SBA's “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

SBA’s “8(a) Program”:

Overview, History, and Current Issues

Updated March 9, 2022

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R44844

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service

Summary

The 8(a) Business Development Program—commonly known as the “8(a) Program”—provides

participating small businesses with training, technical assistance, and contracting opportunities in

the form of set-aside and sole-source awards. A set-aside award is a contract in which only certain

contractors may compete, whereas a sole-source award is a contract awarded, or proposed for

award, without competition. In FY2020, 8(a) firms were awarded $34.0 billion in federal

contracts, including $9.3 billion in 8(a) set-aside awards and $11.1 billion in 8(a) sole-source

awards. Other programs provide similar assistance to other types of small businesses (e.g.,

women-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned).

8(a) Program eligibility is generally limited to small businesses “unconditionally owned and

controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good

character and citizens of and residing in the United States” that demonstrate “potential for

success.”

Members of certain racial and ethnic groups are presumed to be socially disadvantaged, although

individuals who do not belong to these groups may prove they are also socially disadvantaged.

To be economically disadvantaged, an individual must have a net worth of less than $750,000

(excluding ownership interest in the applicant’s business, equity in their primary personal

residence, and funds invested in an official retirement account), no more than $350,000 in

average adjusted gross income over the preceding three years, and no more than $6 million in

assets (excluding funds invested in an official retirement account).

In determining whether an applicant has good character, the SBA takes into account any criminal

conduct, violations of SBA regulations, or debarment or suspension from federal contracting. For

a firm to demonstrate potential for success, it generally must have been in business in its primary

industry classification for two years immediately prior to applying to the program. However,

small businesses owned by Alaska Native Corporations, Community Development Corporations,

Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian Organizations are eligible to participate in the 8(a) Program

under somewhat different terms. Each of these terms is further defined by the Small Business Act,

Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations, and judicial and administrative decisions.

This report examines the 8(a) Program’s historical development, key requirements, administrative

structures and operations, and the SBA’s oversight of 8(a) firms. It also discusses two SBA

programs designed to support 8(a) firms, the 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program

and the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program, and provides various program statistics. It concludes

with an analysis of the following current 8(a) Program issues:

 Reported deficiencies in the oversight of 8(a) Program participant’s continuing

eligibility.

 Disagreements concerning the financial thresholds used to determine economic

disadvantage.

 The adequacy of the program’s performance measures.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues 
 
Congressional Research Service 
Contents 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 
Historical Development ................................................................................................................... 3 
Program Origins ........................................................................................................................ 3 
Federal Programs for Small Businesses .............................................................................. 3 
Federal Programs for Racial and Ethnic Minorities ............................................................ 4 
1978 Amendments to the Small Business Act and Subsequent Regulations ...................... 5 
Adding “Disadvantaged” Groups .............................................................................................. 8 
Program Requirements .................................................................................................................... 9 
General Requirements ............................................................................................................. 10 
Program Eligibility ........................................................................................................... 10 
Set-Asides and Sole-Source Awards Under Section 8(a) .................................................. 13 
Other Requirements .......................................................................................................... 16 
Requirements for Tribally, ANC-, NHO-, and CDC-Owned Firms ........................................ 18 
Program Eligibility ........................................................................................................... 18 
Set-Asides and Sole-Source Awards ................................................................................. 21 
Other Requirements .......................................................................................................... 22 
Organizational Structure ................................................................................................................ 23 
The Application Process ................................................................................................................ 24 
Business Opportunity Specialists and Reporting Requirements ................................................... 27 
7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program .................................................................... 30 
All Small Mentor-Protégé Program ............................................................................................... 31 
Program Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 33 
Current Issues ................................................................................................................................ 35 
Oversight of 8(a) Program Participant’s Continuing Eligibility ............................................. 36 
Financial Thresholds for Economic Disadvantaged Status ..................................................... 38 
Measuring Program Success ................................................................................................... 39 
 
Tables 
Table 1. Groups Presumed to Be Socially Disadvantaged .............................................................. 6 
Table 2. 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program Statistics, FY2010-FY2020 ......... 31 
Table 3. 8(a) Program Statistics, Selected Years ........................................................................... 33 
Table 4. Federal Contract Amount Awarded to 8(a) Firms, by Award Type, FY2010-
FY2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 
 
Table A-1. Requirements for Different Types of 8(a) Firms ......................................................... 42 
  
Appendixes 
Appendix. Comparison of the Requirements Pertaining to Different Types of 8(a) Firms ........... 42 
 

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service

Contacts

Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 47

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 1

Introduction

The 8(a) Business Development Program—commonly known as the “8(a) Program”—provides

participating small businesses with training and technical assistance designed to enhance their

ability to compete effectively in the private marketplace.

One of the program’s major benefits is

that 8(a) firms can receive federal contracting preferences in the form of set-aside and sole-source

awards. A set-aside award is a contract in which only certain contractors may compete, whereas a

sole-source award is a contract awarded, or proposed for award, without competition. As a

business development program, its overall goal is for 8(a) firms to graduate from the program and

continue to do well in a competitive business environment.

8(a) Program eligibility is generally limited to small businesses which are “unconditionally

owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who

are of good character and citizens of and residing in the United States” and demonstrate

“potential for success.”

However, small businesses owned by Alaska Native Corporations

(ANCs), Community Development Corporations (CDCs), Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian

Organizations (NHOs) are also eligible to participate in the 8(a) Program under somewhat

different terms. In FY2020, the federal government awarded $34.0 billion to 8(a) firms:

 nearly $20.5 billion was awarded with an 8(a) preference ($9.3 billion through an

8(a) set-aside and $11.1 billion through an 8(a) sole-source award);

 $2.2 billion was awarded to an 8(a) firm in open competition with other firms;

and

 $11.3 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e.g., set-

asides and sole-source awards for small businesses generally and for HUBZone

firms, women-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned

small businesses).

Other programs provide similar assistance to other types of small businesses (e.g., women-owned,

HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned).

Congress has a perennial interest in small business programs, including the 8(a) Program. As

stated in the Small Business Act

It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Government should aid, counsel, assist,

and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small-business concerns in order to

preserve free competitive enterprise, to insure that a fair proportion of the total purchases

and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the Government (including but

not limited to contracts or subcontracts for maintenance, repair, and construction) be placed

with small-business enterprises, to insure that a fair proportion of the total sales of

The 8(a) Program takes its name from one of the sections of the Small Business Act that authorizes it. The program is

also governed by Section 7(j) of the act. The Clinton Administration changed the program’s name from the Minority

Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program to the 8(a) Business Development program in 1988 “to

emphasize that individuals need not be members of minority groups and to stress the importance of assisting

participating firms in their overall business development.” See SBA, “Small Business Size Regulations: 8(a) Business

Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations; Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before the

Office of Hearings and Appeals,” 63 Federal Register 35727, June 30, 1998.

13 C.F.R. §124.101.

Data generated using U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), “Sam.Gov data bank,” August 2, 2021, at

https://sam.gov/reports/awards/adhoc.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 2

Government property be made to such enterprises, and to maintain and strengthen the

overall economy of the Nation.

The Small Business Act also indicates “that the opportunity for full participation in our free

enterprise system by socially and economically disadvantaged persons is essential if we are to

obtain social and economic equality for such persons and improve the functioning of our national

economy.”

To help achieve these goals, the 8(a) Program’s stated statutory purposes are to

(A) promote the business development of small business concerns owned and controlled

by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals so that such concerns can compete

on an equal basis in the American economy;

(B) promote the competitive viability of such concerns in the marketplace by providing

such available contract, financial, technical, and management assistance as may be

necessary; and

supplies, services, materials, and construction work from small business concerns owned

by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

Recent Congresses have had particular interest in the 8(a) Program largely because of its effects

on minority-owned small businesses and small businesses’ overall role in job creation.

8(a) business development assistance has many forms, including business counseling and

mentoring, both in online and traditional face-to-face settings; access to capital and surety bond

guarantees; contract marketing guidance; and assistance with acquiring federal government

surplus property. In addition, the Small Business Administration (SBA) reviews and certifies

eligible clients; assigns SBA personnel (Business Opportunity Specialists, BOSs) to monitor and

measure each firm’s progress through annual reviews, business planning collaboration, and

systematic evaluations; helps to identify potential contract opportunities; and markets each firm’s

technical capabilities to federal agency procurement officials.

This report examines the 8(a) Program’s historical development, key requirements, administrative

structures and operations, and the SBA’s oversight of 8(a) firms. It also discusses two SBA

programs designed to support 8(a) firms, the 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program

and the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program, and provides various program statistics.

It concludes with an analysis of the following current 8(a) Program issues:

 Reported deficiencies in the oversight of 8(a) Program participant’s continuing

eligibility.

 Disagreements concerning the financial thresholds used to determine economic

disadvantage, including the SBA’s decision to exclude equity in a primary

residence from the calculation of an individual’s net worth.

 The adequacy of the performance measures used to evaluate the program’s

effectiveness in meeting its statutory goals.

P.L. 85-536, Small Business Act of 1958, §2(a), 72 Stat. 384 (July 18, 1958) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §631(a)).

P.L. 85-536, §2(f)(1)(a), 72 Stat. 384 (July 18, 1958) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §631(f)(1)(a)).

P.L. 85-536, §2(f)(2)(A-C), 72 Stat. 384 (July 18, 1958) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §631(f)(2)(A-C)).

See CRS Report R41523, Small Business Administration and Job Creation, by Robert Jay Dilger and CRS Report

R40985, Small Business: Access to Capital and Job Creation, by Robert Jay Dilger.

For additional information and analysis of federal Mentor-Protégé programs, see CRS Report R41722, Small Business

Mentor-Protégé Programs, by Robert Jay Dilger.

SBA, OIG, Report on the Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges in Fiscal Year 2017, p. 12.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 3

Historical Development

Program Origins

The current 8(a) Program is the result of the merger of two distinct types of federal programs:

those seeking to assist small businesses in general and those seeking to assist racial and ethnic

minorities. The merger first occurred, as a matter of executive branch practice, in 1967 and was

given a statutory basis in 1978.

