On June 20, 2024, the National Women’s Business Council hosted a virtual roundtable. This meeting brought stakeholders together to discuss streamlining certification processes to make it easier and more attractive for women-owned small businesses (WOSBs) and others to participate.

Event Recap

I. Chair Remarks

NWBC Council Chair Sima Ladjevardian welcomed and thanked Council Members, panelists, and audience members for their presence. She introduced NWBC’s history, mission, and methods, and the topic of conversation for the day: streamlining certifications for small and disadvantaged businesses so that entrepreneurs can gain and leverage them efficiently to do business with many government and private entities.

All interested parties – buyers, sellers, and organizations that certify companies – could benefit from systems that are more integrated and that incentivize increased participation. As things stand, notwithstanding their similar goals and methods, certification programs have proliferated, and it is not uncommon for firms to go through new rounds of repetitive screening to sell to each new customer. In recognition that closer collaboration could lower barriers and increase value, government and private buyers, policymakers, and advocates have developed innovative joint initiatives that discussants were asked to share and iterate on during the roundtable conversation.

II. Moderator Introductions

Roundtable moderators Pam Prince-Eason and Brandy Butler introduced themselves and panelists. Council Member Prince-Eason is CEO of the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council (WBENC), an SBA-recognized certifier of Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) that annually serves more than 18,000 firms. Council Member Butler is CEO of ADC Management Solutions, a staffing, training, and management consultancy firm that has done work for a number of federal agencies.

Panelists were:

• Elly Bacon, Director of Certification with the City of Denver’s Division of Business Opportunity.
  • Kailey Burger Ayogu, Managing Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Government Performance Lab.
  • Nancy Conner, Director of Certifications for the National Veteran-Owned Business Association (NaVOBA).
  • Kathrin Frauscher, Deputy Executive Director of the Open Contracting Partnership, which advocates internationally for open, fair, and effective public spending.
  • Constance Jones, Senior Director of Certification for the National Minority Supplier Diversity Council (NMSDC).
  • Alisa Joseph, Director of Programs for U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., a national voice for Black businesses.
  • Olivia Jusme, Vice President of Supplier Diversity at the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).
  • Jessica Kim, Chief Deputy in Los Angeles County’s Department of Economic Opportunity, which helps small businesses and high-road employers start and grow in the community.
  • Keith King and General Dick Miller of the National Veteran Business Development Council.
  • Marilyn Lapkass, Operations Assistant and experienced manager of certification procedures for Connect Consulting Services, a certified small, woman-owned, disadvantaged business enterprise.
  • Igbal Mohammed, Manager of the State of Minnesota’s Office of Equity in Procurement.
  • Cathy Muse, National Program Director of Public Promise Procurement, a National Association of Counties initiative to help public sector and other entities purchase more efficiently and cost effectively.
  • Juan Pablo Prieto, Director of Diversity Programs and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Liaison Officer for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).
  • Jackie Robinson-Burnette, the Associate Administrator of SBA’s Office of Government Contracting and Business Development.
  • Stacia Robinson, Director of Alabama’s Office of Minority Affairs.
  • Alisa Sheard, Director of the Women-Owned Small Business Program at SBA.
  • Brett Theodos, Senior Fellow and Director of the Community Economic Development Hub at the Urban Institute.
  • LaKesha White, WBENC’s Senior Vice President for Certification.
  • Sol Ybarra, Business Outreach Coordinator for the City and County of Denver.
  • Tasha Youngblood Brown, Managing Director with EY, and CEO and Founder of the Brown Bag Collective, which provides business advocacy and education for entrepreneurs.
  • Sheila Zegarra, Senior Associate with Living Cities.

III. Commonalities

Council Member Prince-Eason asked panelists to share the most important common certification application requirements across programs.

Responses included:

