Defense Contracting: Sufficient, Reliable Information on DOD's
Mentor-Protege Program Is Unavailable (Letter Report, 03/30/98,
GAO/NSIAD-98-92).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of
Defense's (DOD) Pilot Mentor-Protege Program, focusing on: (1) DOD's
management of the program, including its efforts to evaluate the
program's effectiveness; and (2) the manner in which program funds have
been obligated.

GAO noted that: (1) data limitations preclude GAO's assessing the extent
to which the program is achieving the purpose established by Congress;
(2) the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSADBU)
has recently undertaken actions to review the program that were intended
to provide the basis for such an assessment; (3) it has initiated a
survey of mentors and proteges and enlisted the Defense Contract
Management Command to conduct performance evaluations of each agreement;
(4) however, GAO believes shortcomings in the survey methodology and
incomplete coverage in the performance evaluations will limit the
usefulness of their results in assessing the program's overall
effectiveness; (5) Congress has appropriated about $233 million for the
program since fiscal year 1992; (6) the funding was generally obligated
through either cooperative agreements, separate contracts, or line items
in DOD prime contracts; (7) while OSADBU has managed cooperative
agreements in the past, it has decided that the services and the defense
agencies should be responsible for managing reimbursable mentor-protege
agreements; (8) in addition, the services have been inconsistent in
their policies on paying fees to mentors for providing assistance to
proteges and reimbursing proteges for various expenses; and (9) because
sufficient and reliable information on program performance was
unavailable, the overall extent to which the pilot program benefited the
proteges could not be assessed.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-98-92
     TITLE:  Defense Contracting: Sufficient, Reliable Information on 
             DOD's Mentor-Protege Program Is Unavailable
      DATE:  03/30/98
   SUBJECT:  Department of Defense contractors
             Internal controls
             Small business assistance
             Small business contractors
             Contract administration
             Program evaluation
             Defense procurement
             Evaluation methods
             Subcontractors
             Budget authority
IDENTIFIER:  DOD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1998

DEFENSE CONTRACTING - SUFFICIENT,
RELIABLE INFORMATION ON DOD'S
MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM IS
UNAVAILABLE

GAO/NSIAD-98-92

DOD's Mentor-Protege Program

(707292)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DCMC - Defense Contract Management Command
  DOD - Department of Defense
  OSADBU - Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-278784

March 30, 1998

The Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on National Security
House of Representatives

In 1990, Congress passed section 831 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 establishing the Pilot
Mentor-Protege Program.  The purpose of the program is to provide
incentives for major Department of Defense (DOD) contractors
(mentors) to furnish disadvantaged small business concerns\1
(proteges) with assistance designed to enhance their capabilities and
increase their participation as subcontractors and suppliers under
DOD contracts, other federal government contracts, and commercial
contracts. 

The fiscal year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act requires us
to report on DOD's implementation of the program and the extent to
which the program is achieving the purposes established by Congress. 
We reviewed (1) DOD's management of the program, including its
efforts to evaluate the program's effectiveness and (2) the manner in
which program funds have been obligated.  We also attempted to assess
the extent to which the pilot program benefited the proteges. 


--------------------
\1 To qualify as a disadvantaged small business, a company must not
exceed the Small Business Administration's standards for number of
employees or annual sales and must be independently owned (at least
51 percent) and operated by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

DOD's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSADBU)
is responsible for the mentor-protege program.  A signed
mentor-protege agreement for each mentor-protege relationship must be
submitted to OSADBU and approved before developmental assistance
costs may be incurred.  OSADBU has reimbursed mentors through
cooperative agreements where both the government and a contractor
work together to achieve a common purpose.  OSADBU also approved
credit agreements that were negotiated on a nonreimbursable basis.\2
In addition, the services and the defense agencies requested OSADBU's
approval of mentor-protege agreements that reimbursed mentors
pursuant to separate contracts or line items in DOD contracts. 
OSADBU is to conduct periodic performance reviews of the progress and
accomplishments realized under approved mentor-protege agreements. 

This report is one of a series we have issued on the mentor-protege
program.  In our first report, we recommended, among other things,
that DOD develop and implement adequate internal controls in the
application and approval process and in the oversight of protege
development.\3 In our second report, we were not able to recommend
that the pilot program be extended because sufficient information was
not available to determine whether the program's purposes could be
achieved or whether reauthorization and extension were warranted.\4


--------------------
\2 By using a credit agreement, a mentor is reimbursed for
developmental assistance costs that are allowable, allocable, and
reasonable through their inclusion in indirect cost pools and is also
given credit toward meeting small business contracting goals as if
these assistance costs were contracts awarded to small and
disadvantaged businesses. 

