Government Contracting’s Real Barrier: Access, Not Opportunity

In her Federal News Network commentary, “America Does Not Have a Procurement Problem—It Has an Access Problem,” Dr. Nazeera Dawood challenges a persistent assumption in public procurement: that formal availability is equivalent to meaningful access. Drawing on her experience in county government, Dawood recounts an acquisition in which months of planning produced only two proposals, neither of which could be accepted. The failed competition prompted a more fundamental question—not whether the government had followed its procedures, but why qualified businesses had not participated.

Dawood’s central argument is that the United States does not lack capable small businesses. Rather, many firms remain structurally excluded from public contracting because they do not understand the process, distrust the system, or cannot absorb the cost of preparing a proposal with an uncertain return. She therefore distinguishes procurement eligibility from procurement accessibility. Registration, certification, and introductory training may establish legal eligibility, but they do not necessarily equip an entrepreneur to interpret a lengthy solicitation, construct compliant pricing, document past performance, prepare subcontracting plans, and avoid technical disqualification.

This distinction has significant policy implications. A procurement system may appear open because opportunities are publicly posted, yet remain functionally inaccessible if only firms with specialized proposal infrastructure can compete effectively. Dawood argues that this dynamic is especially consequential for women-owned, minority-owned, and other small businesses. Although federal small-business award dollars have increased, participation has not expanded proportionately, and women-owned firms continued to receive less than the government’s longstanding five-percent objective in fiscal year 2024. In Dawood’s formulation, the dollar volume is growing while the competitive doorway is narrowing.

The article also exposes a tension within acquisition policy. Agencies frequently demand broader competition, supplier diversity, and innovation, yet solicitation design may reward procedural fluency more than technical capability. Proposal writing and contract performance are related, but they are not identical competencies. A highly qualified cybersecurity, healthcare, engineering, or construction firm may still fail before evaluation because of a missed attachment, an unchecked certification, or a noncompliant submission structure. Dawood’s critique is not that procurement safeguards should be abandoned. It is that safeguards should test responsibility and capability without unnecessarily converting paperwork into a market-entry barrier.

Her proposed reforms are practical: simplify solicitations where possible, measure success by the number of businesses that actually compete and win, and invest in hands-on proposal support through stronger partnerships between government and organizations that prepare businesses to bid. The broader lesson is that public notice alone does not create genuine opportunity. Competition exists only when qualified firms possess a fair and realistic path to submit responsive proposals.

For government contractors, the immediate implication is clear. Technical excellence must be paired with disciplined compliance. FedContractPros’ Section L/M Compliance Crosswalk can help firms translate solicitation instructions and evaluation criteria into a structured proposal roadmap, reducing the risk that an otherwise capable offeror is eliminated because it failed to decode the paperwork.

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, procurement, financial, or business advice. Contractors should evaluate each solicitation independently and consult qualified professionals regarding their specific circumstances.