Small Business: Status of SBA's 8(a) Minority Business Development
Program (Testimony, 09/18/96, GAO/T-RCED-96-259).

GAO discussed the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) Minority
Business Development Program, focusing on SBA progress in: (1) requiring
the competitive award of high-value 8(a) contracts; (2) distributing
8(a) contracts to a larger number of firms; (3) ensuring that firms rely
less on 8(a) contracts as they move through the 8(a) program; and (4)
graduating from the program firms that have demonstrated that they can
survive without 8(a) contracts. GAO noted that: (1) while the dollar
amount of 8(a) contracts awarded competitively during fiscal year (FY)
1995 increased over FY 1994, the percentage of contract dollars awarded
competitively remained at about 19 percent; (2) SBA revisions closed a
major loophole that allowed the use of indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity contracts to avoid competition; (3) although SBA made several
efforts to more widely distribute 8(a) contracts, the concentration of
8(a) program dollars to relatively few firms continued in FY 1995; (4)
during FY 1995, a larger percentage of 8(a) firms in their final year of
the program achieved the required level of non-8(a) business than was
reported for previous years; (5) during FY 1995, SBA graduated 3 firms
from the 8(a) program, the first graduations in the program's history,
and terminated another 160 firms for various reasons, and 250 firms left
the program; (6) during FY 1995, SBA approved 885 8(a) applications; and
(7) SBA provided management and technical assistance to 8(a) firms
through its 7(j) program.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-96-259
     TITLE:  Small Business: Status of SBA's 8(a) Minority Business 
             Development Program
      DATE:  09/18/96
   SUBJECT:  Minority business assistance
             Small business assistance
             Competitive procurement
             Minority business set-asides
             Federal procurement
             Contracting procedures
             Indefinite quantity contracts
             Sole source procurement
IDENTIFIER:  SBA 7(j) Management Assistance Program
             SBA 8(a) Program
             SBA Executive Education Program
             SBA Minority Business Development 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


Before the Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10 a.m.  EDT
Wednesday
September 18, 1996

SMALL BUSINESS - STATUS OF SBA'S
8(A) MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM

Statement of Judy A.  England-Joseph, Director,
Housing and Community Development Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-96-259

GAO/RCED-96-259t


(385653)


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

  IG -
  IDIQ -
  SBA -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) 8(a) minority business development program. 
This program provides federal contracts to small businesses that are
owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals to help these firms develop into viable, competitive
businesses.  Firms in the program are eligible to receive financial,
management, and technical assistance from SBA to aid their
development. 

Our reports and testimonies over the years have chronicled the
difficulties that SBA has had in implementing many of the changes to
the 8(a) program mandated by the Congress in the Business Opportunity
Development Reform Act of 1988 and subsequent amendments.\1 Our
testimony today focuses on SBA's progress in implementing several
changes that are of special interest to the Committee and that are
designed to make the 8(a) program an effective business development
program.  These are (1) requiring that 8(a) contracts with a large
dollar value be awarded competitively, (2) distributing 8(a)
contracts so that a larger number of firms receive them, (3) ensuring
that firms rely less on 8(a) contracts--by increasing their business
that does not come through the 8(a) program--as they move through the
9-year program period, and (4) "graduating" from the program firms
that have demonstrated that they can survive without 8(a) contracts. 
As requested, we will also provide information on SBA's denials of
firms seeking to enter the program, and discuss SBA's efforts to
provide management and technical assistance to firms in the 8(a)
program. 

Our statement today is based primarily on information that we
obtained from SBA through fiscal year 1995, the latest year for which
complete data were available.  Most of this data came directly from
SBA's automated systems.  We did not independently verify the
accuracy of this data. 

In summary:  some progress has been made, but SBA has not yet
achieved key changes mandated by the Congress.  Specifically,

  -- While the dollar amount of 8(a) contracts awarded competitively
     during fiscal year 1995 increased over fiscal year 1994, the
     percentage of contract dollars awarded competitively remained at
     about 19 percent. 

  -- The concentration of 8(a) program contract dollars in a
     relatively few firms that occurred in prior years continued in
     fiscal year 1995, with less than 1 percent of the firms
     receiving about 25 percent of all contract dollars.  This
     concentration limits the developmental opportunities available
     to other disadvantaged firms. 