\3 Defense Contracting:  Interim Report on Mentor-Protege Program for
Small Disadvantaged Firms (GAO/NSIAD-92-135, Mar.  30, 1992). 

\4 Defense Contracting:  Implementation of the Pilot Mentor- Protege
Program (GAO/NSIAD-94-101, Feb.  1, 1994). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Data limitations preclude our assessing the extent to which the
program is achieving the purposes established by Congress.  OSADBU
has recently undertaken actions to review the program that were
intended to provide the basis for such an assessment.  It has
initiated a survey of mentors and proteges and enlisted the Defense
Contract Management Command to conduct performance evaluations of
each agreement.  However, we believe shortcomings in the survey
methodology and incomplete coverage in the performance evaluations
will limit the usefulness of their results in assessing the program's
overall effectiveness. 

Congress has appropriated about $233 million for the program since
fiscal year 1992.  The funding was generally obligated through either
cooperative agreements, separate contracts, or line items in DOD
prime contracts.  While OSADBU has managed cooperative agreements in
the past, it has decided that the services and the defense agencies
should be responsible for managing reimbursable mentor-protege
agreements.  In addition, the services have been inconsistent in
their policies on paying fees to mentors for providing assistance to
proteges and reimbursing proteges for various expenses. 

Because sufficient and reliable information on program performance
was unavailable, the overall extent to which the pilot program
benefited the proteges could not be assessed. 


   MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ARE UNDERWAY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In our prior two reports, we identified the lack of management data,
oversight of individual agreements, and evaluation of results of
program participation as major impediments to measuring progress
toward accomplishing congressional goals.  Within the last 16 months,
OSADBU has initiated actions to evaluate program performance and
improve administration of the program.\5 Actions to evaluate program
performance include conducting a survey of program participants and
establishing a performance review process.  However, low survey
response rates and incomplete performance review data weaken OSADBU's
efforts to evaluate and report on the overall success of the program. 


--------------------
\5 OSADBU officials told us that actions have been taken to improve
program administration, including tracking financial information,
abandoning centrally managed cooperative agreements, moving toward
service-funded agreements, implementing a phased approach to reduce
cost of agreements, increasing the use of incrementally funding of
agreements, and improving outreach briefings to provide clear
guidance and lessons learned to participants. 


      OUR PRIOR REVIEWS OF THE
      PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Our 1992 report pointed out that DOD needed to develop and implement
adequate internal controls in the application and approval process
and in the oversight of protege development.  In its response, OSADBU
officials agreed to verify the progress reports, ensure the agreed
upon assistance was provided, and evaluate (through communication
with the proteges) whether the assistance had increased the number of
subcontracts awarded. 

In our 1994 report, we again pointed out that OSADBU had neither (1)
assessed progress and accomplishments realized under any of the
agreements nor (2) evaluated program success.  In its comments to our
report, OSADBU acknowledged that monitoring and oversight of
mentor-protege agreements had not occurred and added that it had
plans to do so once resources were available and enough time had
elapsed for significant activity under the agreements to have
occurred. 


      OSADBU HAS INITIATED ACTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In November 1996, OSADBU, with contractor support, began a data
collection effort by conducting a survey of program participants to
evaluate program effectiveness.  Also, OSADBU requested that the
Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) conduct performance
reviews of all mentor-protege agreements approved since the program's
inception, and thereafter, to review all active agreements annually. 
The purpose of these reviews is to establish and maintain a regular
performance review process. 


         SURVEY PROVIDES LIMITED
         DATA ON PROGRAM'S
         EFFECTIVENESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.1

During our review, OSADBU was conducting a questionnaire survey of
the program.  OSADBU officials told us that the questionnaire
responses will, in part, provide the data needed to ascertain and
report overall progress toward achieving the program's statutory
goals.  OSADBU plans to issue its report by late spring 1998. 

Separate questionnaires for mentors and proteges were sent to current
participants as well as those who had completed or terminated
agreements as of November 4, 1996.  The questionnaires requested
general background data on the participants and the agreements,
information on types of assistance provided, data on the dollar value
and number of contracts as well as subcontracts received and/or
awarded during the agreements, and experiences of the participants
and their views of the program. 

A successful survey relies on a high response rate, an analysis of
why nonrespondents in the population did not respond, and an
assessment of the validity and reliability of the data.  As of
January 1998, OSADBU's response rates of about 60 percent for the
mentor survey and about 40 percent for the protege survey were well
below that which would be required to draw statistically meaningful
conclusions about the population of program participants or the
mentor-protege program as a whole.\6

Further, OSADBU has not conducted a systematic analysis of why
nonrespondents did not participate in the survey to assess any
patterns for their lack of participation as compared to the
respondents. 