Federal Programs for Small Businesses

In 1942, Congress first authorized a federal agency to enter into prime contracts with other

agencies and subcontract with small businesses for the performance of these contracts. The

agency was the Smaller War Plants Corporation (SWPC), which was partly created for this

purpose, and Congress gave it these powers to ameliorate small businesses’ financial difficulties

while “mobiliz[ing] the productive facilities of small business in the interest of successful

prosecution of the war.”

The SWPC’s subcontracting authority expired along with the SWPC at

the end of the World War II. However, in 1951, at the start of the Korean War, Congress created

the Small Defense Plants Administration (SDPA), which was generally given the same powers

that the SWPC had exercised.

Two years later, in 1953, Congress transferred the SDPA’s

subcontracting authorities, among others, to the newly created SBA,

with the intent that the

SBA would exercise these powers in peacetime, as well as in wartime.

When the Small Business

Act of 1958 transformed the SBA into a permanent agency, this subcontracting authority was

included in Section 8(a) of the act.

At its inception, the SBA’s subcontracting authority was not

limited to small businesses owned and controlled by the socially and economically

disadvantaged. Under the original Section 8(a), the SBA could contract with any “small-business

concerns or others,”

but it reportedly seldom, if ever, employed this subcontracting authority,

focusing instead upon its loan and other programs.

P.L. 77-603, Small Business Mobilization Act, §4(f), 56 Stat. 351 (June 11, 1942).

P.L. 82-96, An Act To amend and extend the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Housing and Rent Act of

1947, as amended, §110, 65 Stat. 131 (July 31, 1951).

P.L. 83-163, Reconstruction Finance Corporation Liquidation Act, §207(c)-(d), 67 Stat. 230 (July 30, 1953).

See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Banking and Currency, Small Business Act of 1953, report to accompany

H.R. 5141, 83

Cong., 1

sess., May 28, 1953, H.Rept. 83-494 (Washington: GPO, 1953), p. 2 (stating that the SBA

would “continue many of the functions of the [SDPA] in the present mobilization period and in addition would be

given powers and duties to encourage and assist small-business enterprises in peacetime as well as in any future war or

mobilization period”); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, Small Business Act, report to

accompany H.R. 7963, 85

Cong., 2

sess., June 16, 1958, pp. 9, 10 (stating that the act would “put the procurement

assistance program on a peacetime basis”).

P.L. 85-536, as amended, §8(a)(1)-(2), 72 Stat. 384 (July 18, 1958).

Thomas Jefferson Hasty, III, “Minority Business Enterprise Development and the Small Business Administration’s

8(a) Program: Past, Present, and (Is There a) Future?,” 145 Military Law Review pp. 1, 8 (Summer 1994). (“[B]ecause

the SBA believed that the efforts to start and operate an 8(a) program would not be worthwhile in terms of developing

small business, the SBA’s power to contract with other government agencies essentially went unused. The program

actually lay dormant for about fifteen years until the racial atmosphere of the 1960s provided the impetus to wrestle the

SBA’s 8(a) authority from its dormant state.”)

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 4

Federal Programs for Racial and Ethnic Minorities

Federal programs for racial and ethnic minorities began developing at approximately the same

time as those for small businesses, although there was initially no explicit overlap between them.

The earliest programs were created by executive orders, beginning with President Franklin

Roosevelt’s order on June 25, 1941, requiring that all federal agencies include a clause in

defense-related contracts prohibiting contractors from discriminating on the basis of “race, creed,

color, or national origin.”

Subsequent Presidents followed Roosevelt’s example, issuing a

number of executive orders seeking to improve the employment opportunities for various racial

and ethnic groups.

These executive branch initiatives took on new importance after the Kerner

Commission’s report on the causes of the 1966 urban riots concluded that African Americans

would need “special encouragement” to enter the economic mainstream.

Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon laid foundations for the present 8(a) Program in

the hope of providing such “encouragement.” Johnson created the President’s Test Cities Program

(PTCP), which involved a small-scale use of the SBA’s authority under Section 8(a) to award

contracts to firms willing to locate in urban areas and hire unemployed individuals, largely

African Americans, or sponsor minority-owned businesses by providing capital or management

assistance.

However, under the PTCP, small businesses did not have to be minority-owned to

receive subcontracts under Section 8(a).

Nixon’s program was larger and focused more

specifically on minority-owned small businesses.

During the Nixon Administration, the SBA

promulgated its earliest regulations for the 8(a) Program. In 1970, the first of these regulations

articulated the SBA’s policy of using Section 8(a) to “assist small concerns owned by

disadvantaged persons to become self-sufficient, viable businesses capable of competing

effectively in the market place.”

A later regulation, promulgated in 1973, defined disadvantaged

persons as including, but not limited to, “black Americans, Spanish-Americans, oriental

Americans, Eskimos, and Aleuts.”

However, the SBA lacked explicit statutory authority for

focusing its 8(a) Program on minority-owned businesses until 1978,

although courts generally

Executive Order No. 8802, “Reaffirming Policy of Full Participation in the Defense Program by All Persons,

Regardless of Race, Creed, Color, or National Origin, and Directing Certain Action in Furtherance of Said Policy,” 6

Federal Register 3109, June 25, 1941. Similar requirements were later imposed on nondefense contracts. See Executive

Order No. 9346, “Further Amending Executive Order No. 8802 by Establishing a New Committee on Fair Employment

Practice and Defining its Powers and Duties,” 8 Federal Register 7182, May 29, 1943.

See Executive Order No. 10308, “Improving the Means for Obtaining Compliance With the Nondiscrimination

Provisions of Federal Contracts,” 16 Federal Register 12303, December 3, 1951 (Truman); Executive Order No.

10557, “Approving the Revised Provision in Government Contracts Relating to Nondiscrimination in Employment,” 19

Federal Register 5655, September 3, 1954 (Eisenhower); Executive Order No. 10925, “Establishing the President’s

Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity,” 26 Federal Register 1977, March 6, 1961 (Kennedy); and Executive

Order No. 11458, “Prescribing Arrangements for Developing and Coordinating a National Program for Minority

Business Enterprise,” 34 Federal Register 4937, March 7, 1969 (Nixon).

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (known as the Kerner Commission after its chair, Governor

Otto Kerner Jr. of Illinois), Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (U.S. GPO, 1968), p. 21.

See Thomas Jefferson Hasty, III, “Minority Business Enterprise Development and the Small Business

Administration’s 8(a) Program: Past, Present, and (Is There a) Future?,” 145 Military Law Review, pp. 11, 12.

See Jonathan J. Bean, Big Government and Affirmative Action: The Scandalous History of the Small Business

Administration (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2001), p. 66.

See Executive Order No. 11625, “Prescribing Additional Arrangements for Developing and Coordinating a National

Program for Minority Business Enterprise,” 36 Federal Register 19967, October 13, 1971.

13 C.F.R. §124.8-1(b) (1970).

13 C.F.R. §124.8(c) (1973).

U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Small Business, Amending the Small Business Act and the Small

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 5

rejected challenges alleging that SBA’s implementation of the program was unauthorized because

it was “not specifically mentioned in statute.”

1978 Amendments to the Small Business Act and Subsequent Regulations

In 1978, Congress amended the Small Business Act to give the SBA express statutory authority

for its 8(a) Program for minority-owned businesses.

Under the 1978 amendments, the SBA can

only subcontract under Section 8(a) with “socially and economically disadvantaged small

business concerns,”

or businesses that are least 51% owned by one or more socially and

economically disadvantaged individuals and whose management and daily operations are

controlled by such individual(s).

The 1978 amendments established a basic definition of socially disadvantaged individuals, which

included those who have been “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of

their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.”

They also

included congressional findings that “Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans,

and other minorities” are socially disadvantaged.

Thus, if an individual was a member of one of

Business Investment Act of 1958, 95

Cong., 2

sess., August 8, 1978, S.Rept. 95-1070 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p.

14 (“One of the underlying reasons for the failure of this effort is that the program has no legislative basis.”); and U.S.

Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Amending the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment

Act of 1958, report to accompany H.R. 11318, 95

Cong., 2

sess., March 13, 1978, H.Rept. 95-949 (Washington:

GPO, 1978), p. 4 (“Congress has never extended legislative control over the activities of the 8(a) program, save through

indirect appropriations, thereby permitting program operations.… [The] program is not as successful as it could be.”).

See Ray Billie Trash Hauling, Inc. v. Kleppe, 477 F.2d 696, 703-05 (5

Cir. 1973). In this case, the court particularly

noted that the SBA’s program was supported by congressional and presidential mandates issued after enactment of the

Small Business Act in 1958.

P.L. 95-507, To amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 92 Stat. 1757

(October 24, 1978).

P.L. 95-507, To amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, §202.

P.L. 95-507, To amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, §202 (codified at 15

U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)-(B)). Firms that are owned and controlled by Indian tribes, ANCs, or NHOs were later included

within the definition of a “socially and economically disadvantaged small business concern.”

P.L. 95-507, To amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, §202 (codified at 15

U.S.C. §637(a)(5)).

P.L. 95-507, To amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, §202 (codified, as

amended, at 15 U.S.C. §631(f)(1)(C)). The meaning of socially disadvantaged individuals was the subject of much

debate at that time. Some Members of Congress viewed the 8(a) Program as a program for African Americans and

would have defined social disadvantage accordingly. See Parren J. Mitchell, “Federal Affirmative Action for MBE’s:

An Historical Analysis,” 1 National Bar Association Magazine 46 (1983). (Mitchell was a Member of the U.S. House

of Representatives and leader of the Congressional Black Caucus at that time.). Others favored including both African

Americans and Native Americans arguing that only those who did not come to the United States seeking the “American

dream” should be deemed socially disadvantaged. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Minority

Enterprise and General Oversight, General Review of Major SBA Programs and Activities, 95

Cong., 2

sess., June

20, 1978, H721-41 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 21. Yet others suggested that groups that are not racial or ethnic

minorities, such as women, should be able to qualify as “socially disadvantaged,”

or that individuals ought to be able to

prove they are personally socially disadvantaged even if they are not racial or ethnic minorities. See U.S. Congress,

House Committee on Small Business, Amending the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958,

report to accompany H.R. 11318, 95

Cong., 2

sess., March 13, 1978, H.Rept. 95-949 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p.

