Energy Management: DOE Can Improve Distribution of Dollars Awarded Under
SBA's 8(a) Program (Letter Report, 02/23/94, GAO/RCED-94-28).
Contract dollars awarded by the Energy Department (DOE) under the Small
Business Administration's 8(a) program are concentrated among a small
number of firms. Nearly 60 percent of DOE's $1 billion worth of active
contracts in April 1992 went to 13 firms. This concentration is due, in
part, to the fact that DOE, like other federal agencies, is authorized
to direct noncompetitive 8(a) awards to firms that it specifies. In
addition, DOE's Oak Ridge office has contributed to the concentration of
awards by combining several procurements into a single larger
procurement, resulting in the award of only one contract rather than
several. Although these practices are not prohibited, DOE is missing an
opportunity to have a positive impact on a large number of firms.
Agencies are required to award 8(a) contracts competitively if the
estimated prices of the contracts exceed certain thresholds. DOE,
however, has kept price estimates for contracts artificially low and
structured contracts so that their estimated prices fall below the
thresholds specified for competition. This practice has further
contributed to the concentration of 8(a) contract dollars among a small
number of firms.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-94-28
TITLE: Energy Management: DOE Can Improve Distribution of Dollars
Awarded Under SBA's 8(a) Program
DATE: 02/23/94
SUBJECT: Small business assistance
Small business contracts
Small business contractors
Sole source contracts
Procurement procedures
Disadvantaged persons
Procurement policies
Federal procurement
Minority business contracts
IDENTIFIER: SBA 8(a) 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives
February 1994
ENERGY MANAGEMENT - DOE CAN
IMPROVE DISTRIBUTION OF DOLLARS
AWARDED UNDER SBA'S 8(A) PROGRAM
GAO/RCED-94-28
DOE's Distribution of 8(a) Contract Dollars
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOE - Department of Energy
SBA - Small Business Administration
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-254247
February 23, 1994
The Honorable Jimmy Hayes
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight
Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As of April 1992, the Department of Energy (DOE) had an estimated $1
billion worth of active contracts with firms participating in the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program. One of the goals
of this program is to give small business concerns owned by socially
and economically disadvantaged people an opportunity to perform
contracts let by federal agencies. While we have previously reported
on SBA's management of the 8(a) program, this report addresses only
DOE's contracts with firms in the 8(a) program. ("Related GAO
Products," at the end of this report, lists additional reports on the
program.)
The Subcommittee, concerned about the equitable distribution of DOE's
contract awards to firms in the 8(a) program, asked us to determine
(1) whether DOE's contract dollars under the program are concentrated
among a small number of firms and, if so, why and (2) whether DOE has
avoided the requirements for competition in order to ensure that
these contracts are awarded noncompetitively. We conducted our
review at DOE headquarters and the agency's Oak Ridge office. These
two offices account for about 44 percent of DOE's active 8(a)
contract awards and over 72 percent of DOE's estimated $1 billion
worth of active contracts under the program.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The contract dollars awarded by DOE under the 8(a) program are
concentrated among a relatively small number of firms. About 58
percent of DOE's $1 billion worth of active contracts as of April
1992 were awarded to 13 firms. The remaining 42 percent of DOE's
funds were distributed among 112 firms. This concentration of award
dollars is due in part to the fact that DOE, like other federal
agencies, is authorized by the Small Business Act, as amended, to
direct noncompetitive 8(a) awards to firms it specifies. As a
result, about 92 percent of the active 8(a) contracts let by DOE
headquarters and the Oak Ridge office were awarded noncompetitively
to 8(a) firms specified by DOE. The federal government as a whole
follows a similar pattern, awarding about 95 percent of its 8(a)
contracts noncompetitively. In addition, DOE's Oak Ridge office has
contributed to the concentration of awards among a small number of
firms by combining several procurements into single larger
procurements, thereby awarding only one contract rather than several.