• Ms. Conner: Documentation of ownership, control, and operation is a common requirement, and includes taxes, bylaws, operating agreements. What varies is identity or characteristic that certifiers are looking for: gender, veteran status, etc.
  • Ms. Jones: Structure and finances of business are key pieces of evidence to show management and authority. License agreements can be helpful in demonstrating actual control.
  • Ms. Jusme: NGLCC is not recognized federally, but by state and private entities. All certifiers ask for status qualifiers to show that owners are in the group the certifier serves. Organizations want it not to be onerous to prove status, but want to make sure checks are in place so ineligible people don’t receive contracting preference program benefits.
  • Mr. King: An on-site visit is a universal best practice. This helps to ensure that circumstances of business are as represented in documentation.
  • Ms. White: All certifiers have an application process that also serves to create a resume of sorts for participating companies. Private certifiers also charge fees – public sector agencies may not charge or may have different considerations in setting fees.
  • Ms. Sheard: There are many commonalities, which make for room to explore greater reciprocity between certifying institutions.
  • Council Member Prince-Eason: Common college applications may provide a template for common/base applications for certifications. Certifying institutions may start out with narrow missions to confirm business owner characteristics, but quickly realize how important it is to serve businesses through and post-certification to leverage their status. Safeguarding the confidentiality of sensitive information also is an important consideration in increasing reciprocity between organizations that serve underrepresented businesses.
  • Ms. Conner: NaVOBA has a reciprocity agreement with Disability: IN whereby service-disabled vet-owned businesses certified by NaVOBA can opt for additional Disability: IN disabled-owned certification simultaneously and without additional charge, using the same documentation. The organizations reached an agreement to make this happen, with applicants’ permission.
  • Ms. Joseph: US Black Chambers has a program entitled Buy Black that includes certification, and works with NMSDC to identify candidates – this program has revenue and time in business thresholds that may not apply to other certifications. US Black Chambers also is working with WBENC and the US Pan Asian Chamber of Commerce on reciprocal services and assistance. These organizations that are collaborating created a matrix of organizations, requirements, and procedures to identify opportunities for collaboration; and also is working with government buyers at different levels.

Council Member Prince-Eason asked SBA Associate Administrator Jackie Robinson-Burnette to address the minimum information that a single common certification application might need to collect, and how SBA and federal agencies were working to consolidate application procedures.

She shared that:

• Currently, there is a backlog of more than 6,000 applications to SBA for WOSB status, with 5 people processing applications; as a result, certification often takes around 11 to 12 months. By contrast, there are 44 people processing veteran-owned certification applications because Congress provided robust funding for this program; wait times are often 2-3 weeks.
  • To ensure better and quicker service to certification applicants, SBA is preparing to merge its four separate certification procedures and teams into one. Companies will in the future submit one single application for all the certifications for which they’re eligible.
  • Absence of businesses awaiting certification from database of available contractors impedes market research and decision-making to set aside contracts.

Conversation between panelists of commonalities across programs resumed.

• Mr. Prieto: Government is a tough customer and doesn’t stop at initiating contracts with certified suppliers – certification opens the door to providing more coaching and education to businesses that helps them grow and increase capacity to meet buyers’ needs (another win-win).
  • Ms. Kim: California law prohibits award of contracts based on race/ethnicity and gender, which can be a barrier to reciprocity and cooperation with jurisdictions that do take protected characteristics into account. Size requirements and local presence are key for LA County, as is facilitating access to opportunities at all levels of government and in the private market for certified businesses. Through its experience, the County can help other entities whose programs may encounter legal challenge to continue to recognize and to direct more business to underserved firms.

Council Member Prince-Eason asked panelists to think about other regulatory procedures like tax filing, and whether certification programs could access previous or parallel information/document submissions with minimal additional effort required from applicants.

Responses included:

• Ms. Bacon: Denver is a partner in the Unified Certification Program for the state, and is concerned with size and owners’ personal net worth. It requires governing and financial documentation. One challenge is that different computer systems and programs in use by different certifying and purchasing entities and government agencies post barriers to use of the same documentation or information. Confidentiality also is a strong concern in thinking about accessing information from another source for certification purposes.
  • Ms. Ayogu: Our advice to state and local agencies is to look at nearby/parallel state and local jurisdictions’ programs for models and opportunities for certification reciprocity before launching new services. Certifiers and purchasers should consult sellers to understand how best to minimize burden from their perspectives. Finally, agencies and purchasers should think critically about how much more information they need for certification above and beyond the information they require in the contract bidding process or from any and all firms seeking license to conduct business in the jurisdiction.
  • Mr. Prieto: It would be a great advantage to certifiers to be able to check documents already filed with government agencies, such as tax returns. Sharing a digital platform with partner entities and businesses is helpful – many IL agencies use the same system.
  • Ms. Muse: Trust has a role to play in minimizing burden. It would be ideal for one entity’s review of foundational documents to be credited by another entity; for that, organizations may want to disclose review standards and procedures with one another. It may be logistically easier for organizations to work together than to actually share documents back and forth.
  • Ms. Sheard: SBA has a notice of funding opportunity out for a grant that would support technical assistance to WOSBs to secure certifications and bid on procurement opportunities. One complication to reciprocity that SBA has observed through administration of four certifications is that companies may change their governance structures in between applying for different certifications, so that even though a certification was duly awarded in the past, trust in the process that led to that certification may not mean that an entity can rely on the facts found in awarding additional or subsequent certifications.
  • Ms. Joseph: Both objective and subjective information goes into certification procedures. Certifiers need to be able to agree that they are looking at the same foundational documents such as financial statements and business registrations, so that they can also define the idiosyncratic elements that each is seeking and that aren’t common between certifiers. Companies should share the same documents with various certifiers as well. Comparisons and coordination should be easier in the age of and with the assistance of AI.

