Montgomery County committee backs new competitive grants and reallocation for small-business support

Montgomery County staff described a shift this week in how the county will use its Small Business Support Services (SBSS) nondepartmental account (NDA), reallocating about $1.7 million for a mix of continuing contracts and new competitive solicitations to fund federal‑contractor supports, cohort training, and small networking grants.

County executive staff told the Economic Development Committee that the county originally budgeted a 3% inflationary adjustment for SBSS totaling $1,713,075 but shifted course as unspent contract balances were identified. "These are contracts, not grants," a county executive staff member said, explaining the county will keep most funding as noncompetitive awards to current contractors while opening a competitive process for new services.

Committee members said the changes reflect a needed adjustment after the FY25 budget process and pressed staff for greater clarity on the timeline, outreach and performance metrics. Councilmember Balcom said cohort training and one‑on‑one counseling are both essential and urged geographic and calendar‑year distribution of awards so smaller groups and later applicants are not disadvantaged. Councilmember Glass urged clearer distinctions between this business‑focused program and workforce programs such as WorkSource Montgomery. Councilmember Sales asked about timelines and how unmet needs will be assessed; staff said they will use solicitations and a standard participant survey to collect qualitative feedback and track outcomes over time.

County staff provided preliminary funding breakdowns in the meeting packet and in presentation slides. Of the roughly $1.7 million reprogrammed to SBSS for FY26, $1,357,000 is planned for continued noncompetitive awards to existing contractors, with roughly $150,000 proposed for a solicitation targeting service providers who assist companies that do business with the federal government, and another $150,000 for an open solicitation to fund cohort training, coaching and technical assistance. Staff also said approximately $20,000 is being considered to sponsor networking events using a small matching‑grant model.

Business Center Manager Nadia Klute said recent invoice processing changed some balances and gave an example: a contract line that showed $238,000 was down to $67,000 after invoices were received and processed, and the University of Maryland Small Business Development Center submitted a roughly $65,000 invoice that reduced its balance to near zero. "We are estimating about $175,000 out of what is showing right now that is fiscally out of the 1.1 that is showing," Klute said, describing ongoing invoice adjustments.

Staff described the planned competitive solicitations as follows: (1) an RFP for a single contractor to provide targeted support, coaching, networking and permit/procurement navigation for businesses that rely on federal contracting; (2) an open solicitation to fund multiple providers offering one‑on‑one consulting, technical assistance and expert‑level workshops; and (3) a small matching pool to support broader, non‑membership networking events intended to connect businesses to county procurement, permitting and private‑sector opportunities. Staff said draft solicitations will be shared with committee members and with prospective and existing partners before issuance and that contracts are expected to provide continuity, potentially for two years.

Committee members repeatedly pressed for clearer outreach so smaller organizations without dedicated grant‑writing staff can learn about and apply for funding. Balcom and others asked staff to circulate final RFPs and outreach materials to the full council and to the broader small‑business community. Several council members also recommended emphasizing on every solicitation that awards are time‑limited contracts, not ongoing entitlements.

On timing and status, Klute and county staff said FY26 contracts have been signed and the FY26 funding amounts shown in the packet are ‘‘solid,’’ though some listed unspent balances remain under invoice review and may change. Staff said they plan to return in the fall to present FY27 criteria for competitive and noncompetitive awards and to report back after awards are made.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the committee discussion. Committee members requested follow‑up items: publication of the RFPs and solicitations, outreach plans to reach smaller providers, and a future committee update on implementation and outcomes.