Farm bill negotiators should take advantage of the moment

Article | May 26, 2021

The CARES ACT (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) passed by Congress created a sprawling, multi-faceted plan to combat COVID-19 and its debilitating effects on the U.S. economy. Signed into law in March, the $2 trillion relief package allocated funding for preserving jobs, backfilling government budgets, helping school districts, providing assistance for the unemployed and establishing grant programs for various industry sectors such as transportation and telecommunications. There are murmurs of a second stimulus bill which could be debated as soon as July, with the president on July 2 expressing his support for one. But, billions of dollars remain in the CARES Act funding for numerous programs. Much of that funding has reached recipients already, and more should start flowing at any time. All parties and stakeholders are eager, of course, for the funding to reach governmental entities. CARES Act funding programs include the following examples. The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief, or ESSER, program was established with approximately $13.2 billion. This funding is designated for public school districts through an application process that has oversight from each state’s centralized education agency. Texas school districts received $1.29 billion through the program, just behind the state of California, which received the highest allotment at $1.6 billion. Other states receiving a larger share of ESSER funding are New York ($1.03 billion), Florida ($770 million), Illinois ($569 million), and Georgia ($457 million). The program requires that at least 90 percent of the grant funding must be awarded to schools that received Title I, Part A funding during the 2019-20 school year. That stipulation will result in only school systems with a high number of students from low-income families being eligible for the bulk of the revenue. Applications are to be submitted to the state education agency for review and approval. However, decisions about how the funding is used are to be made by local officials in the school districts. Another part of the CARES Act provides billions more in funding for airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) offers $10 billion in distributions through grants for capital projects. This revenue can also be used to fill funding gaps in fiscal year 2020 budgets, since airport systems throughout the nation sustained such heavy losses as a result of the pandemic. Previously, the grants required a local funding match, but the CARES Act increased the federal share to 100 percent. The AIP program allocates $7.4 billion for commercial airports that serve more than 10,000 passengers annually. Another $2 billion is set aside for commercial airports and general aviation airports. Looking at the listed intended uses of these funds, it appears that many airports will have thousands of upcoming contracting opportunities. Millions will be spent on projects to extend and/or rehabilitate runways. Other airports plan to install new lighting, expand terminals, purchase additional safety equipment, reconfigure taxiways, conduct studies, and develop planning documents for future expansion. Cities and counties are most eager to participate in the $5 billion in funding available for local government programs and projects through the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, program. This funding is intended for local governmental officials to use for corridor redevelopment, economic development initiatives and other projects. Every state received funding and some of the larger allocations were designated for Texas ($63.4 million), California ($113 million), Florida ($63 million), and New York ($70.5 million). The U.S. Economic Development Organization continues to accept applications for projects that reinvigorate regional economic recovery, with $1.5 billion earmarked in the CARES Act for the Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. Through grants for projects that “leverage existing regional assets,” this program is designed to support economic development within distressed communities. Funding is available to states, counties, universities, and regional planning organizations, as well as for public-private partnerships. Examples of funding allocated through the program include the award of a $400,000 in grant to the Kennebac Valley Council of Governments in Maine to update its economic development plans and provide COVID-19 services. In Texas, the Concho Valley Council of Governments in San Angelo received a $2.2 million grant to purchase a building for its regional headquarters. The city of Odessa is using $927,708 in CDBG grant money for several social services programs and to supplement local nonprofits’ efforts during the pandemic. And the city of Lewisville recently received $5.8 million in CARES Act money, which includes $452,305 in CDBG grants. The Federal Transit Administration is distributing $25 billion with approximately $22.7 billion earmarked for large and small urban areas and $2.2 billion set aside for rural areas. This funding does not require a local match of any kind, and it can be used for capital projects and for operations and/or planning purposes, as long as those activities relate in some way to COVID-19. Transit agencies in urban areas with a population over one million --- such as Cap Metro, which received $104 million --- are getting $17.5 billion through the FTA. Transit agencies serving areas with populations fewer than one million --- such as Brownsville, Texas, which is receiving $7.6 million --- are getting $5.1 billion. In the middle of the current, historic pandemic, the economy will significantly be stimulated by projects and initiatives that result from this funding. Public-private collaboration will not only create jobs and generate additional revenue flow, it will result in getting Americans working together again … and that will serve the country well. Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.