9. The House-passed version of the bill defined socially disadvantaged individuals, in part, by establishing a rebuttable

presumption that African Americans and Hispanic Americans are socially disadvantaged, but the Senate-passed bill did

not reference any racial or ethnic groups in defining social disadvantage. See U.S. Congress, House Committee of

Conference, Amending the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, report to accompany

H.R. 11318, 95

Cong., 2

sess., October 4, 1978, Conf. Rept. 95-1714 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 20; and U.S.

Congress, Senate Select Committee on Small Business, Amending the Small Business Act and the Small Business

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 6

these groups, he or she was presumed to be socially disadvantaged. Otherwise, the amendments

were generally seen to grant the SBA discretion to recognize additional groups or individuals as

socially disadvantaged based upon criteria promulgated in regulations.

Under these regulations,

which include a three-part test for determining whether minority groups not mentioned in the

amendment’s findings are disadvantaged,

the SBA recognized the racial or ethnic groups listed

in Table 1 as socially disadvantaged for 8(a) purposes.

The regulations also established

standards of evidence to be met by individuals demonstrating personal disadvantage and

procedures for rebutting the presumption of social disadvantage accorded to members of

recognized minority groups.

Table 1. Groups Presumed to Be Socially Disadvantaged

Group

Countries of Origin Included Within Group

Black Americans

n/a

Hispanic Americans

n/a

Investment Act of 1958, 95

Cong., 2

sess., August 8, 1978, S.Rept. 95-1070 (Washington: GPO, 1978), pp. 13-16.

The conference committee reconciling the House and Senate versions ultimately arrived at a definition of socially

disadvantaged individuals that included “those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias

because of their identity as a member of a group.” See P.L. 95-507, at §202. The conference committee also included

congressional findings that “Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and other minorities” are

socially disadvantaged. See P.L. 95-507, at §201.

Congress subsequently added “Asian Pacific Americans” (P.L. 96-302, An original bill to provide authorizations for

the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes), “Indian tribes” (P.L. 99-272, the Consolidated Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (Title XVIII—Small Business Programs), and “Native Hawaiian Organizations”

(P.L. 100-656, the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988) to the groups whom it finds to be socially

disadvantaged. See 15 U.S.C. §631(f)(1)(C)). For additional information concerning the SBA’s administrative

decisions on groups seeking to be presumed socially disadvantaged, see George R. LaNoue, and John C. Sullivan,

“Presumptions for Preferences: The Small Business Administration’s Decisions on Groups Entitled to Affirmative

Action,” Journal of Policy History, vol. 6, no. 4 (1994), at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-

history/article/presumptions-for-preferences-the-small-business-administrations-decisions-on-groups-entitled-to-

affirmative-action/99AFFC9D3FF1C1F1D520D9D3600B1E32.

P.L. 95-507, at §201 (stating that the groups Congress finds to be socially disadvantaged include, but are not limited

to, those specified here); P.L. 95-507, at §202 (authorizing the award of contracts to socially disadvantaged

individuals); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Amending the Small Business Act and the Small

Business Investment Act of 1958, report to accompany H.R. 11318, 95

Cong., 2

sess., March 13, 1978, H.Rept. 95-

949 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 9 (expressing the view that §201 and §202 of the bill provide “sufficient discretion

… to allow SBA to designate any other additional minority group or persons it believes should be afforded the

presumption of social … disadvantage”).

See 13 C.F.R. §124.103(d)(2)(i)-(iii)(1980).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(b). Different groups are sometimes recognized as socially disadvantaged for purposes of other

programs, such as those of the Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA). See 15

C.F.R. §1400.1(b). The SBA has rejected petitions from certain groups, including Hasidic Jews, women, disabled

veterans, and Iranian-Americans. See George R. La Noue and John C. Sullivan, “Gross Presumptions: Determining

Group Eligibility for Federal Procurement Preferences,” 41 Santa Clara Law Review 103, 127-129 (2000). However,

Hasidic Jews are eligible to receive assistance from the MBDA, whereas women are deemed to be disadvantaged for

purposes of the Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. See 49 U.S.C.

§47113(a)(2) (DBE program); and 15 C.F.R. §1400.1(c) (MBDA program).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(c)(2) (standards of evidence for showing personal disadvantage); and 13 C.F.R. §124.103(b)(3)

(mechanisms for overcoming the presumption of social disadvantage).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 7

Group

Countries of Origin Included Within Group

Native Americans

(including American

Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts,

Native Hawaiians)

n/a

Asian Pacific Americans

Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong

Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory

of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated

States of Micronesia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa,

Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Nauru

Subcontinent Asian

Americans

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands, Nepal

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on 13 C.F.R. §124.103(b).

The 1978 amendments also defined economically disadvantaged individuals, for purposes of the

8(a) Program, as “those socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free

enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as

compared to others in the same business area who are not socially disadvantaged.”

Initially, the

SBA determined economic disadvantage by examining

 the applicant’s personal financial condition (including their personal net worth,

personal income for at least the past two years, and the total fair market value of

their assets);

 the applicant’s access to credit and capital;

 the business’s financial condition; and

 the business’s access to credit, capital, and markets.

Over the years, many small business owners and others recommended that the SBA create

objective monetary thresholds for determining how the applicant’s personal financial condition

affects economic disadvantage. In response, in 1989, the SBA announced in the Federal Register

that applicants needed personal net worth of less than $250,000 (excluding ownership in the 8(a)

firm and equity in his or her primary residence) at the time of entry into the program, and less

than $750,000 for continuing eligibility.

Objective monetary thresholds for personal income and

total assets were not added.

In 2011, the SBA announced in the Federal Register that it would no longer count funds invested

in an official retirement account that are unavailable to the applicant without a significant penalty

in determining the applicant’s net worth. Also, the SBA announced that the applicant’s average

adjusted gross income over the preceding three years generally cannot exceed $250,000 at the

time of application and $350,000 for continuing eligibility. In addition, the fair market value of

the applicant’s assets (excluding funds invested in an official retirement account that are

P.L. 95-507, at §202.

SBA, “Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program: Final Rule,” 54 Federal Register

34719, August 21, 1989.

SBA, “Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program: Final Rule,” 54 Federal Register

34696, August 21, 1989 (codified, as amended, at 13 C.F.R. §124.104(c)). Some commentators have estimated that

80% to 90% of Americans are economically disadvantaged under the SBA’s net-worth requirements. See La Noue and

Sullivan, “Gross Presumptions: Determining Group Eligibility for Federal Procurement Preferences,” 41 Santa Clara

Law Review, p. 108.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 8

unavailable to the applicant without a significant penalty) cannot exceed $4 million at entry and

$6 million for continued eligibility.

On May 11, 2020, the SBA announced in the Federal Register that, as of July 15, 2020, personal

net worth of less than $750,000, both at the time of entry into the 8(a) program and for continuing

eligibility, will constitute economic disadvantage.

The SBA indicated that it was eliminating the

$250,000 personal net worth threshold at the time of entry into the 8(a) program to bring the 8(a)

program into conformity with the personal net worth threshold used for determining the status of

economically disadvantaged women-owned small businesses (EDWOSBs) in the SBA’s Women-

Owned Small Business (WOSB) federal contracting program.

That program uses less than

$750,000 in personal net worth for determining economic disadvantage. The SBA noted that a

small business applying for EDWOSB and 8(a) program status simultaneously

could thus be found economically disadvantaged for EDWOSB purposes, but not

economically disadvantaged for the 8(a) BD [Business Development] program. This result

would introduce unnecessary confusion and uncertainty into the application and

certification process. To remedy this, this final rule makes economic disadvantage

consistent across programs.

The SBA also announced that

 funds invested in an official retirement account will not be considered in

determining net worth (eliminating the requirement that the funds are subject to a

significant withdrawal penalty);

 the applicant’s average adjusted gross income over the three preceding years

cannot exceed $350,000 (eliminating the $250,000 personal income threshold at

the time of application); and

 the fair market value of the applicant’s assets (excluding funds invested in an

official retirement account) cannot exceed $6 million (eliminating the $4 million

asset threshold at entry).

Adding “Disadvantaged” Groups

Although the 8(a) Program was originally established for the benefit of disadvantaged

individuals, in the 1980s, Congress expanded the program to include small businesses owned by

four disadvantaged groups.

The first owner-group to be included was Community Development Corporations (CDCs). A

CDC is

a nonprofit organization responsible to residents of the area it serves which is receiving

financial assistance under part A of this subchapter [42 U.S.C. §§9805 et seq.] and any

SBA, “Small Business Size Regulations; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status

Determinations,” 76 Federal Register 8229-8231, February 11, 2011.

SBA, “Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business

Certification,” 85 Federal Register 27650-27665, May 11, 2020.

For additional information and analysis of the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) federal contracting program,

see CRS Report R46322, SBA Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contracting Program, by Robert Jay Dilger.

SBA, “Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business

Certification,” 85 Federal Register 27650, May 11, 2020.

SBA, “Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business

Certification,” 85 Federal Register 27660, May 11, 2020.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 9

organization more than 50 percent of which is owned by such an organization, or otherwise

controlled by such an organization, or designated by such an organization for the purpose

of this subchapter [42 U.S.C. §§9801 et seq.].

Congress created CDCs with the Community Economic Development Act of 1981 and instructed

the SBA to issue regulations ensuring that CDCs could participate in the 8(a) Program.

In 1986, two additional owner-groups, Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs),

became eligible for the program when Congress passed legislation providing that firms owned by

Indian tribes, which include ANCs, were to be deemed socially disadvantaged for 8(a) Program

purposes.

In 1992, ANCs were further deemed to be “economically disadvantaged.”

The final owner-group, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), was recognized in 1988.

NHO is defined as

any community service organization serving Native Hawaiians in the State of Hawaii

which (A) is a nonprofit corporation that has filed articles of incorporation with the director

(or the designee thereof) of the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs,

or any successor agency, (B) is controlled by Native Hawaiians, and (C) whose business

activities will principally benefit such Native Hawaiians.

Program Requirements

Detailed statutory and regulatory requirements govern 8(a) Program eligibility, set-aside and sole-

source awards, and related issues. These requirements are generally the same for all 8(a) firms,

although there are instances where there are “special rules” for group-owned 8(a) firms.