While these practices are not prohibited, DOE is missing an
opportunity to have a positive impact on a larger number of firms.
DOE has avoided the act's requirements for competition so that it can
award contracts under the 8(a) program noncompetitively. The act
requires, among other things, that agencies award these contracts
competitively if the estimated prices of the contracts exceed certain
thresholds. However, DOE headquarters has kept price estimates for
contracts artificially low and structured contracts so that their
estimated prices are below the thresholds for competition specified
in the act. DOE's avoidance of these requirements has further
contributed to the concentration of the 8(a) contract dollars among a
small number of firms.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
One of the purposes of the 8(a) program, established by the Small
Business Act of 1953, is to help small businesses owned by socially
and economically disadvantaged people become successful competitors
in the American free enterprise system. The program provides firms
with assistance in business management and opportunities to perform
federal contracts. By directing federal procurements to firms owned
by socially and economically disadvantaged people, the program is
intended to develop in these firms the business skills necessary to
compete in the commercial marketplace.
Under statutes and federal regulations, SBA and the contracting
agencies provide opportunities for firms in the 8(a) program to
participate in the performance of federal contracts by matching their
capabilities with the agencies' contracting requirements. The act
authorizes SBA to enter into contracts with federal agencies and to
award subcontracts on behalf of those agencies to firms in the 8(a)
program. Under the program, an agency offers a procurement to SBA
for (1) competition among firms in the program or (2) a
noncompetitive award to a firm specified by either the agency or SBA.
On receipt of an agency's offer, SBA determines whether it will
accept the procurement for the program. For noncompetitive awards,
the act, as amended, generally requires SBA to accept a firm
specified by an agency.
DOE'S 8(A) AWARD DOLLARS ARE
CONCENTRATED AMONG A SMALL
NUMBER OF FIRMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
DOE's contract dollars under the program are concentrated among a
relatively small number of firms. As of April 1992, DOE had 199
active 8(a) contracts, with an estimated value of about $1 billion,
with 125 firms. Over $585 million, or about 58 percent of this
amount, was awarded to 13 firms under 40 contracts. (App. I lists
the 13 firms.) This figure included about $269 million awarded to the
top two firms through nine contracts at five DOE locations. In
contrast, the remaining 112 firms received a total of about $418
million under 159 contracts.\1 This figure included 40 awards to the
bottom 36 firms, totaling less than $10 million, or about 1 percent
of DOE's 8(a) contract dollars. Figure 1 shows the concentration, as
of April 1992, of the contract dollars awarded by DOE to firms in the
8(a) program.
Figure 1: DOE's Distribution
of Dollars Under Active
Contracts With Firms in SBA's
8(a) Program, as of April 1992
(See figure in printed
edition.)
This degree of concentration among a relatively small number of firms
is similar to that for the federal government as a whole in its
participation in the program. For example, in January 1992 we
reported that at the end of fiscal year 1990, fewer than 2 percent of
firms in the program received about 40 percent of the 8(a) contracts
awarded during that fiscal year.\2
DOE's 8(a) contract dollars are concentrated, in part, because the
agency specifies which contractors will receive these awards, as
authorized by the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act.
Specifically, the act does not require that manufacturing contracts
with anticipated award prices at or below $5 million and
nonmanufacturing contracts with anticipated award prices at or below
$3 million be awarded competitively.\3 These contracts can be awarded
noncompetitively to firms in the 8(a) program that are specified by
the contracting agencies. The act requires SBA to award
noncompetitive contracts to the firms specified by the contracting
agencies as long as the (1) firms can responsibly perform the
contracts, (2) awards are in accordance with the business plans the
firms developed for participation in the 8(a) program, and (3) awards
do not result in 8(a) contract support to the recipient that exceeds
an allowable percentage of the firm's total sales.