Article | May 27, 2021

One of the challenges the government faced during the COVID-19 pandemic was keeping operations running. Certain advanced economies and developing nations' business continuity plans gave them an edge over their underdeveloped counterparts. But because of the pandemic, the national economy had suffered the pangs of unemployment to fuel the malicious intents of cyber-attackers, thus, protecting government assets that carried important economic information became a national priority. National security and staying competitive with other economies worldwide are becoming increasingly crucial in elevating a country’s economy. Keeping all public-sector companies and federal agencies running efficiently is a foundational block for the economy. Companies in public administration, like the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as different ministries, public sector businesses, and more, need data protection from international cyber-threats. They use disruptive business strategies to make their operations more resilient. Now, that we know the importance of business continuity in the context of federal government and agencies, let us understand what risks does business continuity management mitigate. Business Continuity Management in Government Easily Mitigates: Individuals rely on the government during economic crises and disasters. A crisis or a disaster can be a huge risk to the economy, which can bubble up to an irreversible loss if not handled on a timely basis. Mitigating the risks of crises such as natural disasters, cyber security compromises, power and communication outages, terrorism, wars and military activities, global financial crises and more has become crucial. These crises can cause the loss of physical assets, human safety, and infrastructure that hamper government operations. This is why having a BCM plan in place is the need of the hour. The government must serve and meet the expectations of economic contributors. If there is a divergence or a timely action constraint, the government must maintain peace and harmony for the common good and economic well-being. Government Continuity to Support Individuals and Public Organizations: Resuming operations for public organizations and individuals quickly can be almost impossible without the intervention and support of the government. Government continuity is directly proportional to the level of trust, government reputation, and business resiliency. This is possible because the financial loss can be covered by insurance and financial help, as explained below. Insurance Policy Claims and Coverage: Making it easy to claim insurance during and after the crisis helps individuals and organizations reclaim their finances, thereby restoring essential functions first and full-fledged functions later. Providing reimbursement of expenses and coverage for losses for public organizations and financial assistance for the public sector remains one of the top priorities as far as resuming business operations is concerned post-disaster. Making sure that the insurance can cover the expenses and losses incurred due to the disaster is a part of the business impact analysis (BIA). Resiliency: Restoring public sector infrastructure in an operating condition, overcoming operational obstacles such as IT, power, and communication outages in a short span of time, and maintaining due vigilance to keep a check on national security builds business resiliency for the public sector. Reputation and Recovery Management: Reducing the turn-around time to fix and restore normal operations after a disaster provides operational resiliency through recovery management. This keeps a check on the best interests of the economic contributors and enhances their trust and the government’s reputation in the long run. Now that we understand the risks that a BCP can help mitigate and the role of government policies to support the economic contributors, let us understand how it improves the overall performance of a public organization. Business Continuity Management for Better Performing Public Organizations: The federal governments and public organizations have implemented an agile approach to bounce back from disasters, catastrophes, and crises using BCM. Because of this, the federal government is heavily invested into business continuity plans (BCPs) to improve how well their operations work and keep the economy and government stable. The factors impacting the performance of public organizations using a BCM are as below: Public organizations must know how BCM components influence performance in public sector organizations. They must be aware of BCM and the successful implementation of effective BCM. However, some governments that do not invest in a BCM have a much lower level of awareness due to a lack of human resources, finance, and management. They are allocating enough budget for disaster prevention, preparedness, management, and relief considering the government's initiatives. But