Appendix to this report compares the requirements applicable to individual owners of 8(a) firms

to those applicable to groups owning 8(a) firms (i.e., ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes).

42 U.S.C. §9802.

P.L. 97-35, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Ch. 8, Subchapter A, 95 Stat. 489 (August 13, 1981)

(codified at 42 U.S.C. §§9801 et seq.); and P.L. 97-35, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, at §626, 95 Stat.

496 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §9815(a)(2)). (“Not later than 90 days after August 13, 1981, the Administrator of the Small

Business Administration, after consultation with the Secretary, shall promulgate regulations to ensure the availability to

community development corporations of such programs as shall further the purposes of this subchapter, including

programs under §637(a) of title 15.”)

P.L. 99-272, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, §18015, 100 Stat. 370 (April 7, 1986)

(codified at 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(13) and 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)).

P.L. 102-415, Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of 1992, §10, 106 Stat. 2115 (October 14, 1992)

(codified at 43 U.S.C. §1626(e)).

P.L. 100-656, Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, at §207, 102 Stat. 3861 (November 15, 1988)

(codified at 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)).

P.L. 100-656, Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, at §207 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(15)).

A Native Hawaiian is “any individual whose ancestors were natives, prior to 1778, of the area which now comprises

the State of Hawaii.” 13 C.F.R. §124.3.

13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) (“Special rules for ANCs. Small business concerns owned and controlled by ANCs are

eligible for participation in the 8(a) program and must meet the eligibility criteria set forth in §124.112 to the extent the

criteria are not inconsistent with this section.”) (emphasis in original).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 10

General Requirements

Program Eligibility

As mentioned previously, 8(a) Program eligibility is limited to “small business[es] which [are]

unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged

individuals who are of good character and citizens of and residing in the United States, and which

demonstrates potential for success.”

Each of these terms is defined by the Small Business Act;

SBA regulations; and judicial and administrative decisions.

The eligibility requirements are the

same at the time of entry into the program and throughout the program unless otherwise noted.

Business

Except for small agricultural cooperatives, a business is a for-profit entity that has a place of

business located in the United States and operates primarily within the United States or makes a

significant contribution to the U.S. economy by paying taxes or using American products,

materials, or labor.

For 8(a) Program purposes, businesses are individual proprietorships,

partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, joint ventures, associations, trusts, or

cooperatives.

Small

A business is small if it is independently owned and operated; is not dominant in its field of

operations; and meets any definitions or standards established by the SBA Administrator.

These

standards focus primarily upon the size of the business as measured by the number of employees

or average annual receipts (gross income for sole proprietorships), but they also take into account

the size of other businesses within the same industry.

For example, businesses in the field of

scheduled passenger air transportation are small if they have 1,500 or fewer employees, whereas

those in the data processing field are small if they have average annual receipts of $32.5 million

or less.

13 C.F.R. §124.101. The Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has opined that SBA regulations

limiting eligibility for the 8(a) Program to citizens do not deprive resident aliens of due process in violation of the Fifth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Constitutionality of 13

C.F.R. §124.103 Establishing Citizenship Requirement for Participation in 8(a) Program, 20 Op. O.L.C. 85 (1996).

The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals has, for example, developed a seven-part test for determining whether a

small business is unusually reliant on a contractor that is used in determining affiliation. See Valenzuela Eng’g, Inc. &

Curry Contracting Co., Inc., SBA-4151 (1996).

13 C.F.R. §124.112(a).

13 C.F.R. §121.105(a)(1). “Business” is separately defined for small agricultural cooperatives. See 13 C.F.R.

§121.105(a)(2).

13 C.F.R. §121.105(b).

15 U.S.C. §632(a)(1)-(2)(A).

13 C.F.R. §§121.101-121.109. The number of employees is the average number in each pay period for the preceding

12 calendar months. Receipts means total income (or in the case of a sole proprietorship, gross income) plus cost of

goods sold as these terms are defined and reported on Internal Revenue Service tax return forms. Where possible,

receipts are based on the average for the last three completed fiscal years. It includes all revenues, not just those from

the firm’s primary industry. See 13 C.F.R. §121.104.

13 C.F.R. §121.201.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 11

Affiliations among businesses, or relationships allowing one party control or the power of control

over another, generally count in size determinations, with the SBA considering “the receipts,

employees, or other measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic

and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit.”

Businesses

can thus be determined to be other than small because of their involvement in joint ventures,

subcontracting arrangements, or franchise or license agreements, among other things, provided

that their income or personnel numbers, plus those of their affiliate(s), are over the pertinent size

threshold.

Unconditionally Owned and Controlled

8(a) firms must be “at least 51% unconditionally and directly owned by one or more socially and

economically disadvantaged individuals who are citizens of the United States” unless they are

owned by an ANC, CDC, NHO, or Indian tribe.

Ownership is unconditional when it is not

subject to any conditions precedent or subsequent, executory agreements, voting trusts,

restrictions on or assignments of voting rights, or other arrangements that could cause the benefits

of ownership to go to another entity.

Ownership is direct when the disadvantaged individuals

own the business in their own right and not through an intermediary (e.g., ownership by another

business entity or by a trust that is owned and controlled by one or more disadvantaged

individuals).

Nondisadvantaged individuals and nonparticipant businesses that own at least 10%

of an 8(a) business may generally own no more than 10% to 20% of any other 8(a) firm.

Nonparticipant businesses that earn the majority of their revenue in the same or similar line of

business are likewise barred from owning more than 10% (increasing to 20%-30% in certain

circumstances) of another 8(a) firm.

In addition, 8(a) firms must be controlled by one or more disadvantaged individuals.

“Control is

not the same as ownership” and includes both strategic policy setting and day-to-day management

and administration of business operations.

Management and daily business operations must be

conducted by one or more disadvantaged individuals unless the 8(a) business is owned by an

ANC, CDC, NHO, or Indian tribe.

These individuals must have managerial experience “of the

extent and complexity needed to run the concern” and generally must devote themselves full-time

to the business “during the normal working hours of firms in the same or similar line of

business.”

A disadvantaged individual must hold the highest officer position within the

business.

Nondisadvantaged individuals may otherwise be involved in the management of an

13 C.F.R. §121.103(a)(6).

13 C.F.R. §121.103(h); 13 C.F.R. §121.103(h)(4); and 13 C.F.R. §121.103(i).

13 C.F.R. §124.105 (defining unconditional ownership). See also 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)(i)-(ii) (requiring at least

51% unconditional ownership).

13 C.F.R. §124.3.

13 C.F.R. §124.105(a).

13 C.F.R. §124.105(h)(1). Ownership is limited to 10% when the 8(a) firm in is the developmental stage of the 8(a)

Program and 20% when it is in the transitional stage.

13 C.F.R. §124.105(h)(2).

15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)(i)-(ii) (requiring control of management and business operations); 13 C.F.R. §124.106.

13 C.F.R. §124.106.

13 C.F.R. §124.106 & §124.106(a)(3).

13 C.F.R. §124.106(a)(2).The individual must also be physically located in the United States.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 12

8(a) business, or may be stockholders, partners, limited liability members, officers, or directors of

an 8(a) business.

However, nondisadvantaged individuals may not exercise actual control or

have the power to control the firm or its disadvantaged owner(s), or receive compensation greater

than that of the highest-paid officer (usually the chief executive officer or president) without the

SBA’s approval.

Socially Disadvantaged Individual

Socially disadvantaged individuals are “those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic

prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of

groups and without regard to their individual qualities.”

Members of designated groups, listed in

Table 1, are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage for 8(a) Program

purposes, although this presumption can be overcome with “credible evidence to the contrary.”

Individuals who are not designated-group members must prove they are socially disadvantaged

by a preponderance of the evidence.

Such individuals must show (1) at least one objective

distinguishing feature that has contributed to social disadvantage (e.g., race, ethnic origin, gender,

physical handicap, long-term residence in an environment isolated from mainstream American

society); (2) personal experiences of substantial and chronic social disadvantage in American

society; and (3) negative impact on entry into or advancement in the business world.

assessing the third factor, the SBA will consider all relevant evidence the applicant produces, but

must consider the applicant’s education, employment, and business history to see if the totality of

the circumstances shows disadvantage.

Groups not included in Table 1 may obtain eligibility by

demonstrating disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence.

Economically Disadvantaged Individual

Economically disadvantaged individuals are “socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to

compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit

opportunities as compared to others in the same or similar line of business who are not socially

disadvantaged.”

Individuals claiming economic disadvantage must submit financial

documentation for eligibility purposes.

As mentioned, the SBA examines the individual’s

personal income for the past three years, their net worth, and the fair market value of their

assets.

To be economically disadvantaged, an individual must have a net worth of less than

$750,000 (excluding ownership interest in the applicant’s business, equity in their primary

personal residence, and funds invested in an official retirement account), no more than $350,000

13 C.F.R. §124.106(e).

13 C.F.R. §124.106(e)(1) & (3).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(a). See also 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(5).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(b)(3).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(c)(1).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(c)(2)(i)-(iii).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(c)(2)(iii).

13 C.F.R. §124.103(d)(4). Groups petitioning for recognition as socially disadvantaged do not always obtain it. Over

the years, the SBA has rejected petitions from Hasidic Jews, women, disabled veterans, and Iranian-Americans. See

supra note 34.

13 C.F.R. §124.104(a). See also 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(6)(A).

13 C.F.R. §124.104(b)(1).

13 C.F.R. §124.104(c). See also 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(6)(E)(i)-(ii).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 13

in average adjusted gross income over the preceding three years, and no more than $6 million in

assets (excluding funds invested in an official retirement account).

Good Character

In determining whether an applicant to, or participant in, the 8(a) Program possesses good

character, the SBA considers any criminal conduct, violations of SBA regulations, current

debarment or suspension from government contracting, managers or key employees who lack

business integrity, and the knowing submission of false information to the SBA.

Demonstrated Potential for Success

For a firm to have demonstrated potential for success, it generally must have been in business in

its primary industry classification for at least two full years immediately prior to the date of its

application to the 8(a) Program.

