Yesterday, the House of Representatives introduced S.2989, the Small Business Revitalization Act, which punishes government prime contractors for failing to pay their subcontractors after the government has paid them for work performed.

While noble in trying to ensure that small businesses get compensated for work performed, the bill seems to miss the mark on the bigger issue with small business subcontracting.  I admit, I cannot find the text of the bill (and would love it if someone could point it out to me), so I could be wrong, but based on the article linked above, it appears that a couple of key issues are not addressed:

• Prime contractors actually meeting their subcontracting requirements.  In most large contracts, prime contractors are required to have a subcontracting plan and meet certain thresholds of work sharing amongst disadvantaged groups.  Very few enforcement mechanisms exist to ensure these thresholds are met, and this act does not address the issue.
• Prime contractors actually using the teams that they proposed in RFP responses.  If a prime wins a contract by describing teaming arrangements with certain companies, then it should actually utilize them as proposed to the government originally, or replace like-for-like on the team.  Again, no enforcement mechanism exists unless a contracting officer writes a constraining and binding contract.

As I have written before, set-asides and subcontracting goals go against my libertarian nature, as I want the most value for my money as a taxpayer; however, if they are going to exist, then the least the government can do is make sure that the rules are enforced.  Unfortunately, the Small Business Revitalization Act, it appears, fails to help meet those goals.