Is it Fair to Favor Women in Federal Contracts?

We wrote recently about a federal mandate that requires 5% of government prime- and subcontracts go to small businesses run by women.

The “problem” with the current Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract program, apparently, is that it is too restrictive.

In order to invoke the money set aside for this program, the contracting officer at a government agency has to have a reasonable expectation that two or more WOSBs will submit offers for the job.

That’s not fair, according to the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) and seven of its partners who recently announced support for a Senate bill that expands government contracting opportunities for small businesses owned by women.

The bill -- Fairness in Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Act of 2012 (S.2172) -- is sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and co-sponsored by nine others, of which five are women.

Well the whole WOSB program isn’t fair to begin with, according to seven out of seven commenters (including myself) that call bull on the preferential treatment for women.

CS comments: “How about try to get your bids accepted based upon the merits of said bid, rather than based upon legislated sexism.”

I agree. I’m all for helping disadvantaged classes gain equal or preferential access to federal and private-enterprise contracts, but they shouldn’t be given preferential treatment in winning them.

If you want to help more women win federal contracts or enter certain professions, then establish outreach programs that help them find bids in the first place, and maybe guidance on how to win them. Don’t mandate that government must award 5% of its contracts to WOSBs.

As TheTechSource writes, “This is the kind of legislation that only supports ridiculous work-arounds. I know of several WOSB who are actually operated by the husband.”

My bigger problem with the legislation is that women are hardly the most disadvantaged class of business owners out there. What about people with handicaps, transsexuals, homosexuals, those who grew up in poverty, certain religious and racial types, and so on …?

Where do you draw the line? Should they all get x% of government contracts based on their percentage of the population and their under-representation in certain professional categories?

Should men be given preferential treatment for nursing and teaching jobs?

As Mark comments on the original story: “What about People with Red Hair? We want special treatment for gubment contracts too! This is so ridiculous!”
------------------------------------------

Follow us on Twitter!
@juliejacobson
@ce_pro