3 ms·

Oh, but overall this system works very well as a way to give purchasing managers an incentive to look at these historically disadvantaged communities in their b

by Frondo 11y ago

Oh, but overall this system works very well as a way to give purchasing managers an incentive to look at these historically disadvantaged communities in their buying decisions. The abuse of the system I noted (the minority contractor acting as a pass-through) is not the common case at all. Buyers still have a challenge in finding qualified minority/woman-owned firms, but there are pipelines in place to help build those firms up. The set-aside/aspirational target system can support that, too, by favoring prime contractors that work with minority/woman-owned subcontractors. A lot of primes have mentorship programs that target minority/woman-owned companies to help them grow their businesses. In the government purchasing world, this stuff is all pretty non-controversial because it generally achieves its stated goal. I was just trying to say that abuse happens here too, but abuse of any system happens wherever there is a system.

CamperBob2 11y ago
Buyers still have a challenge in finding qualified minority/woman-owned firms, but there are pipelines in place to help build those firms up. Of course, in the real world, what happens is that the company owner/CEO gives his wife or another female relative 51% of the company, and/or the title of CEO or managing director. This dubious practice obviously doesn't scale up to large/publicly-held organizations, but it's widespread in the "small/disadvantaged business" community. It turns out that it's awfully hard to do the right thing by doing two wrong things.
- Frondo 11y ago
  When you say it's widespread, I'm curious where you're getting your information. The purchasing managers I talk to all seem pretty keen on doing right by their aspirational goals, and the firms that try and cheat the system that way, well, it's known that they're trying to cheat the system. Furthermore, all this stuff is public record--all the purchasing decisions, awarded contracts, etc., and I know that the local papers here in the Pacific Northwest periodically sift through that data looking for signs of abuse. They do report it when it comes up, too, but it simply isn't prevalent, and I'd be quite surprised to see any interpretation of the data that would let you characterize it as "widespread".
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Personal experience in electronic test/measurement and components sectors.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Fair enough, I won't contradict your experience in the electronic test/measurement sector. I would like to mention, though, that I've literally never seen a contract issued by a state agency or local unit of government to purchase electronic component testing services or equipment (either directly or a larger contract with a subcontracted piece for that). That's not to say it never happens, just that most of the contracting dollars I see spent are on construction and personal services (counseling and social work, IT services, and the like). I would suggest that your experience probably isn't reflective of the disadvantaged business community as a whole, and I suspect any empirical evidence we could unearth (i.e. the public purchasing records, and so on) would support that claim pretty unambiguously.

by Frondo 11y ago

CamperBob2 11y ago

Buyers still have a challenge in finding qualified minority/woman-owned firms, but there are pipelines in place to help build those firms up. Of course, in the real world, what happens is that the company owner/CEO gives his wife or another female relative 51% of the company, and/or the title of CEO or managing director. This dubious practice obviously doesn't scale up to large/publicly-held organizations, but it's widespread in the "small/disadvantaged business" community. It turns out that it's awfully hard to do the right thing by doing two wrong things.

Frondo 11y ago
When you say it's widespread, I'm curious where you're getting your information. The purchasing managers I talk to all seem pretty keen on doing right by their aspirational goals, and the firms that try and cheat the system that way, well, it's known that they're trying to cheat the system. Furthermore, all this stuff is public record--all the purchasing decisions, awarded contracts, etc., and I know that the local papers here in the Pacific Northwest periodically sift through that data looking for signs of abuse. They do report it when it comes up, too, but it simply isn't prevalent, and I'd be quite surprised to see any interpretation of the data that would let you characterize it as "widespread".
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Personal experience in electronic test/measurement and components sectors.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Fair enough, I won't contradict your experience in the electronic test/measurement sector. I would like to mention, though, that I've literally never seen a contract issued by a state agency or local unit of government to purchase electronic component testing services or equipment (either directly or a larger contract with a subcontracted piece for that). That's not to say it never happens, just that most of the contracting dollars I see spent are on construction and personal services (counseling and social work, IT services, and the like). I would suggest that your experience probably isn't reflective of the disadvantaged business community as a whole, and I suspect any empirical evidence we could unearth (i.e. the public purchasing records, and so on) would support that claim pretty unambiguously.