I recently sat down with my local NBC affiliate for a conversation around proposed federal legislation in the House and Senate. As a woman who owns a visual design agency in the Midwest, talking about pending legislation and politics isn’t one of my usual talking points. But this was my opportunity to serve as the voice of so many others—16 million to be more exact.
The identical bills—H.R. 8511 in the House and S. 4390 in the Senate—seek to remove the 5% federal contracting goal for small businesses owned by women and those owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Both proposed bills are currently flying under the radar. That should concern us even more.
Critics often frame the federal government’s Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program as a system for handing out contracts without merit. It’s not. Businesses pursue this certification because they open doors to markets and opportunities that have historically been difficult to enter—not because they guarantee a contract once you’re there.
Government contracting has long favored incumbency. Who you know can matter as much as what you do. Access to procurement officers, established industry networks, and the capital required to prepare proposal after proposal all influence who gets a seat at the table. For many small businesses, those barriers compound over time, making it harder to build the relationships that lead to future opportunities.
That’s why supplier diversity programs were created. Lawmakers who created these programs acknowledged that markets aren’t always neutral and sought to broaden competition where structural barriers have narrowed it.
WHAT THE DATA SAYS
The numbers reinforce that reality. Women own nearly 16 million businesses in the United States, representing over 40% of all U.S. businesses. They generate approximately $2.8 trillion in annual revenue and employ more than 12.6 million people. Nearly 48% of women-owned businesses are also minority-owned, employing over 3.2 million workers and contributing over $701 billion to the U.S. economy. These businesses aren’t operating on the margins—they’re a significant driver of American jobs, innovation, and economic growth.
Yet ownership has never translated into equal access to opportunity. When Congress established the WOSB Federal Contract Program, it did so after documenting that women-owned firms remained consistently underrepresented in federal contracting across numerous industries. The goal wasn’t to create a permanent preference. It was to address a measurable disparity.
Despite the perception, becoming certified is hardly a shortcut. To qualify, businesses must be at least 51% owned and controlled by eligible owners, operate as for-profit U.S. businesses, and demonstrate that ownership also directs the company’s day-to-day management and long-term decision-making. Applicants navigate federal registrations, extensive documentation, and verification requirements before they’re ever eligible to compete.
As someone who has completed that process, I can tell you what certification doesn’t do: It doesn’t win contracts. We still compete against exceptional firms. We still must price our work competitively, demonstrate our expertise, earn trust, and outperform. Certification simply allows buyers who have supplier diversity goals to identify qualified businesses they may not have otherwise discovered.
Certification doesn’t determine who wins the work. It determines who gets the opportunity to compete for it.
In fact, the perception gap remains striking. A 2023 Goldman Sachs survey found that 89% of women business owners don’t believe they compete on a level playing field with male-owned businesses. More than half of those who had completed the certification process described it as difficult. Many questioned whether the time and effort required justified the benefits. If certification were truly a fast track to government contracts, those findings would be difficult to explain.
WHAT HAPPENS IF DIVERSITY GOALS DISAPPEAR?
The federal government has had a 5% contracting goal for women-owned small businesses for over three decades. In that time, it has met that goal only twice. Even then, the benchmark represented just a fraction of women’s participation in today’s economy.
Removing the 5% goal doesn’t make procurement more competitive. It doesn’t expand access to or opportunity, or create new relationships between agencies. The removal of these goals doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Instead, it’s turning its back on one.
Rather than eliminating that benchmark, policymakers should ask whether it truly reflects today’s economy. Since women own nearly two-fifths of America’s businesses, a target closer to 15% would still fall well below parity while acknowledging the reality of today’s marketplace. In fact, the American Small Business League’s “Don’t Cheat Women” project has drafted legislation that would compel the government to raise the annual federal contracting goal for WOSBs from 5% to 15%.
Such an increase becomes even more important when you consider who is making these decisions. Men continue to hold roughly three-quarters of seats in Congress. They also hold the overwhelming majority of committee chairmanships and party leadership positions. When those who shape policy propose to remove these goals it shifts the narrative from, “Why aren’t we meeting the goal?” to “Why have a goal at all?” Those are fundamentally different conversations.
Public policy should evolve alongside the economy it serves. If today’s benchmarks no longer reflect today’s business landscape, they should be updated—not abandoned.
RAISE THE BAR, DON’T REMOVE IT
When I think back to my interview with my local NBC affiliate, I realize the question wasn’t really whether supplier diversity programs should exist. It was whether the goals behind them still reflect the economy we work in today. That answer is a resounding no.
Women-owned businesses are one of the fastest-growing segments of the American economy. Minority-owned businesses continue to expand their role across every major industry. Yet the federal benchmarks intended to measure their participation in government contracting remain frozen in a different era. Proposals to eliminate them altogether ask us to accept less accountability, not more.
If a goal has been met only twice in over 30 years, the answer shouldn’t be to erase it. The answer should be to ask why we’ve accepted such limited progress in the first place.
