Search results

U.S. and E.U. public and defense procurement rules require large prime contractors to promote subcontracts to small businesses, a.k.a. small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Under the U.S. Small Business Act, large firms encourage subcontracting through publicity, subcontracting plans, and “good faith” efforts to achieve subcontracting goals. However, processoriented measures failed to guarantee definitive results. In contrast, E.U. and member governments can hold large firms accountable to stricter subcontracting standards (often sweetened by incentives). With the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the U.S. is trying accountability measures now. Therefore, large contractors must plan for definitive subcontracting commitments in both markets.

Despite Congressional and Presidential emphasis on reducing bundling and consolidation of defense contracts, recent studies cast doubt on whether such practices are problematic for small contractors or the defense acquisition system. Those studies proposed that bundling and consolidation are generally positive tools to procure best value. This paper tests these propositions by examining relevant U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) contracts for Fiscal Year 2010, when Congress reported record bundling and consolidation in U.S. defense contracting. Specifically, the paper looks to performance of Navy and Marine Corps buying commands in meeting small business goals and other good-government objectives such as competition, performance-based acquisitions, preference for commercial suppliers, and support for the U.S. defense industrial base. The paper recommends improvements in targeted good-government practices as measures to reduce bundling and consolidation.