  -- During fiscal year 1995, a larger percentage of the firms in
     their final program year achieved the required level of non-8(a)
     business than we reported in April 1995--58 percent compared
     with 37 percent. 

  -- During fiscal year 1995, 3 firms (among some 6,000 firms in the
     program) were graduated from the program because SBA determined
     that the firms had met their development goals and were able to
     compete in the marketplace without further 8(a) assistance. 


--------------------
\1 See Small Business:  Problems in Restructuring SBA's Minority
Business Development Program (GAO/RCED-92-68, Jan.  31, 1992); Small
Business:  Problems Continue With SBA's Minority Business Development
Program (GAO/RCED-93-145, Sept.  17,1993); Small Business:  SBA
Cannot Assess the Success of Its Minority Business Development
Program (GAO/T-RCED-94-278, July 27, 1994); and Small Business: 
Status of SBA's 8(a) Minority Business Development Program
(GAO/T-RCED-95-122, Mar.  6, 1995; GAO/T-RCED-95-149, Apr.  4, 1995). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The 8(a) program, administered by SBA's Office of Minority Enterprise
Development, is one of the federal government's primary vehicles for
developing small businesses that are owned by minorities and other
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.  Firms that
enter the program are eligible to receive contracts that federal
agencies designate as 8(a) contracts without competition from firms
outside the program.  During fiscal year 1995, 6,002 firms
participated in the 8(a) program.  SBA data show that during fiscal
year 1995, 6,625 new contracts and 25,199 contract modifications,
totaling about $5.82 billion were awarded to 8(a) firms. 

To be eligible for the 8(a) program, a firm must be a small business
that is at least 51-percent owned and controlled by one or more
socially and economically disadvantaged persons.  A business is small
if it meets the SBA standard for size established for its particular
industry.  Members of certain ethnic groups, such as black and
hispanic Americans, are presumed to be socially disadvantaged.  To be
economically disadvantaged as well, socially disadvantaged
individuals cannot have personal net worth (excluding equity in a
personal residence and ownership in the firms) exceeding $250,000. 
In addition, the firm must be an eligible business and possess a
reasonable prospect for success in the private sector.  Firms can
participate in the 8(a) program for a maximum of 9 years. 

The Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 marked the
third major effort by the Congress to improve SBA's administration of
the 8(a) program and to emphasize its business development aspects. 
The legislation affirmed that the measure of success for the 8(a)
program would be the number of firms that leave the program without
being unreasonably reliant on 8(a) contracts and that are able to
compete on an equal basis in the mainstream of the American economy. 
Over the years, reports by GAO, SBA's Inspector General, and others
have identified continuing problems with SBA's administration of the
program and/or with the program's ability to develop firms that could
successfully compete in the marketplace after leaving the program. 


   PERCENTAGE OF COMPETITIVELY
   AWARDED 8(A) CONTRACT DOLLARS
   WAS ABOUT THE SAME
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

To help develop firms and better prepare them to compete in the
commercial marketplace after they leave the program, the act requires
that 8(a) program contracts be awarded competitively to 8(a) firms
when the total contract price, including the estimated value of
contract options, exceeds $5 million for manufacturing contracts or
$3 million for all other contracts. 

Of the approximately $3.13 billion in new 8(a) contracts awarded in
fiscal year 1995, about $610 million, or 19.5 percent of the total
dollar amount, was awarded competitively.  In comparison, in fiscal
year 1994, about $380 million, or 18.5 percent of the $2.06 billion
in new 8(a) contracts, was awarded competitively.  Between fiscal
years 1991 and 1995, the total dollar value of new 8(a) contract
awards increased by about 96 percent, while the value of contracts
awarded competitively increased by about 190 percent.  Appendix I
shows the number and the dollar value of 8(a) contracts awarded
competitively in fiscal years 1991 through 1995. 

SBA's June 1995 revisions to the 8(a) program regulations closed a
major loophole involving the competitive award of indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  IDIQ contracts are
used when an agency does not know the precise quantity of supplies or
services to be provided under a contract.  As the agency identifies a
specific need for goods or services, it modifies the IDIQ contract to
reflect the actual costs associated with providing that quantity of
goods or services, up to the maximum amount specified in the
contract. 