not getting enough help from the government can make people unhappy, which can hurt the ruling party and lead to people protesting for their rights. Even though there is no direct financial benefit or gain from investing in a BCM, BCM testing helps to improve performance significantly. For governments to consider investing in the successful implementation of BCM and get funding for it, BCM professionals need to predict and evaluate the potential loss due to idle service time and its results. Each government entity must identify the likelihood of risks, define the best rescue objectives, and indicate the most cost-effective clarification and knowledge about BCM. Another challenge is using BCM in organizations that cut across several business groups or completing it with collective business-wide support. These situations show that old management responsibility and regulation are useful for making sure that all members of an organization prefer BCM actions. Recognizing the potential impacts of BCM on organizational performance is required in order to provide accurate value to the BCM powers, attract consideration, and, finally, obtain adequate assistance from senior management. In the journey to optimizing the performance of your public sector company using BCM, there are many hurdles that you need to overcome. Let us discuss them further. Challenges in Maintaining BCPs and Performance Growth in the Public Sector: Maintaining a business continuity plan as per the recommended guidelines is crucial to optimize its performance and efficacy. Your public sector organization's BCP will need to overcome some of the challenges to enable their performance growth as follows: Dedication of time from the top management of the public organizations, the ministry, and leaders towards deciding which functions are essential to maintain the BCP. Lack of complete understanding of all the business functions and their dependencies on other public sector organizations. Comparing the business functions on the level of criticality. Not implementing the BCM approach completely. Tweaking the BCM approach to show everything is taken care of Inaccurate assumptions are used to create a business continuity plan. Business Impact Analysis (BIA) - Determining how long a business process can be rendered inoperable without affecting performance. The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) takes care of aspects such as: Who will be affected by the business operations disruption? How and when will customers be notified? What issues are to be addressed in the first 48 hours? From the initial response to restoration, unique access roles and functions are assigned. Testing of BCP should be done regularly with the help of table-top exercises, walkthroughs, crisis communications, emergency enactments The importance of a BCP cannot be undermined as it minimizes the cost of business disruptions on the operations of public organizations. Let us discuss them in-depth. The Cost of Not Having a Crisis Plan like a BCP for All Sizes of Public Organizations: Although the costs involved during times of crisis may be difficult to calculate, there may be significant infrastructure and data recovery charges that can have a long-term impact on business revenue. Monetary loss, revenue loss due to idle time, reputation loss, productivity loss are some of the consequences that small, medium, and large enterprises have to go through. The major losses among them are as under: Loss of time and revenue for recovery and resuming operations. The company's brand image and reputation are at stake. Financial instability and loss Productivity loss Customer satisfaction is hampered. Some laws and regulations are violated during idle time. Distrust and loss of faith among investors Employee safety is at risk with the consequences of injury and death. Loss of infrastructure A business continuity plan has four strategies to boost business resilience. These include crisis and risk management; disaster recovery; incident response management; and business continuity planning. Acting quickly to mitigate the risks of loss as per incident response management during the event of distress is the first step. Crisis and risk management take care of the plan of action during the event of distress. The disaster recovery plan takes care of resuming the business operations to their normal condition after the disaster has subsided, whereas the business continuity plan takes care of all these aspects to minimize loss during distress as well as the time required to resume normal operations with the help of dedicated software. Conclusion: Performance optimization for public organizations is the number one priority for economic growth. A business continuity plan can directly boost performance as it encourages organizations to identify essential functions and maintain their operations during uncertain times. It helps save time, money, and safeguards people, processes, and technologies in the long run.