However, the SBA may grant a waiver allowing firms that have

been in business for less than two years to enter the program under specified circumstances.

Set-Asides and Sole-Source Awards Under Section 8(a)

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes agencies to award contracts for goods or

services, or to perform construction work, to the SBA for subcontracting to 8(a) firms. The act

also authorizes the SBA to delegate the function of executing contracts to the procuring agencies

and often does so.

A set-aside award is a contract awarded in which only certain contractors may compete, whereas

a sole-source award is a contract awarded, or proposed for award, without competition.

The

Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) generally requires federal agencies to allow full and open

competition through the use of competitive procedures when procuring goods or services.

However, set-aside and sole-source awards to 8(a) firms are permissible under CICA under

certain circumstances. In fact, an 8(a) set-aside is a recognized competitive procedure.

Agencies

13 C.F.R. §124.108(a)(1)-(5).

13 C.F.R. §124.107.

A waiver to the two-year requirement may be granted when (1) the disadvantaged individual(s) upon whom

eligibility is based have substantial business management experience; (2) the business has demonstrated the technical

experience necessary to carry out its business plan with a substantial likelihood of success; (3) the firm has adequate

capital to sustain its operations and carry out its business plan; (4) the firm has a record of successful performance on

contracts in its primary field of operations; and (5) the firm presently has, or can demonstrate its ability to timely

obtain, the personnel, facilities, equipment, and other resources necessary to perform 8(a) contracts. See 13 C.F.R.

§124.107(b)(1)(i)-(v).

13 C.F.R. §124.501(a); Partnership Agreement Between the U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S.

Department of Defense, January 7, 2013, at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Department%20of%20Defense.pdf.

Set-asides may be total or partial. See 48 C.F.R. §19.501(a).

10 U.S.C. §2304(b)(2), 41 U.S.C. §3303(b) (the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) provisions authorizing set-

asides for small businesses); and 48 C.F.R. §§6.203-6.207 (set-asides for small business generally, 8(a) small

businesses, Historically Underutilized Business Zone [HUBZone] small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned

small businesses, and women-owned small businesses). CICA authorizes competitions excluding all sources other than

small businesses when such competitions assure that a “fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for property

and services for the Federal Government shall be placed with small business concerns.” 41 U.S.C. §3104. CICA also

permits sole-source awards when such awards are made pursuant to a procedure expressly authorized by statute, or

when special circumstances exist (e.g., urgent and compelling circumstances). See 10 U.S.C. §2304(c)(1) (defense

agency procurements) and 41 U.S.C. §§3301 and 3304(a) (civilian agency procurements).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 14

are effectively encouraged to subcontract through the 8(a) Program because there are

government-wide and agency-specific goals regarding the percentage of procurement dollars

awarded to small disadvantaged businesses, which include 8(a) firms (the current government-

wide goal is 5% of all small business eligible federal contracts).

Discretion to Subcontract Through the 8(a) Program

There are few limits on agency discretion to subcontract through the 8(a) Program.

However,

the SBA is prohibited by regulation from accepting procurements for award under Section 8(a)

when

1. the procuring agency issued a solicitation for or otherwise expressed publicly a

clear intent to reserve the procurement as a set-aside for small businesses not

participating in the program prior to offering the requirement to the SBA for

award as an 8(a) contract;

2. the procuring agency competed the requirement among 8(a) firms prior to

offering the requirement to the SBA and receiving the SBA’s acceptance of it;

3. the SBA makes a written determination that “acceptance of the procurement for

8(a) award would have an adverse impact on an individual small business, a

group of small businesses located in a specific geographical location, or other

small business programs.”

13 C.F.R. §124.1002 (defining “small disadvantaged business”).

The federal government uses aspirational procurement goals instead of requiring federal agencies to award specific

percentages of federal contracts to various types of small businesses primarily to avoid legal challenges under the equal

protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See, for example, City of Richmond v. J.A.

Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) (finding unconstitutional a municipal ordinance that required the city’s prime

contractors to award at least 30% of the value of each contract to minority subcontractors) and Adarand Constructors,

Inc. v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (finding that all racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local

authorities, must pass strict scrutiny review).

AHNTECH, Inc., B-401092 (April 22, 2009) (“The [Small Business] Act affords the SBA and contracting agencies

broad discretion in selecting procurements for the 8(a) program.”).

Even in this situation, SBA may accept the requirement under “extraordinary circumstances.” 13 C.F.R. §124.504(a);

Madison Services, Inc., B-400615 (December 11, 2008) (finding that extraordinary circumstances existed when the

agency’s initial small business set-aside was erroneous and did not reflect its intentions).

However, offers of requirements below the simplified acquisition threshold (generally $150,000) are assumed to

have been accepted if SBA does not reply within two days. 13 C.F.R. §124.503(a)(4)(i). See also Eagle Collaborative

Computing Services, Inc., B-401043.3 (January 28, 2011) (finding that an agency properly awarded a sole-source

contract valued below the simplified acquisition threshold even though the SBA never formally accepted the

requirements).

13 C.F.R. §124.504(a)-(c). The third provision applies only to preexisting requirements. It generally does not apply

to new contracts, follow-on or renewal contracts, or procurements conducted using simplified acquisition procedures.

Also, under its regulations, the SBA must presume an adverse impact when “(A) The small business concern has

performed the specific requirement for at least 24 months; (B) The small business is performing the requirement at the

time it is offered to the 8(a) ... program, or its performance of the requirement ended within 30 days of the procuring

activity’s offer of the requirement to the 8(a) ... program; and (C) The dollar value of the requirement that the small

business is or was performing is 25 percent or more of its most recent annual gross sales (including those of its

affiliates).” See 13 C.F.R. §124.504(c)(1)(i)(A)-(C).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 15

In addition, the SBA is barred from awarding an 8(a) contract, either via a set-aside or on a sole-

source basis, “if the price of the contract results in a cost to the contracting agency which exceeds

a fair market price.”

Otherwise, agency officials may offer contracts to the SBA “in [their] discretion,” and the SBA

may accept requirements for the 8(a) Program “whenever it determines such action is necessary

or appropriate.”

The courts and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will generally not

hear protests of agencies’ determinations regarding whether to procure specific requirements

through the 8(a) Program unless it can be shown that government officials acted in bad faith or

contrary to federal law.

Monetary Thresholds and Subcontracting Mechanisms

Once the SBA has accepted a contract for the 8(a) Program, the contract is awarded through

either a set-aside or on a sole-source basis, with the contract amount generally determining the

acquisition method used. When the contract’s anticipated total value, including any options, is

less than $4.5 million ($7.5 million for manufacturing contracts), the contract is normally

awarded without competition.

In contrast, when the contract’s anticipated value exceeds these

thresholds, the contract generally must be awarded via a set-aside with competition limited to 8(a)

firms so long as there is a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a)

firms will submit offers and the award can be made at fair market price.

Sole-source awards of

contracts valued at $4.5 million ($7.5 million or more for manufacturing contracts) may be made

only when (1) there is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a)

firms will submit offers at a fair market price or (2) the SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of

an 8(a) firm owned by an Indian tribe, an ANC or, in the case of Department of Defense

contracts, an NHO.

Requirements valued at more than $4.5 million ($7.5 million for

15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(A); 48 C.F.R. §19.806(b). Fair market price is estimated by looking at recent prices for similar

items or work, in the case of repeat purchases, or by considering commercial prices for similar products or services,

available in-house cost estimates, cost or pricing data submitted by the contractor, or data from other government

agencies, in the case of new purchases. 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(3)(B)(i)-(iii); 48 C.F.R. §19.807(b) & (c).

15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(A).

See Rothe Computer Solutions, LLC, B-299452 (May 9, 2007).

FAR §19.805-1; and 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(16)(A). A noncompetitive award may be made under this authority so long

as (1) the firm is determined to be a responsible contractor for performance of the contract; (2) the award of the

contract would be consistent with the firm’s business plan; and (3) award of the contract would not result in the firm

exceeding the percentage of revenue from 8(a) sources forecast in its annual business plan. 15 U.S.C.

§637(a)(16)(A)(i)-(iii).

15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(D)(ii); 48 C.F.R. §19.805-1(a). However, competitive awards for contracts whose anticipated

value is less than $4.5 million ($7.5 million for manufacturing contracts) can be made with the approval of the SBA’s

Associate Administrator for 8(a) Business Development. 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(D)(i)(I)-(II); 48 C.F.R. §19.805-1(d).

48 C.F.R. §19.805-1(b)(1)-(2) (sole-source awards to tribally or ANC-owned firms); and 48 C.F.R. §219.805-

1(b)(2)(A)-(B) (sole-source awards to NHO-owned firms).

Prior to enactment of P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2010, contracting officers

making sole-source awards in reliance on the second exception did not have to justify such awards or obtain approval

of them from higher-level agency officials. The NDAA changed this by requiring justifications, approvals, and notices

for sole-source contracts in excess of $20 million awarded under the authority of §8(a) analogous to those required for

sole-source contracts awarded under the general contracting authorities. The $20 million threshold was increased

through a regulatory update to $22 million, effective October 1, 2015, and to $25 million, effective October 1, 2020, to

account for inflation. P.L. 116-92, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, increased this

threshold to $100 million for the Department of Defense. See Department of Defense, General Services Administration,

and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Federal Acquisition Regulation: Inflation Adjustment of

Acquisition-Related Thresholds,” 80 Federal Register 38296, July 2, 2015; and Department of Defense, General

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 16

manufacturing contracts) cannot be divided into several acquisitions at lesser amounts in order to

make sole-source awards.

In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council has the responsibility of adjusting each

acquisition-related dollar threshold (including those for the 8(a) Program), on October 1, of each

year that is evenly divisible by five.

100

As a result, sole source thresholds may differ from those in

statute. The next adjustment for inflation will take place on October 1, 2025.

Other Requirements

Other key 8(a) Program requirements include the following:

 Inability to protest an 8(a) firm’s eligibility for an award. When the SBA

makes or proposes an award to an 8(a) firm, the firm’s eligibility cannot be

challenged or protested as part of the solicitation or proposed contract award.

