READERSFORUM.

More Small Business Woes

The subjects of "Small Business Woes" and "The Function of Government" (Readers Forum, May 2000, p.8) are thought provoking.

Working for a small business that provides services to government and commercial customers for 22 years, has provided me the opportunity to observe the continually evolving relationship between government and industry.

I am looking for answers to the following questions:

How did U. S. Army acquisition logistics procurements that had been historically SIC code 8711--small business size $20 million (possibly 250 or so people in the technical services field) until about 1995--migrate to a SIC code 8731 small business size of under 1,000 people? Is an approximately $100 million revenue-a-year company really a small business? It has been explained to me by Army procurement personnel that all of the previous procurements had been mis-classified.

Was someone asleep at the wheel? Or was this change designed to make it easier to make more small business awards and help contracting activities meet their small/disadvantaged business award goals? Why are the Navy and Air Force still procuring acquisition logistics services using SIC code 8711?

Might there be a valid reason why "omnibus" and "consolidation" are words of concern primarily to small businesses? I am constantly meeting other small/small disadvantaged business owners/employees who were told to "pound sand" when attempting to join or form teams for recent naval aviation logistics procurements. A common theme is that each company is a 'niche player' specializing in either a given weapon system or a very few systems. Small businesses rarely are the only company working in a given area, so it is easy for the large businesses to ignore us. Seventeen companies (plus or minus) perform half a billion dollars worth of support contractor logistics work annually for the Navy. A minimum of six to seven dozen companies have performed pieces of this work previously. Does this appear to be supporting small/small-disadvantaged businesses?

Why, in these days of electronic billing and payments, can a business get payment for services in 1-6 days from one government agency customer, and it take 45-60 days for another? Especially when both receive properly completed and submitted billing vouchers? When the government does not meet a self-legislated obligation to pay within 30 days, why it does not pay interest until challenged and then only grudgingly?

Does anyone in the government care that small business subcontractors routinely do not get paid by the primes for 75 to 120 days after submission of a valid and correct billing voucher? How many government personnel or large contractor senior managers have borrowed against personal assets like a 401(k) or a home to make a payroll, because the government or a larger business is using the smaller business' payment as float to hold their own borrowing costs down?

Does the government really think that small businesses can afford the cost of subsidizing the federal government more easily than larger businesses? Is it any more risky to contract with a small business than a large business?

Many political appointees and the terminally naive in the federal government believe that allowing the large prime hardware manufacturers to displace government employees and support contractors--through Prime Vendor Support (PVS)--is really going to result in long-term savings on systems life cycle costs. What happens after the first 'competitive' award is made? Is it too late to discuss "fair and reasonable" costs and profit?

Why is a large, dominant, computer operating-systems developer (Microsoft) considered to be monopolistic but not the "mega-corporations" in the defense industry? Is it because the government believes it can bludgeon a defense industry monopoly into submission?

Why did it make sense for taxpayers to subsidize the mega-mergers and pay the senior managers who engineered them large sums of money if the answer is now to spin off all "non-core" businesses for these giants? Will taxpayers again be asked to subsidize the companies for this divestiture?

The views I have expressed are personal, and do not represent the opinion of the company where I work.

Stu Hall

CENTREVILLE, MD.

Mythical Civilian-Military Gap

In reference to, "Study Probes Civilian Military Disconnect," (August 2000, p.58), the comment that officers defined themselves as Republicans by a margin of eight to one over Democrats was viewed as a sharp departure from "the long tradition of an apolitical military." The reality is that, as military officers, we serve commanders in chief, regardless of their political parties, and how we vote is no one's business.

There is no question that the military has no role in moral reform, in spite of various advocacy groups promoting the use of members of the military in social experiments.

The current leadership is nor well informed about military affairs. Since the draft ended, and Vietnam created a major gulf between the military and the civilian world, the military experience has been lacking at the senior civilian level. The military took the heat for Vietnam, and none of the current civilian leaders in universities, government or industry has tried to correct that image.

Many of us happen to be male, white, Protestant with a college degree, hardly different from the make-up of Congress, industry or academia. We do not question a man's religious beliefs, except to put it on his dog tags in case he gets killed, so the powers that be will know what kind of a service to perform. What difference does it make whether an officer is Catholic, Jewish, Evangelical, Protestant or any other religion?

The gap between the military and the press is historic, exacerbated by the Vietnam experience. Major efforts have been made to close this gap, but the perception remains that the press cannot be trusted. There are no more Ernie Pyles in the current press corps.

There is no need to worry about civilian control of the military. We understand civilian control and accept it, however, advice from Washington in the midst of combat is not welcome.

When I was a young officer, (1950s) I experienced the antagonism of military officers serving with the civil-service community. It took time, but the problem was cured. However, that problem still exists and probably always will. It's not dangerous, just human nature.

The military has felt somewhat isolated since Vietnam, but that has been changing slowly, and the military is made up of patient folks, and we go where our civilian masters send us.

Sure, we are different. We go in harm's way, and we may not come back. This tends to require a certain set of values, which emphasize personal and team discipline, self sacrifice, a very strong faith, and a belief that we are special.

The article raises many more questions than it answers, but most articles addressing a non-problem normally do.

Rear Adm. Rowland G. Freeman III, USN (Ret.)

WILLIAMSBURG, VA.