Emerging Technology

Article | July 13, 2022

Wastewater is an integral part of public infrastructure, and contracting opportunities related to wastewater projects often represent multi-million-dollar efforts. However, because of their very nature, wastewater projects are often overlooked by companies. The projects, for some reason, rarely merit the type of visibility that road, bridge, and rail projects receive. The COVID-19 pandemic has curbed many things, including public initiatives, but numerous wastewater projects continue to be launched because they are considered critical. Almost all wastewater projects are necessary to either maintain or expand services that citizens must have without interruption. The following represents only a fraction of wastewater-related infrastructure project opportunities currently being planned throughout the U.S. Nebraska In June, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration awarded South Sioux City a $12.2 million grant for a wastewater treatment plant. The project, which will support business growth, will be launched in an area that suffered severe flood damage in 2019. The new plant will be built near an opportunity zone, and the grant, which will be matched with another $12.2 million in local funding, should result in the creation of about 60 jobs. This opportunity will move quickly because the completion date and the timeline established for full operation is less than two and a half years. Arizona The city of Buckeye has appropriated $3.1 million for construction of an additional discharge point for the Sundance Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Planning and design of the facility is scheduled to begin soon, and construction is planned for the city’s upcoming fiscal year. The city of Goodyear has announced plans to install wastewater collection lines as part of a 10-year infrastructure improvement plan which is necessary to support population growth. Funding for this project has been secured, and the city will invest more than $20.5 million in this particular construction project. Oklahoma One of the challenges with operating any wastewater treatment plant is odor control. In Oklahoma City, the water utilities trust has set aside $5.3 million in fiscal year 2021 to deal with that issue. Due to robust development within close proximity of treatment plants and lift stations, the city will install new odor control systems at various wastewater plants in areas where they are needed. To augment water supply and to expand the water reuse system, Oklahoma City also has planned other wastewater reuse improvements. A total of $31.4 million has been budgeted for these purposes. Oregon With the help of a $2.45 million Community Development Block Grant, the city of Ontario will, in the near future, enter the construction phase of a project to improve its wastewater system. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requires that wastewater discharge into the Snake River be at a limit for arsenic that is lower than the federal drinking water standard. To meet those requirements, the city has completed the final design and environmental assessment of wastewater system improvement needs and almost is ready to begin construction. Officials announced in July that funding has been secured. Minnesota In the city of Shakopee near Minneapolis, the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant produces Class A fertilizer. The decades-old wastewater solids drying facility is nearing the end of its useful life, and city officials have budgeted $3.1 million in plant design improvements for fiscal year 2021. The cost projection for the construction, which will follow quickly, has been estimated at $45.9 million. Completion of this project may extend over several years. The cities of Lake Elmo and Woodbury are collaborating on a project that will provide interceptor facilities to convey wastewater from portions of each city to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul. The estimated $5.6 million project budgeted for fiscal year 2021 calls for reconstruction of the Wilmes Lake force main. The project is critical because of population growth in this eastern portion of the Minneapolis metropolitan area. Both design and construction are scheduled to commence in fiscal year 2021. Texas The North Texas Municipal Water District, which serves customers in several DFW-area cities, has several wastewater projects slated for the summer and fall. The various projects include a $20 million improvement project for the South Mesquite Regional Wastewater Plant and a $50 million plus project to improve drainage at the Wilson Creek Regional Wastewater Plant. These projects are moving quickly, and interested contracting firms should seek more detailed information immediately. Washington The state’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund has awarded a $66 million low-interest loan to the city of Seattle for a Ship Canal Water Quality Project that consists of constructing a storage tunnel between the Ballard and Wallingford neighborhoods. The large-scale project will significantly reduce sewer outflows in the ship canal. The project, a joint effort between Seattle Public Utilities and the King County Department of Natural Resources, is slated for fiscal year 2021. The Eastsound Sewer and Water District has been granted $4.9 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and has announced plans to upgrade its existing wastewater treatment facility. This project is necessary to address aging equipment, future flow and loading capacity, current standards for redundancy and reliability, and discharge permit requirements. This project also is scheduled for fiscal year 2021. Water, in all its many uses, is a precious asset, and when water issues are combined with environmental requirements, demand issues, or aging infrastructure, there is no option to delay necessary repair or expansion. Contracting opportunities for water projects throughout the country in the next decade will be exceedingly abundant. Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.

Article | June 11, 2020

As federal agencies continue to support large numbers of remote workers, IT leaders have started to evolve their thinking on zero-trust security architectures. Increasingly, they are becoming more comfortable with the concept and are seeking to lay the foundation for deployments. Zero trust represents a mindset shift in cybersecurity in which every transaction is verified before access is granted to users and devices. In the federal government, it is still a relatively nascent approach, with some pilot programs here and there. However, IT leaders seem to recognize that cybersecurity models are increasingly going to be defined by a zero-trust architecture.