Instead, information concerning a firm’s eligibility must be submitted to the SBA

in accordance with separate requirements contained in Section 124.517 of Title

13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

101

 Nine-year maximum participation. Firms may participate in the program for no

more than nine years from the date of their admission, although they may be

terminated or graduate from the program before nine years have passed.

102

In an effort to assist small businesses adversely affected by the novel coronavirus

(COVID-19) pandemic, P.L. 116-260, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small

Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Division N, Title III of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2021), provides businesses participating in the 8(a)

program on or before September 9, 2020, the option to extend their participation

in the program for one year.

103

Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Federal Acquisition Regulation:

Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds,” 85 Federal Register 62485, October 2, 2020.

48 C.F.R. §19.805-1(c).

100

13 C.F.R. §124.506 (a); and 41 U.S.C. §1908(c)(2).

101

48 C.F.R. §19.805-2(d).

102

15 U.S.C. §636(j)(15) (nine-year term); 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(9) (termination and early graduation); 13 C.F.R.

§124.301 (exiting the program); 13 C.F.R. §124.302 (early graduation); and 13 C.F.R. §124.303 (termination).

H.R. 6395, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which has been passed by the House and

Senate, would allow firms participating in the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program on or before September 9, 2020, to

elect to extend their nine-year participation for up to an additional year.

103

The SBA has determined by rule that this “extension authority does not extend to business concerns that graduated

from or otherwise left the 8(a) BD [Business Development] program prior to March 13, 2020, or to business concerns

that were admitted to the 8(a) BD program after September 9, 2020.” Any extension under the act will be added to the

participant’s transitional stage of participation in the program. The SBA selected March 13, 2020, as the beginning date

for the eligibility for an additional year in the program because the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national

disaster on that date. The SBA indicated that “it is SBA’s understanding that Congress extended the term of

participation in the 8(a) BD program because it believed that the pandemic adversely affected 8(a) concerns and their

ability to participate in and receive the full benefits of the program. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that any firms

participating in the program as of the date the national disaster was declared due to the pandemic (i.e. March 13, 2020)

should receive the program term extension authorized by Congress.” Also, the extension will not apply to businesses

that were participants in the 8(a) program at any point from March 13, 2020, through September 9, 2020, but were

terminated, early graduated, or voluntarily withdrew from the program in lieu of being terminated or early graduated.

See SBA, “Extension of Participation in 8(a) Business Development Program,” 86 Federal Register 2530, January 13,

2021.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 17

 One-time eligibility. Once a firm or a disadvantaged individual upon whom a

firm’s eligibility was based has exited the program after participating in it for any

length of time, neither the firm nor the individual is generally eligible to

participate in the program again.

104

Firms are considered identical for purposes of

program eligibility when at least 50% of the assets of one firm are the same as

those of another firm.

105

 Ownership limitations on family members of current or former 8(a) firm

owners. Individuals generally may not use their disadvantaged status to qualify a

firm for the program if the individual has an immediate family member who is

using, or has used, the disadvantaged status to qualify a firm for the program.

106

 Award Limitations. In general, 8(a) individually-owned firms may not receive

additional 8(a) sole-source awards once they have been awarded a combined total

of competitive and sole-source awards in excess of $100 million, in the case of

firms whose size is based on their number of employees, or in excess of an

amount equivalent to the lesser of (1) $100 million or (2) five times the size

standard for the industry, in the case of firms whose size is based on their

revenues.

107

In addition, 8(a) firms in the transitional stage, or the last five years

of participation, must achieve annual targets for the amount of revenues they

receive from non-8(a) sources.

108

These targets increase over time, with firms

required to attain 15% of their revenue from non-8(a) sources in the fifth year,

25% in the sixth year, 30% in the seventh year, 40% in the eight year, and 50% in

the ninth year.

109

Firms that do not display the relevant percentages of revenue

from non-8(a) sources are ineligible for sole-source 8(a) contracts “unless and

until” they correct the situation.

110

 Subcontracting Limitations. Federal subcontracting limitations require small

businesses receiving contracts under set-asides to perform work that equals

certain minimum percentages of the amount paid under the contract.

111

Specifically, small businesses must generally perform at least 50% of the costs of

the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees, in the case of service

104

15 U.S.C. §636(j)(11)(B)-(C); and 13 C.F.R. §124.108(b).

105

13 C.F.R. §124.108(b)(4).

106

13 C.F.R. §124.105(g)(1). SBA may waive this prohibition if the firms have no connections in terms of ownership,

control, or contractual relationships and certain other conditions are met.

107

13 C.F.R. §124.519(a)(1)-(2). Contracts less than $100,000 are not counted in determining whether a firm has

reached the applicable limit. 13 C.F.R. §124.519(a)(3). The SBA Administrator may waive this requirement if the

procuring agency’s head determines that a sole-source award to a firm is necessary “to achieve significant interests of

the Government.” 13 C.F.R. §124.519(e). Even after firms have received a combined total of competitive and sole-

source awards in excess of $100 million, or other applicable amount, they may still receive competitive contracts under

the 8(a) Program. 13 C.F.R. §124.519(b).

108

15 U.S.C. §636(j)(10)(I)(i)-(iii); 13 C.F.R. §124.509(b)(1).

109

13 C.F.R. §124.509(b)(2); and SBA, “Extension of Participation in 8(a) Business Development Program,” 86

Federal Register 2533, January 13, 2021.

110

13 C.F.R. §124.509(d)(1). This prohibition may be waived if the Office of Business Development’s director

determines that denial of a sole-source contract would cause severe economic hardship for the firm, potentially

jeopardizing its survival, or if extenuating circumstances beyond the firm’s control caused it to miss its target. 13

C.F.R. §125.509(e).

111

15 U.S.C. §637(a)(14)(A)-(B); 15 U.S.C. §644(o); 13 C.F.R. §125.6; and 48 C.F.R. §52.219-14.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 18

contracts; and at least 50% of the cost of manufacturing supplies or products

(excluding the cost of materials), in the case of manufacturing contracts.

112

Requirements for Tribally, ANC-, NHO-, and CDC-Owned Firms

Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) or

Community Development Corporations (CDCs) themselves generally do not participate in the

8(a) Program. Rather, businesses that are at least 51% owned by such entities participate in the

program,

113

although the rules governing their participation are somewhat different from those for

the program generally.

114

Program Eligibility

Small

Firms owned by Indian tribes, ANCs, NHOs, and CDCs must be deemed small under the SBA’s

size standards.

115

However, certain affiliations with the owning entity or other business

enterprises of that entity are excluded in size determinations unless the SBA Administrator

determines that a small business owned by an ANC, CDC, NHO, or Indian tribe “[has] obtained,

or [is] likely to obtain, a substantial unfair competitive advantage within an industry category”

because of such exclusions.

116

Other affiliations of small businesses owned by ANCs, CDCs,

NHOs, and Indian tribes may be included in size determinations, and ANC-owned firms, in

particular, have been subjected to early graduation from the 8(a) Program because they exceeded

size standards.

117

Business

Firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes must be “businesses” under the SBA’s

definition.

118

Although ANCs themselves may be for-profit or nonprofit, ANC-owned businesses

must be for-profit to participate in the program.

119

112

15 U.S.C. §657s(a)(1)&(2); and 13 C.F.R. §125.6(a)(1)-(2). There are separate provisions regarding the percentage

of work to be performed under construction contracts. See generally 13 C.F.R. §125.6(a)(3)-(4).

113

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(3)(i) (tribally and ANC-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110 (b) (NHO-owned firms); and 13

C.F.R. §124.111(c) (CDC-owned firms).

114

13 C.F.R. §§124.109-124.111.

115

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(2) (tribally and ANC-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110(b) (NHO-owned firms); and 13

C.F.R. §124.111(c) (CDC-owned firms).

116

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(2)(iii) (tribally and ANC-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110(b) (NHO-owned firms); and 13

C.F.R. §124.111(c) (CDC-owned firms).

117

See Valenzuela Eng’g, Inc. & Curry Contracting Co., Inc., SBA-4151 (1996) (rejecting a challenge to the size of an

ANC-owned firm because its subcontractor performed less than 25% of the work on the contract and was not its

affiliate); and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Increased Used of Alaska Native Corporations’ Special

8(a) Provisions Calls for Tailored Oversight, GAO-06-399, April 27, 2006, p. 29, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d06399.pdf (describing “early graduation” of ANC-owned 8(a) firms).

118

13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) and (b) (requiring tribally and ANC-owned firms to comply with the general eligibility

requirements where they are not contrary to or inconsistent with the special requirements for these entities); 13 C.F.R.

§124.110(a) (similar provision for NHO-owned firms); and 13 C.F.R. §124.111(a) (similar provision for CDC-owned

firms).

119

13 C.F.R. §124.109(a)(3).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 19

Unconditionally Owned and Controlled

Firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, or Indian tribes must be unconditionally owned and

substantially controlled by the ANC, CDC, NHO, or Indian tribe, respectively.

120

However, under

SBA regulations, tribally or ANC-owned firms may be managed by individuals who are not

members of the tribe or Alaska Natives if the firm can demonstrate:

that the Tribe [or ANC] can hire and fire those individuals, that it will retain control of all

management decisions common to boards of directors, including strategic planning, budget

approval, and the employment and compensation of officers, and that a written

management development plan exists which shows how Tribal members will develop

managerial skills sufficient to manage the concern or similar Tribally-owned concerns in

the future.

121

NHO-owned firms must demonstrate that the NHO controls the board of directors.

122

However,

the individual who is responsible for the NHO-owned firm’s day-to-day management need not

establish personal social and economic disadvantage.

123

CDCs are to be managed and have their

daily operations conducted by individuals with “managerial experience of an extent and

complexity needed to run the [firm].”

124

Socially Disadvantaged

As owners of prospective or current 8(a) firms, Indian tribes, ANCs, NHOs, and CDCs are all

presumed to be socially disadvantaged.

125

Economically Disadvantaged

By statute, ANCs are deemed to be economically disadvantaged, and CDCs are similarly treated

as economically disadvantaged.

126

In contrast, Indian tribes and NHOs must establish economic

disadvantage. Indian tribes must present data on, among other things, the number of tribe

120

13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) and (b) (requiring tribally and ANC-owned firms to comply with the general eligibility

requirements where they are not contrary to or inconsistent with the special requirements for these entities); 13 C.F.R.

