AgBQ-00 said:

---

so all of those "women owned" businesses that are actually husband owned and run and set up as the wife as the owner for the benefits no longer get the preferential treatment. this is a win.

---

years ago I was a contractor at the State Department in Washington DC and the company that I technically worked for was:

"woman owned and Indian owned"

never saw an Indian.

imagine the scam at USAID on steroids

for "women owned/ minority owned" companies getting US government contracts under Obama and Biden!

OnlyForNow said:

---

Cities/counties may still be allowed (or try to get away with) to do this… looking at Austin, Houston, DFW.

---

To my shock and amazement, I was recently told, at a HUB centric RFQ meeting, that the City of Dallas is dropping their HUB requirements.

Remember the disaster that the insurance portal for Obamacare was when it was first rolled out? That was developed by a HUB.

That's wild. Harris County/City of Houston probably won't be going this direction.

DFW airport still requires a minority participation percentage for the GC to achieve on construction projects. Can't believe they haven't been sued yet over it with the current climate.

OnlyForNow said:

---

That's wild. Harris County/City of Houston probably won't be going this direction.

---

You probably want to be wary of Harris County as long as Dora is around. Toxic.

And I would never work for the City of Houston. Did it twice and the last time if took 18 months to finally pay me and they were mad because I refused to do any more work.

Danger danger danger.

Buddy of mine set his company up 51% owned by his wife so that they would be a "minority owned" business, even though he ran everything and she was just kind of the team mom.

That worked great for about two decades and got them tons of state work. And then he started screwing his secretary.

Her majority ownership wasn't such a great idea anymore.

KingofHazor said:

---

I wonder how many of the "minority-owned" businesses were simply fronts, similar to the women-owned businesses? I know of a few: minority was the apparent "owner", but corp docs allocated profits to actual "white" owners. Minority owner was, in effect, paid a piece of the profits for the right to use them as the front person.

---

I used to be involved in reviewing and evaluating bids for gov't contracts. I saw this frequently. It was common to see firms owned by names I usually recognized as political donors, campaign consultants, etc. who were included in the bid solely to satisfy the MWBE requirements. They were basically just receiving a fee from the prime for using them to meet the MWBE goals. It was a complete *******ization of the spirit of the MWBE program that allowed these firms to grift money from gov't contracts.

OnlyForNow said:

---

That's wild. Harris County/City of Houston probably won't be going this direction.

---

I fully expect to see legislation introduced in 2027 banning all municipalities and counties from having or enforcing HUB/DBE/MWBE requirements.

I'm torn on this. Worked for a true WBE (I was the first official employee). They busted their butts and built a strong enough business to be absorbed by a much bigger fish. The WBE requirements helped sustain us early on for work while we eventually won as prime on other items.

When it's a true WBE business, it helps lift up the company while they grow. When it's a guy's business and the wife is "running it", then it's fraud.

Why should they get that benefit though? Is that not discrimination based on immutable characteristics? If two companies, one started by a guy and one started by a woman are competing for the same business, and they deliver in the same manner. But her business gets preferential treatment, how is that not discrimination?

Your experience is the exception.

We have hired and put in business several dozen times over the past 15 years. It has rarely worked out. There are some fantastic contractors that are female owned. Some hispanic owned and almost none black or asian owned.

It's mostly a game regardless as most all let you show good faith efforts versus hiring the actual subcontractors.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

I wonder how many of the "minority-owned" businesses were simply fronts, similar to the women-owned businesses? I know of a few: minority was the apparent "owner", but corp docs allocated profits to actual "white" owners. Minority owner was, in effect, paid a piece of the profits for the right to use them as the front person.

---

I used to be involved in reviewing and evaluating bids for gov't contracts. I saw this frequently. It was common to see firms owned by names I usually recognized as political donors, campaign consultants, etc. who were included in the bid solely to satisfy the MWBE requirements. They were basically just receiving a fee from the prime for using them to meet the MWBE goals. It was a complete *******ization of the spirit of the MWBE program that allowed these firms to grift money from gov't contracts.