Before the June 1995 revisions, SBA's 8(a) program regulations
required that an agency, when determining whether an IDIQ contract
should be offered on a competitive or noncompetitive (sole-source)
basis, consider only the guaranteed minimum value of the contract
rather than the estimated total contract amount.  According to SBA,
IDIQ contracts were often improperly used simply to avoid the need
for competition, and wide differences often occurred between the
guaranteed minimum values of IDIQ contracts and the amount eventually
spent by agencies under the contracts.  To avoid this problem, the
June 1995 regulations require that for all 8(a) program contracts SBA
accepts after August 7, 1995, including IDIQ contracts, the procuring
agency must consider the total estimated value of the contract,
including the value of contract options, when determining whether the
contract should be awarded competitively. 


   CONTRACT DOLLARS CONTINUED TO
   BE CONCENTRATED IN A SMALL
   PERCENTAGE OF FIRMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The concentration of 8(a) contract dollars among relatively few firms
is a long-standing condition that continued in fiscal year 1995.  SBA
data show that in fiscal year 1995, 50 firms--less than 1 percent of
the 6,002 total firms in the 8(a) program during the fiscal
year--received about $1.46 billion, or about 25 percent of the $5.82
billion in total 8(a) contracts awarded.  In fiscal year 1994, 50
firms--about 1 percent of the 5,155 firms then in the program--also
received about 25 percent of the $4.37 billion in total 8(a) contract
dollars awarded during the fiscal year.  Twelve firms that were among
the top 50 in fiscal year 1995 were also among the top 50 firms in
the previous year.  Furthermore, 22 firms that were among the top 50
in fiscal year 1994 were also among the top 50 firms in fiscal year
1993.  Appendix II contains a table that shows the range of total
contracts dollars awarded to the top 50 firms for fiscal years 1992
through 1995. 

While 8(a) contract dollars continue to be concentrated in a
relatively few firms, many economically disadvantaged firms do not
receive any 8(a) program contracts.  SBA data show that of the 6,002
firms in the program during fiscal year 1995, 3,267 firms, about 54
percent, did not receive any program contracts during the fiscal
year.  In comparison, in fiscal year 1994, 56 percent of the 8(a)
firms did not receive any program contracts. 

As we testified in April 1995\2 , a key reason for the continuing
concentration of contract dollars among a relatively few firms is the
conflicting objectives confronting procuring officials, according to
SBA officials.  In SBA's view, the primary objective of procuring
officials is to accomplish their agency's mission at a reasonable
cost; for these officials, the 8(a) program's business development
objectives are secondary.  At the same time, the agency's procurement
goals for the 8(a) program are stated in terms of the dollar value of
contracts awarded.  According to SBA, the easiest way for agencies to
meet these goals is to award a few large contracts to a few firms,
preferably firms with which the agencies have had experience and
whose capabilities are known. 

In addition, according to SBA the concentration of firms receiving
8(a) contracts is no different than the concentration among firms
that occurs in the normal course of federal procurement.  However,
while this may be true for federal procurement overall, the Congress
in amending the 8(a) program in 1988 sought to increase the number of
competitive small businesses owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals through the fair and equitable
distribution of federal contracting opportunities. 

In 1995, SBA made several efforts to increase the award of 8(a)
contracts to firms that had never received contracts.  SBA required
its district offices to develop action plans to increase the number
of 8(a) contract opportunities offered to a greater percentage of
8(a) firms.  These action plans were to include specific initiatives
for marketing the program to federal procurement offices in their
jurisdictions.  In addition, the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs agreed to give special emphasis to 8(a) firms that had never
received contracts.  Although SBA has not assessed the impact of
these activities on increasing contract awards, SBA officials believe
that these steps have helped in getting 8(a) contracts to firms that
had never received them. 

At the same time, in the view of SBA officials, the fact that some
firms do not receive any 8(a) contracts may not be a problem because
not all firms enter the program to receive 8(a) contracts.  Rather,
some firms, according to SBA officials, seek 8(a) certification in
order to qualify as disadvantaged firms for other federal programs,
such as the highway construction program funded by the Department of
Transportation, or state and city programs that set aside contracts
for disadvantaged firms. 


--------------------
\2 Small Business:  Status of SBA's 8(a) Minority Business
Development Program (GAO/T-RCED-95-149, Apr.  4, 1995). 