Also, the financial data on contracting and subcontracting were not
systematically verified with an independent source such as progress
reports, contractor reports, or other records.  Attempts were made to
reconcile conflicting information between the mentors and proteges,
but only if the discrepancies were large or if totally inconsistent
information was provided by each respondent. 


--------------------
\6 To make plausible generalizations about the overall pilot program,
the effective response rate should usually be at least 75 percent for
each variable measure--a goal used by most practitioners.  See
Developing and Using Questionnaires (GAO/PEMD-10.1.7, Oct.  1993). 


         PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
         HAVE SHORTCOMINGS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.2

On November 6, 1996, OSADBU, in an effort to conduct annual
performance reviews of all mentor-protege agreements, requested DCMC
to review all 305 agreements that had been approved since the
program's inception.  In response, DCMC sent a memorandum dated
January 2, 1997, to its districts setting out its policy on
conducting the performance reviews.  The reviews were to include
evaluations of costs, planned and actual mentor assistance, and data
on protege firms' business development (contract awards and
improvements in technical capabilities) resulting from program
participation.  Although DCMC requested that all the reports be sent
to OSADBU by December 31, 1997, OSADBU had received only 138 reports
on the 305 agreements, or about 45 percent, as of that date. 

We reviewed 66 of the 138 DCMC reports and found that many of the
reports were missing information or did not address all the required
areas outlined in the DCMC policy memorandum.  The differences in
reporting all information, as well as incomplete data, will limit the
usefulness of the performance reviews in analyzing trends, tracking
performance of program agreements, and assessing the program's
effectiveness.  OSADBU's support contractor is reviewing the reports
to identify those that are missing and the general quality and
consistency of the reviews to determine what additional DCMC guidance
is necessary for its districts. 


   MANNER OF OBLIGATING FUNDS HAS
   CHANGED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The funding appropriated from fiscal year 1992 to 1998 was generally
obligated through either cooperative agreements, separate contracts,
or in a line item in DOD prime contracts.  While OSADBU has managed
cooperative agreements in the past, it has decided that the services
and the defense agencies should be responsible for managing
reimbursable mentor-protege agreements.  In addition, the services
were inconsistent in paying fees to mentors and reimbursing proteges
for various expenses. 


      CHANGES IN THE WAYS FUNDS
      ARE OBLIGATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Mentor-protege funding of about $233 million\7 was generally
obligated through cooperative agreements, separate contracts, or line
items in DOD contracts.  OSADBU spent about $88.3 million on 50
cooperative agreements that resulted in 99 mentor-protege agreements
ranging in value from $135,000 to about $3 million, or an average of
about $892,000 per mentor-protege agreement.  In addition, the
services and the defense agencies have reimbursed costs amounting to
about $108.5 million,\8 pursuant to 143 separate contracts or line
items in DOD contracts that have ranged in value from $38,525 to $6.9
million, or an average of about $759,000 per mentor-protege
agreement.  Funds amounting to about $7.2 million were also disbursed
by OSADBU for historically Black colleges and universities and
minority institutions, contractor support, and other miscellaneous
expenses.  As of February 1998, the remaining funds of $28.9 million
included $10.6 million that had been sent to the services but not yet
obligated, $16.6 million that had not been distributed,\9 and $1.7
million that had expired. 

According to the OSADBU program manager, centrally managed
cooperative agreements were useful for initially getting the program
started because they successfully produced interest in the program. 
OSADBU used a "program announcement" whereby potential mentors
submitted proposals for funding a mentor-protege agreement through a
cooperative agreement. 

OSADBU has decided to discontinue its use of centrally managed
cooperative agreements.  The OSADBU program manager informed us that
the level and type of technical assistance provided to the proteges
were primarily business in nature, and not related to DOD-specific
program areas.  The program manager further pointed out that OSADBU
does not have the staff to centrally manage, review, monitor, and
serve as the responsible official on multiple cooperative agreements. 

OSADBU has decided that the services and the defense agencies should
be responsible for managing reimbursable mentor-protege agreements. 
The OSADBU program manager informed us that by linking the agreements
to a service or a defense agency, the likelihood of a protege
receiving technical assistance that is mission related increases
significantly.  Further, by incorporating the program into the
acquisition process, it becomes an integral part of that process,
thus mitigating the need for additional resources to administer the
program and monitor program performance.\10


--------------------
\7 In addition to the $233 million, an undetermined amount was
believed to be reimbursed indirectly through 142 credit agreements by
including the costs of mentor assistance in indirect costs pools. 