As authorized by the act, DOE has specified the contractors for its
noncompetitive contract awards. We reviewed DOE's selection of
contractors for 85 of the 87 active 8(a) contracts at DOE
headquarters and the Oak Ridge office.\4
Files on the contracts at those two locations indicate that 92
percent of the active 8(a) contracts were awarded noncompetitively to
contractors specified by DOE. DOE officials told us that they view
the authority to award noncompetitive contracts as a benefit of the
program because (1) it takes less time to award contracts if
competition is not required and (2) DOE can select contractors with
whom it is familiar rather than risk making awards competitively to
firms whose abilities are unproven.
The frequency with which DOE headquarters and the Oak Ridge office
make noncompetitive awards to firms in the 8(a) program is also
similar to that for the federal government as a whole. According to
SBA officials, about 95 percent of the procurements that agencies
offer to the 8(a) program are noncompetitive and intended for firms
specified by the agencies.
The concentration of DOE's 8(a) awards among a small number of firms
also results from the Oak Ridge office's practice of combining
several small procurements into a single award. This practice,
termed "bundling," leads to individual firms' doing diverse and
unrelated tasks under a single large contract. Simultaneously, it
reduces potential contracting opportunities for other firms. We did
not observe bundling for contracts awarded by DOE headquarters.
At Oak Ridge, a program office transferred work for janitorial
services from one 8(a) firm to another 8(a) firm that was already
providing microfiche services to the office. In addition, Oak Ridge
gave the same firm work from a second 8(a) contract involving another
20 to 25 job categories, including computer operators, librarians,
management analysts, and warehousemen.
In another case, the Oak Ridge office modified an existing 8(a)
contract for work that included technical support, analytical
studies, and museum management and operations so that the contractor
could perform tasks that had been performed by three other firms
under the program. These new tasks included (1) security services
and (2) the operation and maintenance of computer equipment, a supply
room, mailrooms, and a vehicle fleet.
According to an official at the Oak Ridge office, bundling reduces
the costs associated with awarding and managing several contracts.
However, SBA regards bundling as a practice that negatively affects
small businesses. SBA has noted, "It is evident that such practices
diminish small business opportunity and even cause some small
businesses irrevocable harm and possible permanent injury. When
agencies consolidate unrelated [underlined in original] requirements
into one acquisition the negative impact on small business is
exacerbated even further."
According to an SBA official, the effects of bundling procurements
under the 8(a) program are twofold. First, as small procurements are
bundled together into a single award, fewer procurements and fewer
dollars are available to the other firms that would have received
work under the program had the procurements remained separate. For
example, if four procurements are combined and awarded to a single
firm, the firm that receives the bundled award receives the dollars
that would have been awarded to three other firms under separate
awards. Second, as procurements become larger and more diverse, the
skills needed to qualify to perform them become broader.
Consequently, many small firms that specialize in one area of work do
not qualify to perform all the work required under the contract. SBA
officials noted, however, that despite the negative consequences of
bundling, they do not have the authority to challenge bundled awards
made to firms under the program since the practice is not prohibited
by the Small Business Act.
--------------------
\1 Data were taken from DOE's Procurement and Acquisition Data System
and included all active 8(a) contracts worth more than $25,000, as of
April 1992.
\2 Small Business: Problems in Restructuring SBA's Minority Business
Development Program (GAO/RCED-92-68, Jan. 31, 1992).
\3 An agency offering a procurement to SBA for the 8(a) program
develops the contract's anticipated award price (price estimate) and
provides it to SBA. This estimate is the primary determinant of
whether the procurement should be competitive or noncompetitive.
\4 Active 8(a) contracts at DOE headquarters and DOE's Oak Ridge
office together account for over 72 percent of the agency's active
contract dollars awarded under the program. DOE headquarters and the
Oak Ridge office have 56 and 31 active 8(a) contracts, respectively.
One file for a contract awarded by DOE headquarters had been
transferred to the agency's Albuquerque office, and one file at Oak
Ridge was not available for review. Our review therefore focused on
55 contracts at DOE headquarters and 30 contracts at Oak Ridge.