   LARGER PERCENTAGE OF FIRMS MET
   TARGET LEVELS OF NON-8(A)
   BUSINESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

To increase the program's emphasis on business development and the
viability of firms leaving the program, the act directed SBA to
establish target levels of non-8(a) business for firms during their
last 5 years in the program.  The non-8(a) target levels increase
during each of the 5 years, from a minimum of 15 percent of a firm's
total contract dollars during its fifth year to a minimum of 55
percent in the firm's ninth or final program year.  SBA field
offices, as part of their annual reviews of firms, are responsible
for determining whether firms achieve these target levels. 

In April 1995, we testified that SBA data showed that while 72
percent of the firms in their fifth year that had 8(a) sales met or
exceeded the minimum 15-percent non-8(a) target established for the
fifth year, only 37 percent of the firms in their ninth or final
program year that had 8(a) sales met or exceeded the minimum
55-percent target established for that year.  The data also showed
that of the 1,038 firms in the fifth through the ninth year of their
program term that had 8(a) sales, 37 percent did not meet the minimum
targets. 

SBA data for fiscal year 1995 showed that of the 8(a) firms in their
fifth year that had 8(a) sales during the fiscal year, about 85
percent met or exceeded the minimum non-8(a) business target of 15
percent established for that year.  In comparison, of the 8(a) firms
in their ninth or final program year that had 8(a) sales during the
fiscal year, 58 percent met or exceeded the minimum non-8(a) business
target of 55 percent established for that year.  Appendix III shows
the extent to which firms met their target levels for fiscal year
1995. 

In a September 1995 report, SBA's Inspector General (IG) discussed
SBA's problems in enforcing the business-mix requirements.  According
to the IG, over one-third of the 8(a) firms in the last 5 years of
their program term did not meet the business-mix requirements, yet
they accounted for about $1.4 billion (63 percent) of total 8(a)
contract revenues of all firms subject to the requirements.  The IG
noted that SBA's regulations identify a range of remedial actions
that the agency can take to improve firms' compliance with the
requirements, including reducing or eliminating sole-source 8(a)
contract awards, and that SBA personnel have the discretion of
selecting which remedial actions to impose.  The IG found, however,
that SBA personnel often took minimal or no action when firms did not
meet the requirements, and firms continued to obtain 8(a) contracts
even though they were not complying with the regulations to develop
non-8(a) business. 

To address this problem, the IG recommended that SBA limit the dollar
value of new 8(a) contracts awarded to firms that do not meet their
non-8(a) business target levels.  SBA concurred with this
recommendation and in March 1996 stated that it was exploring two
options--eliminating all new 8(a) contracts to firms that do not meet
their non-8(a) business levels, or placing a limit on the dollar
value of 8(a) contracts awarded to such firms.  In September 1996, an
SBA official told us that the agency could not propose regulations
implementing such restrictions until the Department of Justice
finalizes its regulations regarding federal affirmative action
programs. 

The IG's September 1995 report also concluded that SBA could not
measure the success of the 8(a) program as defined by the Congress,
namely the number of firms that leave the program without being
unreasonably reliant\3 on 8(a) contracts and that are able to compete
on an equal basis in the mainstream of the American economy.  The IG
reported that SBA's procedures did not provide for compiling and
reporting data on the (1) number of companies that met their
business-mix requirements while in the program and (2) companies that
remained in business after they no longer had 8(a) revenues.  As a
result, the IG concluded that neither SBA nor the Congress could
determine whether the 8(a) program was accomplishing its intended
purpose or whether any changes to the program were needed. 

To address these problems, the IG recommended that SBA annually
compile data on the numbers of firms that leave the 8(a) program that
are unreasonably reliant on 8(a) contracts and those that are not. 
The IG also recommended that SBA (1) track former 8(a) firms after
they have completed all 8(a) contracts to determine whether they are
still in business and (2) annually determine how many of the firms
that are still in business were unreasonably reliant on 8(a)
contracts when they left the program.  With regard to this
recommendation, the IG noted that responses to a questionnaire it
sent to former 8(a) firms that had been out of the program for
approximately 1.5 to 5.5 years showed that many firms still had
substantial revenues from carryover 8(a)contracts.  For example, 23
percent of the respondents reported that more than 50 percent of
their total revenues were from 8(a) contracts. 