\8 In addition to the $108.5 million, Air Force funding of $11.6
million was used to support four agreements developing technologies
for the F-22 aircraft, while Navy funding of $900,000 was used to
support three agreements for the F/A-18 aircraft. 

\9 Included in this amount was $10 million available for fiscal year
1998, but withheld by the DOD Comptroller. 

\10 Since the mentor-protege agreements are incorporated into
contracts, the service OSADBU program managers generally view the
administration of the agreements to be a function of the contracting
officers within the program offices. 


      SERVICES ARE INCONSISTENT IN
      REIMBURSING VARIOUS EXPENSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Neither the mentor-protege program legislation nor the implementing
regulation specifically addresses either the payment of fees to
mentors or the reimbursement of proteges for their costs in
participating in the program. 

In our March 1992 report, issued shortly after the program actually
began, we noted low mentor participation and recommended that DOD
consider ways to enhance program incentives for mentor participation. 
At that time, we noted that the appeal of the cash reimbursement
incentive was diminished because mentors were prohibited by
regulation from earning a fee on the development assistance provided
to proteges.  In 1992, DOD eliminated the regulatory prohibition. 

In our current review, we found that the payment of fees to mentors
varied among the services.  We found no instance where the Navy has
paid a fee, while the Army and the Air Force have paid fees to
mentors.  According to the OSADBU program manager, mentors have
received fees in addition to their expenses because mentor-protege
agreements are reimbursed by means of a line item in DOD contracts
that allow a fee and the program's legislation does not prohibit the
payment of fees to the mentor. 

In May 1997, the Air Force asked OSADBU about reimbursing protege
salaries while the proteges were undergoing training.  The Air Force
noted that it had found no prohibition on such payments in either the
program legislation or the regulation.  OSADBU approved the payment
of such incidental expenses in July 1997, so long as they were
otherwise, allowable, allocable, and reasonable and did not exceed 10
percent of the total reimbursable cost of the approved mentor-protege
agreement.  We found that the Army and the Air Force permit these
payments; the Navy does not. 


   EXTENT PROTEGES BENEFITED FROM
   FUNDING HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

While the mentor-protege program has provided incentives to mentors
to provide assistance to proteges, the extent that the funding has
enhanced the business competitiveness and financial independence of
protege firms has not been determined because sufficient and reliable
information on program performance has not been available.  OSADBU is
developing a program database that it believes will be the source for
periodic analysis of program results. 

About 180 mentors received reimbursement of certain costs incurred in
providing assistance to their protege firms, credit in meeting small
business goals,\11 or both.  Of the 180 mentors, 92 used only
reimbursable agreements, 69 used only credit agreements, and 19 used
both reimbursement and credit agreements.  We found that 86 mentors
have active agreements, while 94 mentors have completed or terminated
their agreements. 

Of the 340 proteges that received assistance from mentors, 201
received assistance through reimbursable agreements, 113 received
assistance through credit agreements, and 26 used both types of
agreements.  We found that 147 proteges have active agreements, while
193 proteges have completed or terminated their agreements. 


--------------------
\11 In acquisitions above $500,000 ($1 million for construction),
prime contractors are required to establish a subcontracting plan
that specifies the percentage goal of subcontract awards to small and
disadvantaged businesses. 


      OSADBU IS DEVELOPING A
      PROGRAM DATABASE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

OSADBU is developing a program database on all participants,
including responses to the questionnaire surveys.  The database is
expected to incorporate information gathered from the mentor
application, the agreements, and the data gathered as a result of the
DCMC reviews.  In addition, a reference resource is expected to
provide more easily understood program guidelines and streamlined
procedures for program participation and guidance on costs eligible
for reimbursement, lessons learned, and best practices. 


   CONCLUSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

After spending over $200 million on the pilot mentor-protege program,
OSADBU does not know the overall extent to which the program is
achieving the purposes Congress has established because sufficient
and reliable information on program performance is unavailable. 
While OSADBU has initiated an assessment of the program by conducting
a survey and establishing a performance review process, shortcomings
in the assessment will limit its usefulness.  For example, a low
survey response rate will limit the usefulness of its findings in
assessing the program's overall effectiveness.  In addition,
performance reviews were missing information or did not address all
the required areas, such as improvements in protege capabilities and
contract awards.  While it would be difficult to correct the
shortcomings in the survey to assess the overall effectiveness of the
program, the weaknesses in the performance reviews can be overcome. 