§124.110(a) (similar provision for NHO-owned firms); and 13 C.F.R. §124.111(a) (similar provision for CDC-owned

firms).

121

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(4)(B).

122

13 C.F.R. §124.110(d).

123

13 C.F.R. §124.110(d).

124

13 C.F.R. §124.111(b).

125

13 C.F.R. §124.109(b)(1) (tribally and ANC-owned firms); 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)(i)(II) (NHO-owned firms); 13

C.F.R. §124.110(a) (same); 13 C.F.R. §124.111(a) (CDC-owned firms); and Small Disadvantaged Business

Certification Application: Community Development Corporation (CDC) Owned Concern, OMB Approval No. 3245-

0317 (“A Community Development Corporation (CDC) is considered to be a socially and economically disadvantaged

entity if the parent CDC is a nonprofit organization responsible to residents of the area it serves which has received

financial assistance under 42 U.S.C. 9805, et seq.”). The SBA’s authority to designate CDCs as socially and

economically disadvantaged derives from Section 9815(a)(2) of Title 42 of the United States Code, which required

SBA to “promulgate regulations to ensure the availability to community development corporations of such programs as

shall further the purposes of this subchapter, including programs under §637(a) of title 15.”

126

43 U.S.C. §1626(e)(1) (“For all purposes of Federal law, a Native Corporation shall be considered to be a

corporation owned and controlled by Natives and a minority and economically disadvantaged business enterprise if the

Settlement Common Stock of the corporation and other stock of the corporation held by holders of Settlement Common

Stock and by Natives and descendants of Natives, represents a majority of both the total equity of the corporation and

the total voting power of the corporation for the purposes of electing directors.”); 13 C.F.R. §124.109(a)(2) (similar);

and 13 C.F.R. §124.111(a).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 20

members; the tribe members’ unemployment rate and per capita income; the percentage of the

local Indian population above the poverty level; the tribe’s access to capital and assets as

disclosed in current financial statements; and all businesses wholly or partially owned by tribal

enterprises or affiliates, as well as their primary industry classification.

127

Effective August 24,

2016, NHOs establish economic disadvantage in the same manner as Indian tribes.

128

Prior to this

revision, the SBA considered “the individual economic status of NHO’s members,” the majority

of whom had to qualify as economically disadvantaged, under the same standards as individual

applicants to the program.

129

Once a tribe or NHO has established that it is economically disadvantaged for purposes of one

8(a) business, it need not reestablish economic disadvantage in order to have other businesses

certified for the program unless the Director of the Office of Business Development requires it to

do so.

130

Good Character

The SBA’s regulations governing tribally and ANC-owned 8(a) firms explicitly state that the

good character requirement applies only to officers or directors of the firm, or shareholders

owning more than a 20% interest.

131

NHO-owned firms may be subject to the same requirements

in practice.

132

With CDC-owned firms, the firm itself and “all of its principals” must have good

character.

133

Demonstrated Potential for Success

Firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes may provide evidence of potential for

success in several ways:

1. The firm has been in business for at least two years, as shown by individual or

consolidated income tax returns for each of the two previous tax years showing

operating revenues in the primary industry in which the firm seeks certification.

2. The individuals who will manage and control the firm’s daily operations have

substantial technical and management experience; the firm has a record of

successful performance on government or other contracts in its primary industry

category; and the firm has adequate capital to sustain its operations and carry out

its business plan.

127

15 U.S.C. §637(a)(6)(A); and 13 C.F.R. §124.109(b)(2)(i)-(vii).

128

SBA, “Small Business Mentor Protégé Program,” 81 Federal Register 48571, July 25, 2016.

129

13 C.F.R. §124.110(c)(1). Specifically, for the first 8(a) applicant owned by a particular NHO, individual NHO

members had to meet the same initial eligibility economic disadvantage thresholds as individually-owned 8(a)

applicants. For any additional 8(a) applicant owned by the NHO, individual NHO members had to meet the economic

disadvantage thresholds for continued 8(a) eligibility. If the NHO had no members, then a majority of the members of

the board of directors had to qualify as economically disadvantaged.

130

13 C.F.R. §124.109(b).

131

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(7)(ii).

132

The regulations as to NHOs do not appear to address “good character.” However, in practice, when this has

happened in the past, NHO-owned firms have often been treated the same as firms owned by Indian tribes.

133

13 C.F.R. §124.111(g).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 21

3. The owner-group has made a firm written commitment to support the firm’s

operations and has the financial ability to do so.

134

The first of these ways for demonstrating potential for success is the same for individually owned

firms, and the second arguably corresponds to the circumstances in which the SBA may waive the

requirement that individually owned firms have been in business for at least two years.

135

There is

no equivalent to the third way for individually owned firms, and some commentators have

suggested that this provision could “benefit ANCs [and other owner groups] by allowing more

expeditious and effortless access to 8(a) contracts for new concerns without having to staff new

subsidiaries with experienced management.”

136

Report of Benefits for Firms Owned By ANCs, Indian Tribes, NHOs, and CDCs

8(a) firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes must submit information with its

annual financial statement to the SBA showing

how the Tribe, ANC, NHO or CDC has provided benefits to the Tribal or native members

and/or the Tribal, native or other community due to the Tribe’s/ANC’s/NHO’s/CDC’s

participation in the 8(a) … program through one or more firms. This data includes

information relating to funding cultural programs, employment assistance, jobs,

scholarships, internships, subsistence activities, and other services provided by the Tribe,

ANC, NHO or CDC to the affected community.

137

Set-Asides and Sole-Source Awards

Similar to other participants, firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes are eligible

for 8(a) set-asides and may receive sole-source awards valued at less than $4.5 million ($7.5

million for manufacturing contracts). However, firms owned by ANCs and Indian tribes can also

134

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(6)(i)-(iii) (ANC- and tribally-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110(g)(1)-(3) (NHO-owned

firms); and 13 C.F.R. §124.111(f)(1)-(3) (CDC-owned firms).

135

13 C.F.R. §124.107; and 13 C.F.R. §124.107(b)(1)(i)-(v).

136

Daniel K. Oakes, “Inching Toward Balance: Reaching Proper Reform of the Alaska Native Corporations’ 8(a)

Contracting Preferences,” 40 Public Contract Law Journal 777 (2011).

137

13 C.F.R. §124.604. SBA regulations promulgated in February 2011 provided that this reporting requirement would

be effective “as of September 9, 2011, unless SBA further delays implementation through a Notice in the Federal

Determinations: Final Rule,” 76 Federal Register 8222-8264 (February 11, 2011). The SBA subsequently delayed the

reporting requirement through at least five such notices. See SBA, “8(a) Business Development Program Regulations;

Tribal Consultations,” 76 Federal Register 12273, 12274 (March 7, 2011); SBA, “8(a) Business Development Program

Regulations; Tribal Consultations,” 76 Federal Register 27859, 27860 (May 13, 2011); SBA, “Data Collection

Available for Public Comments and Recommendations: 60 Day Notice and Request for Comments,” 76 Federal

Recommendations: 60 Day Notice and Request for Comments,” 77 Federal Register 73509, 73510 (December 10,

2012); and SBA, “Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations; Notice: Extension of

Comment Period for New 8(a) Business Development Program Reporting Requirements,” 78 Federal Register 9447

(February 8, 2013). GAO reports that until 2016 compliance with this reporting requirement varied because the SBA

did not have an OMB-approved standard form to collect the data. In 2011, the SBA developed a seven page form, but

after receiving comments that the form was too burdensome it was not adopted. After consultations with OMB, ANCs,

and other groups, in June 2015, the SBA proposed a new one-page form. OMB approved the form on March 3, 2016.

See SBA, “Data Collection Available for Public Comments: 60 Day Notice and Request for Comments,” 80 Federal

Day Notice,” 80 Federal Register 73035, 73036 (November 23, 2015); and GAO, Alaska Native Corporations:

Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit SBA’s Ability to Monitor Compliance with 8(a) Program Requirements,

GAO-16-113, March 21, 2016, p. 36, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675905.pdf.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 22

receive sole-source awards in excess of $4.5 million ($7.5 million for manufacturing contracts)

even when contracting officers reasonably expect that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a)

firms will submit offers and the award can be made at fair market price.

138

NHO-owned firms

may receive sole-source awards from the Department of Defense under the same conditions.

139

Other Requirements

Firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes are governed by the same regulations as

other 8(a) firms in which certain of the “other requirements” are involved, including (1) inability

to protest an 8(a) firm’s eligibility for an award;

140

(2) maximum of nine years in the program (for

individual firms);

141

and (3) limits on subcontracting.

142

However, requirements for such firms

differ somewhat from those for other 8(a) firms, including the one-time eligibility for the 8(a)

Program; limits on majority ownership of 8(a) firms; and limits on the amount of 8(a) contracts

that a firm may receive. Firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes may participate

in the 8(a) Program only one time.

143

However, unlike the disadvantaged individuals upon whom

other firms’ eligibility for the 8(a) Program is based, ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes may

confer program eligibility upon firms on multiple occasions and for an indefinite period.

144

addition, ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes may not own 51% or more of another firm that

“either at the time of application or within the previous two years,” obtains the majority of its

revenue from the same “primary” industry as the applicant. However, there are no limits on the

number of firms they may own that operate in other primary industries.

145

Moreover, ANCs,

138

P.L. 100-656, §602(a), 102 Stat. 3887-88 (November 15, 1988) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §637 note); and 48 C.F.R.

§19.805-1(b)(2).

As mentioned in footnote 98, P.L. 111-84 requires federal contracting officers to provide written justifications, obtain

higher-level agency approvals, and provide notices for sole-source contracts in excess of $20 million awarded under the

authority of §8(a) analogous to those required for sole-source contracts awarded under the general contracting

authorities. The $20 million threshold was increased through a regulatory update to $22 million, effective October 1,

2015, and to $25 million, effective October 1, 2020, to account for inflation. P.L. 116-92 increased this threshold to

$100 million for the Department of Defense.

