Republicans push for SBA position on contractor pay policy

Senate Republicans cry foul on possible policy that would give some contractors an advantage

Republican senators continued today to urge Obama administration officials to stop a possible procurement rule that would give an advantage in contract competitions to contractors that pay employees better wages and offer better benefits.

“The policy, ironically known as ‘High Road’ contracting, could potentially result in an otherwise qualified business being eliminated from consideration for a contract award,” according to the letter sent by 29 senators to Karen Mills, administrator of the Small Business Administration.


Related stories:

Senators press OMB nominee on contracting reforms

Should better paying contractors have a competitive advantage?

Biden task force pushing preference for better-paying contractors


They wrote that if the policy were in place, a company could have the lowest prices and best technical solutions, while complying with labor laws, and still not win a contract.

The senators asked Mills to provide her stance on the High Road contracting policy by Sept. 30. An SBA spokesman said today that Mills has received the letter but has not yet responded to the senators.

Moira Mack, spokeswoman at the Office of Management and Budget, said today that officials have made no decisions regarding the High Road contracting preference, and any discussion about the policy's timing or details is premature.

The High Road preference would instruct acquisition officials to give preference to businesses with labor practices that go above and beyond those required by federal labor laws, such as paying more than minimally required for certain jobs. When considering businesses' bids, contracting officers would need to weigh the wage factor with standard factors, such as cost, past performance and the contractor’s ability to do the work.

The policy would reportedly change how officials score businesses for federal contracts. In their letter, the senators said the policy would add a subjective labor score that could introduce inappropriate political considerations into the federal contracting process.

In the letter, the senators highlighted the problems that small businesses would face because of the policy.

“At a time when our economy is suffering, our small businesses are struggling and we are faced with escalating deficits and debt, we are stunned that the administration would even contemplate erecting artificial barriers to full-and-open competition for government contracts,” they wrote.

This letter isn't the first from Republican senators. Rumors about the High Road contracting policy first surfaced last year, and the Obama administration has not announced details. In February, five senators wrote to Peter Orszag, former OMB director, to inquire about the policy.

In addition, on Sept. 16, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and one of the signers of both letters, questioned Jacob Lew, nominee for the OMB director job, about the High Road policy. At his confirmation hearing, she pressed him to commit to stopping the policy. However, he avoided making a commitment because he knew too little about the High Road policy, he said.

Collins, who worked as a staff employee in the Senate before she was elected, helped draft the Competition in Contracting Act. She told Lew that the High Road policy would be contrary to the competition law. She also pointed out the Congressional Research Service has said the High Road policy would require legislation. It could not be instituted simply by executive order of the president, she said.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

Reader Comments

Fri, Sep 24, 2010

Since no one seems to be forthcoming, I'll tell it like it is. Thank you Republican Senators for standing-up to the obscenely blatant influence which labor unions have on the Obama political machine. Of cooouuurrrrse, labor unions and other entitlement-minded special interests want to get selection preference for leveraging more than the going market labor wages and benefits (as objectively set by the DoL) out of employers. This is a direct attach at the #1 logical [and correct] argument employers have against union demands--that unwarranted raises and benefit increases will make the company uncompetitive. Unions maintain they need to make these demands because the average worker is getting shorted and "management" is enjoying the good life at their expense. FYI, efforts to expand our the tiny union at out plant always fall on deaf ears because all our employees have to do is notice exactly to whom the pearl white Escalade in the parking lot belongs--not "management" (the boss' car is 12 years old), but rather the local union president.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Our databases track awards back to 2013. Read More

  • Navigating the trends and issues of 2016 Nick Wakeman

    In our latest WT Insider Report, we pull together our best advice, insights and reporting on the trends and issues that will shape the market in 2016 and beyond. Read More

contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.