In March 1996, SBA stated that it would begin to annually compile
data on the number of firms leaving the 8(a) program that met or did
not meet the business-mix requirements and, as a result, were or were
not unreasonably reliant on 8(a) program contracts.  SBA also stated
that it was currently tracking 8(a) graduates to determine their
current status and levels of revenues.  Finally, SBA announced that
it was developing a more thorough survey to track graduates and was
considering using external data sources, such as Dun and Bradstreet,
for this information.  As of September 1996, SBA had not developed
this survey.  According to an SBA official, work on this project has
been delayed by several factors, including the furloughs of SBA staff
and the turnover of a top SBA official. 


--------------------
\3 SBA has interpreted the language "not unreasonably reliant" to
mean 8(a) firms that have met the appropriate non-8(a) business
target. 


   FEW FIRMS GRADUATE FROM PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

SBA's regulations provide that any firm that (1) substantially
achieves its business development goals and objectives before
completing its program term and (2) has demonstrated the ability to
compete in the marketplace without 8(a) program assistance may be
graduated from the 8(a) program.  According to the regulations,
factors SBA is to consider in deciding whether to graduate a firm
include the firm's sales, net worth, working capital, overall
profitability, access to credit and capital, and management capacity
and capability.  SBA may also consider whether the firm's business
and financial profile compares positively with the profiles of
non-8(a) firms in the same area or a similar line of business.  A
determination of whether a firm should be graduated is a part of
SBA's annual review of each firm.  A firm has the option to appeal
SBA's determination that it graduate from the 8(a) program.  After
graduating, a firm is no longer eligible to receive 8(a) contracts. 

According to SBA data, during fiscal year 1995, SBA graduated three
firms from the program--the first graduations in the program's
history, according to SBA officials.  The data also show that during
fiscal year 1995, SBA terminated another 160 firms from the program
for various reasons, including failure to comply with program
requirements, and 250 more firms left the program because their
program terms had expired during the fiscal year.  According to SBA
officials, SBA usually does not require that a firm graduate because
of anticipated appeals and the difficulty in enforcing the graduation
requirement, especially if the firm disagrees with SBA's decision. 

SBA's IG has identified companies that should have been, but were
not, graduated from the 8(a) program.  For example, the IG reported
in September 1994 that its examination of 50 of the larger 8(a) firms
found that most of these firms were larger and more profitable than
firms not in the program.  Specifically, the IG's review showed that
32 of the 50 8(a) firms exceeded their respective industries'
averages for the following five performance factors:  business
assets, revenues, gross profits, working capital, and net worth.  The
IG concluded that allowing such firms to continue in the program
deprived other truly economically disadvantaged firms of 8(a)
assistance and understated the 8(a) program's overall success because
firms that had demonstrated success were not graduated. 

In May 1995, as a result of the IG's review, SBA established
requirements for its field staff to (1) compare annually five
financial performance factors of 8(a) firms with the industry
averages for companies in the same line of business and (2) consider
graduation from the program for any 8(a) firm that meets or exceeds
three of the averages.  However, a February 1996 evaluation by SBA of
annual reviews conducted by SBA field staff of 8(a) firms raises
questions about the ability of the field staff to conduct such
analysis.  SBA noted that the staffs' financial analyses are very
poor, staff members do not fully understand the concepts of economic
disadvantage, financial condition of the firm, and access to capital,
and the annual reviews contained few comparisons of the condition of
8(a) firms with similar businesses.  To address this problem, SBA
recommended that field staff receive training in financial analysis
and guidance on the concept of continuing economic disadvantage.  As
of September 1996, SBA planned to provide this training during a
national meeting planned for October or November 1996. 


   APPLICATIONS PROCESSED AND
   MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE PROVIDED IN FISCAL
   YEAR 1995
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

I would now like to provide some overall statistics regarding SBA's
disposition of applications made to the 8(a) program during fiscal
year 1995, and the amount of management and technical assistance
provided during the year. 


      APPLICATIONS PROCESSED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6.1

SBA data show that during fiscal year 1995, SBA processed 1,306 8(a)
program applications.  SBA approved 696 of the applications and
initially denied the remaining 610.  Among the reasons cited for
denying the 610 applications were the following: 

  -- The firm lacked potential for success (367 applications). 

  -- The socially and economically disadvantaged individual did not
     own or control the firm (364 applications). 

  -- The individual who owned and controlled the firm was not
     socially or economically disadvantaged (263 applications). 

  -- The firm was a type of business that is not eligible to
     participate in the program (78 applications). 