DOE AVOIDED COMPETITION
REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO AWARD
8(A) CONTRACTS NONCOMPETITIVELY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
We found that several program offices at DOE headquarters avoided the
act's requirements for competition in order to award 8(a) contracts
noncompetitively, thereby contributing further to the concentration
of contract dollars among a small number of firms. While the Small
Business Act allows agencies to award 8(a) contracts
noncompetitively, the 1988 amendment requires competition for awards
under certain circumstances. Manufacturing contracts with
anticipated award prices in excess of $5 million and nonmanufacturing
contracts estimated to be in excess of $3 million have to be offered
competitively among firms in the program if there is a reasonable
expectation that there will be at least two offerors and that the
award can be made at a fair price.
Our review of the files on active contracts at DOE headquarters
showed that several program offices at headquarters structured
procurements under the 8(a) program so that the contracts' estimated
prices would fall below the thresholds for competition and could thus
be awarded noncompetitively. Specifically, of the 29
nonmanufacturing procurements offered by DOE headquarters and
accepted by SBA after the thresholds became effective, DOE had
estimated the prices for 18 to be between $2.5 million and $3
million. However, we found that DOE program offices kept price
estimates for 6 of the 18 procurements below the $3 million
competition threshold by structuring the procurements to understate
the actual costs of obtaining the contractors' services. As a
result, the price estimates were low enough to allow the contracts to
be awarded noncompetitively. Because documentation was lacking, we
were unable to determine whether the remaining 12 procurements were
structured to avoid the thresholds for competition. At the Oak Ridge
office, we did not observe any instances of procurements being
structured to avoid the thresholds for competition.
DOE headquarters avoided the threshold by (1) reducing one contract's
price estimate by omitting a contract price element, (2) contracting
for less-skilled contractor personnel than planned, (3) reducing the
work under one contract so that only a part of an office's need was
satisfied, and (4) reducing the length of several contracts so that
their prices would not exceed $3 million. DOE sent the understated
estimates to SBA when it offered the contracts to the 8(a) program,
and these estimates were accepted by SBA. For example:
In 1990, a program office attempted to procure technical and
administrative support services for an environmental study under
an 8(a) contract. The office estimated the contract's price to
be exactly $3 million. However, according to a program
official, to ensure that the contract's price would not exceed
$3 million, the program office (1) limited the length of the
contract so that the contractor was required to provide services
for only a part of the study and (2) required the contractor to
provide less-skilled personnel than originally required. A
program official stated that because of the limited support
provided under the contract, the office has had to award a
follow-on support service contract for the remainder of the
study.
In 1991, a program office with a need for support services prepared
price estimates for both 3- and 5-year 8(a) contracts before
initiating a 3-year procurement. The 5-year estimate was $5.42
million, an amount that would have required competition. The
3-year estimate was $2.95 million, low enough to allow the
contract to be awarded noncompetitively. A program official
told us that the office decided on a 3-year contract so it could
make the award noncompetitively and thereby minimize the time
necessary for the procurement. The official also stated that,
while a formal decision on the continuation of these services
will not be made until early 1994, he expects that the office
will award a new contract for the same services when this
contract expires.
In 1991, a program office with a need for management, technical,
and administrative support services prepared a price estimate of
$2.88 million for a 2-year contract. However, in arriving at
the estimate, the office did not include the contractor's fee
for performing the work, even though the previous contractor had
received a fee equal to almost 8 percent of the contract's total
cost. This element, if included at the 8-percent level, would
have made the price estimate for the contract $3.1 million.
According to a program official, the office omitted the
contractor's fee from the estimate to avoid having to award the
contract competitively. A program official stated that because
the period of performance under the contract is only 2 years,
the office has begun another noncompetitive procurement for the
same services. The new contract will begin at the conclusion of
the current contract and will also be for 2 years.
