Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Program.
The bill will enhance the accountability of state agencies by mandating that they maintain comprehensive records related to the participation of disabled veteran businesses in state contracts. Furthermore, it establishes a minimum retention period of six years for these records, thus promoting transparency and the accurate reporting of award amounts and payments made to DVBEs. This change is anticipated to improve the effectiveness of the Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Program, thereby directly impacting the engagement and support of disabled veterans in California's business landscape.
Assembly Bill No. 961, introduced by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, aims to amend Section 999.5 of the Military and Veterans Code, focusing on the California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Program. This bill modifies the requirements for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of General Services concerning how they administer the program that supports disabled veteran-owned businesses in securing state contracts. One significant change proposed is the elimination of periodic surveys to track the effectiveness of promotional efforts, replacing it with an annual comparison of businesses that participate in promotional activities against those that become certified as disabled veteran business enterprises (DVBEs) and state contractors.
The general sentiment surrounding AB 961 has been positive, particularly among advocates for disabled veterans. They view the amendments as a critical step in facilitating opportunities for veteran-owned businesses in the state contracting process. However, there are concerns regarding the potential administrative burden this bill places on departments tasked with the oversight of such records and monitoring. Opponents of the bill may argue that the intended accountability could lead to bureaucratic complexities that disadvantage smaller veteran businesses lacking resources to navigate these requirements.
One point of contention involves the civil penalties outlined for entities that provide false information related to their business dealings with disabled veteran enterprises. This aspect is crucial for enforcing accountability but may also provoke discussions about the fairness of imposing such penalties on businesses that may inadvertently make reporting errors. Additionally, the replacement of one DVBE with another approved by the Department of General Services could lead to debate regarding the situations under which such changes are permitted and the impacts on the competition among veteran-owned businesses.