---

This used to happen all the time on fed contracts involving environmental laboratory services. There were few to no actual labs qualified to do the work that were HBCU owned or operated, but the feds required some percentage of the total contract to go to HBCU affiliated companies/contractors. So a few of the HBCUs setup pass through operations that would contract for whatever lab work was needed with a qualified lab, add 5-7% to the invoice from the lab, and pass it on to the fed contractor. Voila! Now the full cost of the lab work counts towards that HBCU goal! Don't we all feel special for uplifting a small business that just needs a hand up?

Ryan the Temp said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

I wonder how many of the "minority-owned" businesses were simply fronts, similar to the women-owned businesses? I know of a few: minority was the apparent "owner", but corp docs allocated profits to actual "white" owners. Minority owner was, in effect, paid a piece of the profits for the right to use them as the front person.

---

I used to be involved in reviewing and evaluating bids for gov't contracts. I saw this frequently. It was common to see firms owned by names I usually recognized as political donors, campaign consultants, etc. who were included in the bid solely to satisfy the MWBE requirements. They were basically just receiving a fee from the prime for using them to meet the MWBE goals. It was a complete *******ization of the spirit of the MWBE program that allowed these firms to grift money from gov't contracts.

---

The DoD's native american owned and 8a set asides will make your head spin with how sleezy the whole arrangement is. Some group of NAs allow their name to be put on an enterprise for a percentage of the profits, then the enterprise forms a JV with a larger firm. The JV can now receive sole source award contracts set aside for NA owned SDBs from the feds because of their "vast experience" (that exists only in the large business). Nobody working at either place is a NA and NAs are not doing any of the work. But the entire amount of the contract counts toward the NA SDB goal in the federal bean counting system.

The AF at one point raised their SDB contracting goals to around 30% of their total budget. Somebody went out and did the math and figured out that when you took out the huge contracts built into the budget for things like fighter jets, cargo planes, missiles, and bombs, et. that were all large business contracts, there was only about 5% of their budget left over that could go to large businesses without busting their goal. So essentially every contract outside of the big programmatic ones had to be awarded to a SDB. Led to some really stupid funding decisions...like assigning a contract for remediation of dozens of sites at Vandenburg AFB with a ROM of $100+M as a small business set aside.

Is there a single vet that doesn't qualify for a 20% disability? I have a friend who retired at over 120% disability who has nothing wrong other than being 50+ years old. When I bring it up I'm told don't hate the player, hate the game.

doubledog said:

---

ExPeterKeating said:

---

Received an email today that the state Comptroller has ended HUB status for companies certified on owner's race or sex. Only disabled veterans will be certified going forward. This is a game changer for procurement and consulting.

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/12/02/texas-historically-underutilized-business-program-hub-women-minorities/

---

It is about time. The whole HUB program has become a farce. A women or minority on the board would qualify a company as a HUB, so guess what companies did.

---

Agreed. I needed to use a HUB for surveying and was told the company to use. That company wasn't a surveyor so they subbed it out but were able to mark up the fees for 10%. Free money for those guys.

That's good until it turns into a who donates the most gets the most work, which is negative for any small to medium sized business.

No disagreement on the reality. But that already illegal.

OnlyForNow said:

---

That's good until it turns into a who donates the most gets the most work, which is negative for any small to medium sized business.

---

Not sure if it is still that way, but for many years, that was exactly how Port of Houston contracting worked. You made donations to the various port commissioners' campaign accounts or you didn't get to play.

I mean… I'm a consultant. I know how it works unfortunately.

OnlyForNow said:

---

I mean… I'm a consultant. I know how it works unfortunately.

---

Same...just at the fed DoD level now. Not as much as there used to be, but it still happens.

I think weve talked before about it.

It's a dirty game.