The data in table 1 further suggest that DOE took action to avoid
competition thresholds established in the Business Opportunity
Development Reform Act. Before the thresholds took effect on October
1, 1989, 8(a) contracts could be awarded noncompetitively regardless
of their estimated prices. Of the 26 nonmanufacturing procurements
offered by DOE headquarters and accepted by SBA before October 1,
1989, 10 were estimated to exceed $3 million. Three procurements had
estimated prices of between $2.5 million and $3 million. However, of
the 29 nonmanufacturing procurements accepted by SBA after the
effective date of the amendment, no procurement was estimated to
exceed the $3 million threshold. Eighteen of the 29 procurements had
estimated prices of between $2.5 million and $3 million. This figure
included nine contracts worth between $2.9 million and $3 million.
Table 1
DOE Headquarters' Nonmanufacturing
Procurements Accepted by SBA Before and
After the Requirement for Competition
for Contracts Over $3 Million
Price estimate Before After
---------------------------------------- -------- --------
Above $3,000,000 10 0
$2,900,001 -$3,000,000 3 9
$2,500,001 -$2,900,000 0 9
$2,000,001 -$2,500,000 1 1
Below $2,000,001 12 10
============================================================
Total 26 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Includes active contracts as of April 1992.
According to program officials at DOE headquarters, contracts awarded
noncompetitively are desirable because they can be awarded more
quickly than contracts that require competition, and they can be
awarded to contractors with whom DOE is familiar. However, when an
agency avoids competition in order to make awards, contract dollars
under the 8(a) program can become concentrated among firms already
performing work. For example, at DOE headquarters, five of the six
procurements that we identified as being structured to avoid
competition were awarded to three contractors that were already
performing under contracts with DOE headquarters. The three
contractors have received over 40 percent of DOE headquarters' 8(a)
contract dollars since the thresholds for competition became
effective.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Support for the 8(a) contract program by federal agencies is an
important tool in promoting the development of small businesses owned
by socially and economically disadvantaged people. However, the
benefits of this program depend on the agencies' providing adequate
opportunities for firms to participate. While DOE's estimated $1
billion in active 8(a) contracts indicates that the agency has made a
special effort to support firms in the 8(a) program, the benefits of
DOE's support have been concentrated among a relatively small number
of firms. Approximately 58 percent of DOE's $1 billion in 8(a)
contracts has been awarded to just 13 firms, while 112 firms shared
the remainder.
The Business Opportunity Development Reform Act authorizes the award
of noncompetitive contracts to 8(a) firms designated by federal
agencies. Additionally, the act does not prohibit the bundling of
several small procurements into one large contract. However, DOE has
an opportunity to increase the benefits of its support for firms in
the 8(a) program by better distributing its awards among them. DOE
could, among other things, emphasize the intent of the 8(a) program
rather than the convenience and administrative ease of (1) combining
several procurements into individual awards and (2) awarding
contracts to firms with which it is familiar.
The act does not allow the same latitude with respect to what it
defines as competitive 8(a) procurements--procurements anticipated to
be in excess of the stated thresholds. The act requires that
contracts exceeding these thresholds be awarded competitively. Yet
we found that program offices at DOE headquarters structured
procurements so that their estimated prices fell below the thresholds
and thus awarded the contracts on a noncompetitive basis. According
to the DOE program officials, they have avoided the competition
requirements to facilitate procurements. However, ease of
procurement is not a legitimate reason for avoiding competition.
More importantly, actions like this do little to demonstrate DOE's
commitment to the 8(a) program. For these reasons, this practice
should be discontinued.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
To meet the objectives of the 8(a) program, we recommend that the
Secretary of Energy direct program offices at headquarters to avoid
structuring 8(a) procurements to avoid the thresholds for competition
established in the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act.