IV. Opportunities for Collaboration

Council Member Butler asked panelists to try to anticipate and highlight any potential unintended consequences of streamlining and synchronizing certification,  as well as other actors not present for the conversation who might play a part in implementing effective solutions to lower the potential burdens of certification.

Responses included:

• Mr. Theodos: Reciprocity and collaboration will tend to lead to more certifications, and could create opportunities, in their details, for unqualified firms to secure certifications, so care is warranted. Actors must also consider legal challenges to and restrictions on preference, set-aside, and even certification programs, and whether procedures or partnerships could exacerbate public concerns about their effects and constitutionality.
  • Ms. Robinson: States are under scrutiny for their practices and need to find means of recognizing and promoting opportunities for underserved businesses that are widely supported and understood to be beneficial.

Council Member Butler next asked about the formation and most important precursors or features of effective certification partnerships, and whether roundtable discussions like the present one or other mechanisms might be particularly helpful for increasing collaboration. 

Panelists shared the following observations:

• Ms. Jones: Roundtables are helpful to identify similarities and places where organizations can work together, and must be followed up by pushes for implementation and action. In developing reciprocity agreements, NMSDC’s experience has been that it has taken years to reach agreements and more years to perfect mechanisms for working together. What’s necessary is that a party is committed and motivated to get it done over the long term.
  • Ms. Mohammed: In order to partner, we also need legal grounds and authority. Local and state governments in Minnesota wanted to merge/harmonize certification systems since the 1970s, but didn’t have a common platform until 2016. The state also credits federal 8(a) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certifications, but state agencies only just got authorization from lawmakers to accept private sector certifications. The most difficult aspects of the process are to achieve trust and confidence in another entity’s work and decision-making; and to manage annual recertifications. Minnesota nearly always agrees with outside certifiers’ decisions, but it does end up with a relatively small number of firms that are refused state or local certification but that win approval from SBA and its federal partners, and who are therefore automatically recognized by the state. Frequent recertification requirements are burdensome for small businesses, and also add administrative burden for certifiers who are cooperating with and must notify outside organizations of their decisions.
  • Mr. Prieto: CTA executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in PA – each entity accepts the other’s certifications. Both were founding members of the Equity in Procurement project, and in hearing about each others’ procedures, realized they were doing things very similarly. Agencies did site visits to one another before MOU. It was critical to build trust and affirm that practices were consistent and wouldn’t allow for improper entry of unqualified firms.

• Pain Points in Certification Procedures

Council Member Prince-Eason asked panelists representing the buyer community to talk about the information they typically gathered to verify critical business and owner characteristics, and whether there might be creative and less burdensome alternative means of proving essential facts.

Responses included:

