is suitable to them.
This has nothing to do with the legitimate desire for women to own businesses or even whether or not preferences are in themselves a moral issue. The issue is those people who commit fraud on the federal government by registering as this type of business when they are not. It does not matter even if they do a good job, it is still fraud. It won’t stop until a few of the people involved go to prison. This a far greater instance of fraud than what someone like Courtney Stadd might have done.