Furthermore, because we do not know the extent to which this practice
may be occurring elsewhere, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy
provide the same direction to offices at other DOE locations, as
appropriate.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE said that it will
carefully evaluate our recommendation as part of its ongoing effort
to reform its contract management and that it will review the
competitive impacts of its current practices. In addition, DOE noted
that the dollar value of its 8(a) awards reflects its commitment to
maximizing opportunities for contractors in the program. These
efforts are recognized in our report. DOE further stated that as
part of its commitment to 8(a) firms, it has initiated a pilot
program to expand the participation in DOE contracts of developing
8(a) firms. Although the pilot program is commendable, it is not
part of SBA's 8(a) program. Specifically, the pilot program involves
subcontracts awarded by DOE's management and operating contractors to
small disadvantaged firms. As noted earlier, the 8(a) program
involves direct awards by federal agencies to SBA, which are then
awarded by SBA to 8(a) firms. DOE's comments are reproduced in
appendix II.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To determine whether DOE's 8(a) contract dollars are concentrated
among a small number of firms, we analyzed data for all of the
agency's active 8(a) contracts worth more than $25,000, as reported
in DOE's Procurement and Acquisition Data System. We calculated each
contractor's share of the 8(a) dollars by totaling the estimated
dollar value of all the contracts.
To determine why DOE's 8(a) awards were concentrated and whether DOE
had avoided competition requirements in awarding 8(a) contracts, we
reviewed contract files and obtained documentation on the agency's
selection of contractors under the program from the files for 85 of
the 87 active 8(a) contracts awarded by DOE headquarters and the Oak
Ridge office. DOE headquarters has 56 active 8(a) contracts awarded
beginning in fiscal year 1985. Oak Ridge has 31, the earliest of
which was awarded in fiscal year 1986. We conducted our review at
DOE headquarters and the Oak Ridge office because these two offices
account for about 44 percent of the agency's active contract awards
and over 72 percent of the agency's estimated $1 billion in active
contracts under the program. We also interviewed officials from the
program and procurement offices at DOE headquarters and Oak Ridge.
We conducted our review from July 1992 to December 1993 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
provide copies to the Secretary of Energy; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; the House and Senate Committees on Small
Business; the House Committee on Government Operations; the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and other interested parties. We
will make copies available to others on request.
This work was performed under the direction of Victor S. Rezendes,
Director, Energy and Science Issues, who can be reached at (202)
512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Keith O. Fultz
Assistant Comptroller General
TOP 13 FIRMS IN THE 8(A) PROGRAM
MEASURED BY VALUE OF ACTIVE DOE
CONTRACTS, AS OF APRIL 1992
=========================================================== Appendix I
Value of
DOE
Firm contracts
------------------------------------------------ ----------
Advanced Sciences, Inc. $153,080,2
86
Analysas Corporation 115,830,45
5
Comsis Corporation 46,780,257
Automated Sciences Group, Inc. 41,544,694
Systematic Management Services, Inc. 40,393,646
Science & Technology, Inc. 29,864,672
KOH Systems, Inc. 26,592,991
Lee Wan & Associates, Inc. 24,039,047
META, Inc. 23,308,517
Scientech, Inc. 22,731,140
Irving Burton Associates, Inc. 22,210,483
Authorization Systems, Inc. 19,502,959
Peer Consultants, Inc. 19,456,426
------------------------------------------------------------
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Jim Wells, Associate Director
Doris E. Cannon, Assistant Director
Robert M. Antonio, Assignment Manager
Dennis G. Coleman, Evaluator-in-Charge
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Michael G. Burros, Senior Attorney-Adviser
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
Small Business: Problems Continue With SBA's Minority Business
Development Program (GAO/RCED-93-145, Sept. 17, 1993).
Small Business: Problems in Restructuring SBA's Minority Business
Development Program (GAO/RCED-92-68, Jan. 31, 1992).
Small Business: Participation in SBA's 8(a) Business Development
Program (GAO/RCED-91-173, June 11, 1991).
Small Business Administration: Status, Operations, and Views on the
8(a) Procurement Program (GAO/RCED-88-148BR, May 24, 1988).
The SBA 8(a) Procurement Program--A Promise Unfulfilled (CED-81-55,
Apr. 8, 1981).