• Ms. Mohammed: It can be difficult to fairly and accurately differentiate between woman-owned and family-owned businesses, and pursuit of reciprocity with other jurisdictions may complicate our ability to judge which is which. Substantial business management activity by a woman doesn’t necessarily make a family-owned business woman-owned in the state’s view. Minnesota would appreciate federal action on identifying indigenous-owned businesses.
  • Ms. Muse: There is strong interest in corporate social responsibility throughout the country that may make environmentally responsible certification and similar markers more important, and particularly important for actors to agree upon standards for the administration of. Some source documents will be very different from those used in the business certifications we’re discussing, but some will also be the same and DBE certification may be relevant to corporate social responsibility certification.
  • Ms. Ybarra: The pain point we see is that companies don’t know how to capitalize upon certification.
  • Ms. Bacon: The major distinction between Denver’s program and others is that Denver’s is built based on a city-specific disparity study, and continually updated in accordance with local conditions. The city depends on businesses’ feedback in its updating processes to ensure that resulting programs reflect business owners’ experiences and needs. Businesses themselves can and should help us understand what characteristics are important and how we can capture them in certification.
  • Ms. Youngblood Brown: EY seeks growth for the businesses it works with and buys from – to position businesses to seize opportunity. It benefits when companies have plans to use certification to expand. We should look in the certification process to position companies to succeed once they’re vetted so certifications don’t just sit on the shelf.
  • Ms. Kim: At the federal level, broadening the number and scope of contracts that can set aside for women by, e.g., expanding eligible North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, would open up more opportunity. Buyers can think creatively – for governments that can mean simplified acquisition processes for direct awards to certified businesses, for example. While standardizing and expanding our practices to support certified businesses’ long-term success have merits, businesses will always need to meet due diligence standards to win and fulfill contracts, and certifiers could perhaps rely on contracting processes for review of insurance and other background information about companies to simplify actual certification. To help businesses capitalize on opportunity after certification, investment in Apex Accelerators and other advisors who guide companies to government customers is critical. To advance reciprocity, SBA may consider whether it can grant municipalities or other government entities access to its virtual record-keeping and document storage system. Many certifiers recognize SBA certifications, and would ideally access and reference companies’ applications to it when making additional determinations about, e.g., local operations. Shared access and use of a national certification database would greatly advance standardization.
  • Ms. Sheard: NAICS codes limits for the WOSB program don’t limit certification eligibility, but only the range of contracts that can be set aside for certified WOSBs. NAICS code eligibility has expanded from 444 to 733, or about 80%, of the spending categories. Access to federal systems would require IT security personnel input, but SBA hears the request and will consider how its platforms could serve and support buyer colleagues in other government agencies. SAM.gov could serve as a potential model – the General Services Administration maintains it and many separate agencies and instrumentalities pull information from it. SBA resource partners like Women’s Business Centers (WBCs) also work closely with Apex Accelerators to help certified businesses understand the purpose of certification. The earlier they can understand that, the better – different certification pathways make sense for different businesses depending on whether their potential customers are in the private or public sectors and at the federal or local level.

Council Member Prince-Eason asked panelists representing small business perspectives about the most difficult phases of the certification process for applicants.

Responses included:

• Ms. Lapkass: Certifications can be fairly overwhelming for small businesses, and commonalities can actually equate to pain points: if a company must upload its tax documents several times over, for example, it multiplies its exposure risk from potential unauthorized access to those records. Even simple software bugs get in the way – it took this woman-owned small business several more months after obtaining third party certification to secure recognition in SBA’s database because of a snafu. A standardized order of documentation or formats across different portals and certifiers would help reduce burden for companies seeking certification, and make reciprocity easier. Checklists of everything required for certification are useful and we have created them for ourselves. Annual recertification can be onerous.
  • Ms. Zegarra: Administrative tasks are draining to small business people who often would rather concentrate on performing their craft. Networks and support systems are particularly important to help those owners who are averse to taking on more form-filling but who could benefit from certification and entry into the spaces it opens; and to counsel people about whether certification can be valuable to them and if so how to use it. Resource partners can be back office support to emerging businesses.
  • Council Member Prince-Eason added concern that there are people who exploit the knowledge gap and purport to help people certify but add more cost to the process than there need be. More information to business owners about nonprofit, community-based, trusted sources of support could be beneficial.
  • Ms. Jones: Time and effort required can be greater costs to businesses than the actual fees required to certify, which, when collected by entities like NMSDC, go to support the costs of providing guidance and back office-style assistance to certified companies. At the same time, NMSDC works to find sources to subsidize the cost of certification for businesses in need, and considers the benefits of charging fees – it has found that fee-paying customers complete the process more quickly, for example. Common agreements can be as powerful as greater reciprocity between certifiers in moving us in the right direction of lowering barriers to certification.
  • Ms. Frauscher: Global public procurement is a $13 trillion market, and these struggles resonate everywhere – only 1% internationally is won by women-owned businesses. Certification should be a welcoming door that is easy and friendly and communicates our values. It should facilitate a good experience as an active seller to government.

V. Conclusion

Council Member Butler noted important themes from the conversation, which included strong endorsement of reciprocity and standardization in certification.

Chair Ladjevardian again thanked participants and encouraged all to share additional thoughts by email to info@nwbc.gov, and to watch for future NWBC events and conversations.