Of the 610 applications that SBA initially denied, 323 were
reconsidered and 189 were subsequently approved, bringing to 885 the
total number of applications approved during fiscal year 1995.  In
comparison, SBA ultimately approved 1,107 of the 1,536 applications
it processed in fiscal year 1994, and 540 of the 819 applications it
processed in fiscal year 1993. 


      MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL
      ASSISTANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6.2

As small businesses, 8(a) firms are eligible to receive management
and technical assistance from various sources to aid their
development.  SBA's primary source of such assistance has been its
7(j) program.  Authorized by section 7(j) of the Small Business Act,
as amended, the 7(j) program provides seminars and individual
assistance to 8(a) firms.  The 8(a) firms are also eligible to
receive assistance from SBA's Executive Education Program, which is
designed to provide the owners/managers of 8(a) firms with executive
development training at a university.  SBA may also provide 7(j)
assistance to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals
whose firms are not in the 8(a) program, firms located in areas of
high unemployment, and firms owned by low-income individuals. 

In fiscal year 1995, SBA spent about $7.6 million for 7(j) assistance
to 4,604 individuals.  This figure included individuals from 1,785
8(a) firms that received an aggregate of 9,452 days of assistance,
and 190 firms that received executive training under SBA's Executive
Education Program. 

In fiscal year 1996, SBA changed the focus of the 7(j) program to
provide only executive-level training.  The individual assistance and
seminar training previously provided will be provided by SBA's Small
Business Development Centers and Service Corps of Retired Executives. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6.3

This concludes my prepared statement.  I would be glad to respond to
any questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have. 


8(A) CONTRACTS AND DOLLARS AWARDED
COMPETITIVELY FOR FISCAL YEARS
1991 THROUGH 1995
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                 ((Dollars in billions))

8(a) contracts--      Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year
dollars and percent          1991          1992          1993          1994          1995
-------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Number of new               4,576         4,693         5,481         5,990         6,625
 contracts awarded
Number of new                  86           139           202           174           283
 contracts awarded
 competitively
Percent of new               1.88          2.96          3.69          2.89          4.27
 contracts awarded
 competitively
Dollar amount of            $1.60         $1.70         $2.21         $2.06         $3.13
 new contracts
 awarded
Dollar amount of            $0.21         $0.34         $0.34         $0.38         $0.61
 new contracts
 awarded
 competitively
Percent of new              13.13         20.00         15.38         18.45         19.49
 contract dollars
 awarded
 competitively
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  SBA. 


RANGE OF TOTAL 8(A) CONTRACT
DOLLARS AWARDED TO TOP 50 8(A)
FIRMS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992
THROUGH 1995
========================================================== Appendix II

                                 ((Dollars in millions))

(a) contracts--
dollars and
percent            Fiscal year 1992  Fiscal year 1993  Fiscal year 1994  Fiscal year 1995
-----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
Total 8(a)                    $91.6             $71.2             $57.2             $97.1
 contract dollars
 awarded to top
 8(a) firm
Total 8(a)                    $13.2             $14.2             $12.0             $16.9
 contract dollars
 awarded to
 fiftieth 8(a)
 firm
Total 8(a)                 $4,167.9          $4,333.4          $4,370.0          $5,820.7
 contract dollars
 awarded during
 fiscal year
Total 8(a)                 $1,227.7          $1,075.1          $1,083.0          $1,461.4
 contract dollars
 awarded to top
 50 firms
Percent of total               29.5              24.8              24.8              25.1
 8(a) contract
 dollars awarded
 to top 50 firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  SBA. 


ANALYSIS OF 8(A) FIRMS' COMPLIANCE
WITH THEIR NON-8 (A) BUSINESS
REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
========================================================= Appendix III

                Required
                level of                 Number of    Percent of   Number of   Percent of
                non-8(a)                firms with    firms with  firms with   firms with
                business       Total    8(a) sales    8(a) sales  8(a) sales   8(a) sales
             (percent of   number of   that met or   that met or    that did     that did
Program            total  firms with      exceeded      exceeded    not meet     not meet
year           revenues)  8(a) sales        levels        levels      levels       levels
----------  ------------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ----------  -----------
5                  15-25         266           227            85          39           15
6                  25-35         319           239            75          80           25
7                  35-45         189           140            74          49           26
8                  45-55         148            87            59          61           41
9                  55-75         198           114            58          84           42
=========================================================================================
Total                          1,120           807            72         313           28
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  SBA. 


*** End of document. ***