Neither the mentor-protege program legislation nor the implementing
regulation specifically addresses either the payment of fees to
mentors or the reimbursement of proteges for their costs in
participating in the program.  We found that there is no uniformity
among the services on making these payments. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense instruct the Director,
OSADBU, to strengthen OSADBU's performance reviews to ensure that
sufficient and reliable information on program performance is
gathered on planned and actual mentor assistance as well as on the
protege firms' business development. 


   MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

Congress may wish to clarify mentor-protege program legislation as to
whether mentors can be paid fees in addition to expenses and proteges
can be reimbursed for various expenses. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

DOD concurs with the recommendation to strengthen performance reviews
and will continue to make efforts to improve the reliability and
sufficiency of data on the program.  However, DOD states that there
have been a significant number of proteges that have benefited from
the program and provides nine examples of mentor-protege agreements
that it believes illustrate the effectiveness of the program.  We
found that there has been a lack of sufficient and reliable
information on close to 400 agreements approved by OSADBU to assess
the program's overall effectiveness and do not believe that nine
examples, while positive in themselves, are a sufficient basis for
this assessment.  (See app.  I for DOD's written comments.)

DOD acknowledges that the services have been inconsistent in their
policies on paying fees to mentors for providing assistance to
proteges and reimbursing proteges for various expenses.  By allowing
the diversity of approaches, DOD states that it is testing the range
of options for program execution and the impact of various incentives
upon participation in the program.  Given that the mentor-protege
program legislation and the implementing regulation do not
specifically address either paying fees to mentors or reimbursing
proteges for their costs in participating in the program, we continue
to believe that Congress may wish to clarify existing legislation as
to the use of mentor-protege funding. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

The congressional mandate states, in part, that we will study the
extent to which the program is achieving the purposes established by
Congress.  Because DOD maintained performance review and evaluation
data\12 on the program that was insufficient and unreliable, we
considered making an independent data collection survey.  We did not
make such a survey because OSADBU and a trade association were
completing separate surveys of the same population of mentors and
proteges.  We also did not make the survey because repeated surveys
of the same population at closely spaced intervals can lead to
"history effects," which can effect both the response rate and the
quality of the data collected in unpredictable ways.  We focused our
review on the management of the program. 

To review program management, we reviewed our past reports on the
program that identified weaknesses in the management, obtained DOD's
response to our findings, and identified OSADBU's actions initiated
to improve program administration and evaluation.  We also contacted
OSADBU's contractor who is responsible for administering and
summarizing the DOD survey questionnaire and DCMC to identify its
progress in conducting performance reviews of the mentor-protege
agreements. 

To review the manner in which the funds were obligated, we met with
OSADBU and Washington Headquarters Service personnel who transfer
mentor-protege funding from OSADBU to the responsible services and
the defense agencies.  As such, we obtained overall funding
information dealing with the program from fiscal year 1992 to 1998
that showed a breakdown of the funding by responsible organization. 
To verify the funding information, we contacted officials within the
services' and defense agencies' offices of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization responsible for administering the mentor-protege
agreements.  When necessary, these officials contacted supporting
commands to gather more reliable information regarding the obligation
of the funding. 

We attempted to assess the extent to which the funds benefited the
proteges by reviewing OSADBU's files and contacting service and
defense agency officials to identify the number of mentors and
proteges that have participated in the program.  Sufficient and
reliable information on program performance, however, was unavailable
on the overall extent that the proteges benefited from the funding
provided by the program. 

We performed this phase of work between August 1997 and February 1998
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\12 According to OSADBU officials, the data were useful in making
program administrative decisions such as abandoning centrally managed
cooperative agreements and moving toward service-funded agreements. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

We will send copies to the Chairmen and the Ranking Minority Members
of other appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of
Defense; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.  We will
also make copies available to others upon request. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me on
(202) 512-4841.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II. 

Louis J.  Rodrigues
Director, Defense Acquisitions Issues




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================== Letter 



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Defense's (DOD)
letter dated February 26, 1998. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  DOD states that a case study approach can sufficiently portray
the impact of the program upon the protege firms.  In this regard,
DOD provided nine examples of mentor-protege agreements that it
believed illustrated the effectiveness of the program.  However,
there have been close to 400 agreements approved by OSADBU since the
inception of the program.  We do not believe the nine examples, while
positive in themselves, are sufficient to assess the program's
overall effectiveness.  Therefore, we have chosen not to include the
enclosure in this report. 

2.  We have modified the report to properly attribute to OSADBU
officials the actions that they believe have improved program
administration. 

3.  We have incorporated DOD's technical comments in the text where
appropriate. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Charles D.  Groves
Stanley J.  Kostyla
Russell R.  Reiter
Patricia D.  Slocum
Charles W.  Thompson


*** End of document. ***