139

DOD’s authority to make sole-source awards to NHO-owned firms of contracts valued at more than $4.5 million

($7.5 million for manufacturing contracts) even if contracting officers reasonably expect that offers will be received

from at least two responsible small businesses existed on a temporary basis in 2004-2006 and became permanent in

2006. See P.L. 109-148, Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in

the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006, §8020, 119 Stat. 2702-03 (December 30, 2005) (“[Provided]

[t]hat, during the current fiscal year and hereafter, businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small Business Administration

pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of Public Law 85-536, as amended, shall have the same status as other program

participants under section 602 of P.L. 100-656 ... for purposes of contracting with agencies of the Department of

Defense.”); 48 C.F.R. §219.805-1(b)(2)(A)-(B).

140

48 C.F.R. §19.805-2(d).

141

13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) & (b) (requiring tribally and ANC-owned firms to comply with the general eligibility

requirements where they are not contrary to or inconsistent with special requirements for these entities); 13 C.F.R.

§124.110(a) (similar provision for NHO-owned firms); and 13 C.F.R. §124.111(a) (similar provision for CDC-owned

firms).

142

15 U.S.C. §644(o); 15 U.S.C. §657s; 13 C.F.R. §125.6; and 48 C.F.R. §52.219-14.

143

13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) & (b) (ANC- and tribally-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110(a) (NHO-owned firms); and 13

C.F.R. §124.111(a) (CDC-owned firms).

144

15 U.S.C. §636(j)(11)(B)-(C).

145

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(3)(ii) (tribally and ANC-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110(e) (NHO-owned firms); and 13

C.F.R. §124.111(d) (CDC-owned firms). These regulations also provide that an 8(a) firm owned by an ANC, CDC,

NHO, or Indian tribe may not, within its first two years in the 8(a) Program, receive a sole-source contract that is a

follow-on to an 8(a) contract currently performed by an 8(a) firm owned by that entity, or previously performed by an

8(a) firm owned by that entity that left the program within the past two years. In addition, there are restrictions on the

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 23

CDCs, NHOs, and Indian tribes may own multiple firms that earn less than 50% of their revenue

in the same “secondary” industries.

146

Finally, firms owned by ANCs, CDCs, NHOs, and Indian

tribes may continue to receive additional sole-source awards even after they have received a

combined total of competitive and sole-source 8(a) contracts in excess of the dollar amount set

forth in Section 124.519 of Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Individually owned firms

may not exceed this threshold.

147

However, firms owned by any of these four types of entities are

subject to the same requirements regarding the percentages of revenue received from non-8(a)

sources at various stages of their participation in the program as other 8(a) firms.

148

Organizational Structure

The SBA’s Office of Business Development (BD), housed within the Office of Government

Contracts and Business Development, oversees the 8(a) Program. BD has three offices: the Office

of Certification and Eligibility (OCE), the Office of Management and Technical Assistance

(OMTA); and the Office of Program Review (OPR). Their functions are provided in the footnote

below.

149

percentage of work that may be performed by any non-8(a) venturer(s) in joint ventures involving 8(a) firms. See

generally 13 C.F.R. §124.513.

146

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(3)(ii) (tribally and ANC-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110(e) (NHO-owned firms); 13

C.F.R. §124.111(d) (CDC-owned firms).

147

13 C.F.R. §124.519(a).

148

13 C.F.R. §124.509.

149

The Office of Certification and Eligibility (OCE) provides program participants recommendations concerning initial

and continuing program eligibility. OCE’s functions include, but are not limited to, analyzing and processing: (1)

applications for initial program participation, (2) requests for reconsideration of decisions declining initial program

applications; (3) requests to graduate early or to terminate, voluntarily withdraw, or suspend program participation; (4)

changes of ownership, business structure, business name, and/or management; (5) annual continuing eligibility review

issues; and (6) general questions concerning eligibility and application processes. OCE also provides technical

assistance and support to SBA district offices (DOs) regarding outreach to potential program participants, eligibility

issues, and waivers for outside employment.

The Office of Management and Technical Assistance (OMTA) administers most of the services that are not provided

by DOs and reviews certain actions recommended by DOs. These services include (1) servicing sole-source,

competitive, and multiple-award contracts; (2) analyzing and processing termination waivers, requests for competition

below the competitive thresholds, requests for sole source above the thresholds, requests for waivers of sole source

prohibition, bona fide office determinations, and mentor/protégé applications and reconsiderations; (3) subcontracting

assistance; (4) overseeing and coordinating 7(j) technical and management training assistance; (5) overseeing and

executing national and local seminars, conferences, and other similar activities; (6) outreach to prime contractors,

federal agencies, and the 8(a) program community; (7) reciprocating with other certification entities; and (8)

promoting, training, and assisting the DOs with their overall program objectives and initiatives.

The Office of Program Review (OPR) supports both 8(a) headquarters and field office staff by (1) evaluating and

responding to external program reviews that may be conducted by the SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office

of Government Contracting (for agency surveillance reviews), Office of Field Operations (for SBA DO reviews), and

the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO); (2) responding to agency controlled correspondence from the

public and congressional offices, Freedom of Information Act requests from the public, and clearance requests from

other SBA offices; (3) gaining approval of agency partnership agreements and providing training for buying activities;

(4) creating marketing products and updating the 8(a) program web page; (5) managing all activities associated with the

surplus property program; (6) maintaining program data on firm participation; and (7) preparing the annual report to

Congress on program participation and contracting.

See SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, pp. 29-31, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/

SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 24

Applications for the 8(a) Program are processed at one of two central office duty stations

(CODS), one located in San Francisco, CA, and the other in Philadelphia, PA.

150

Applicants apply

to the CODS that serve the territory where the applicant’s principal place of business is located.

Business Opportunity Specialists (BOSs) work directly with 8(a) firms in district offices under

the general supervision of the SBA’s Office of Field Operations (OFO). Although BOSs report to

the SBA’s OFO, they interact extensively with BD, which is located in the SBA’s headquarters

building in Washington, DC. As will be discussed, GAO and others have argued that this

overlapping organizational structure may “create programmatic challenges.”

151

The Application Process

Prior to applying for certification, firms must complete all requirements for contracting with the

federal government (e.g., get a free D-U-N-S number—a unique nine-digit identification number

of each physical business location from Dun and Bradstreet; obtain a free tax identification

number or employer identification number from the Internal Revenue Service; create a profile in

the federal System for Award Management, and get a free SBA general login system user ID).

152

The SBA’s district office staff generally encourage potential 8(a) Program applicants “to attend

an information session to obtain information regarding the program and its eligibility criteria

prior to filing an application … [and] also refer the applicant to SBA’s website for forms, specific

eligibility criteria, pertinent regulatory sections in the Code of Federal Regulations, and overall

information on the program.”

153

In an attempt to encourage more applicants, the SBA revised and streamlined the 8(a) Program’s

application process in 2016 by accepting online applications only (hard copy applications are no

longer accepted) and eliminating the requirement for a wet signature application; a completed

IRS Form 4506T, Request for Copy or Transcript of Tax Form, in every case; and narrative

statements in support of the applicants’ claims of economic disadvantage. That determination is

now based solely on an analysis of objective financial data relating to the individual’s net worth,

income and total assets.

154

In addition, to prevent what it viewed as unnecessary delays for minor

infractions that may have “occurred many years ago” and may have “nothing to do with the

individual’s business integrity,” the SBA made optional the automatic suspension of consideration

and referral to the SBA OIG of all applications with adverse information regarding the applicant’s

or any of its principals’ possible criminal conduct.

155

Despite these changes, applicants still have a relatively long list of supporting documents (and

required SBA Forms)

156

that they must submit, including the following:

150

The San Francisco, California CODS screens and processes all applications submitted by Alaska Native

Corporations (ANCs), regardless of where the concern is located.

151

GAO, Small Business Administration: Leadership Attention Needed to Overcome Management Challenges, GAO-

15-347, September 22, 2015, p. 59, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672648.pdf.

152

SBA, “Steps to Applying to the 8(a) Program,” at https://www.sba.gov/contracting/government-contracting-

programs/8a-business-development-program/how-apply. D-U-N-S is the data universal number system that businesses

are required to register with the federal government when competing for contracts or grants.

153

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 35, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

154

SBA, “Small Business Mentor Protégé Program,” 81 Federal Register 48569, July 25, 2016.

155

SBA, “Small Business Mentor Protégé Program,” p. 48570.

156

Firms must submit SBA Form 1010, 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program Application along with supporting

documentation. Individuals must submit SBA Form 1010-IND, Individual Information; SBA Form 912, Statement of

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 25

 Signed and dated federal income tax returns for the firm and all individuals that

either own more than 10% of the firm or have a key position in the firm for the

past three years preceding the date of application (including all forms,

statements, schedules and attachments).

 The firm’s financial statements, balance sheet, and profit and loss statements for

the past three years (including the most recent balance sheet, current within 90

days of application).

 A completed personal financial statement form (from all principals and their

spouses), including a list of all assets, liabilities, real estate and other personal

property, including transferred assets, information on delinquent federal

obligations, past due taxes or liens, bankruptcy filings and pending civil lawsuits,

and a list of any SBA loans for the firm and other businesses owned by the

principal(s).

 A list or chart of the firm’s current and past federal and nonfederal contracts

within the most recently completed fiscal year.

 A list of any lease agreements.

 Proof of signature authority on the firm’s bank account(s) (i.e., signature card(s)

for firm bank account(s) or letter from the bank).

 Documented proof of contributions: (1) used to acquire ownership (for each

owner), (2) of any transfer of assets to or from the firm, and (3) of any transfer of

assets to or from any of the firm’s owners over the past two years.

 State filings (signed, dated and stamped by the state where the firm does

business) and certificate of good standing.

157

 List of any foreign corporation filings.

 Articles of incorporation, articles of organization, any DBA (“doing business as”)

filings, governing documents signed by the principals, bylaws, operating

agreements, partnership agreements, and meeting minutes.

 Any stock certificates and ledgers.

 Proof of social disadvantage from majority owners and firm managers.

 Background information and personal information from all principals, including

a resume, a completed Statement of Personal History form, proof of U.S.

citizenship or naturalization, duties within the firm and time devotion, a list of

other business interests and time devotion, and the nature of outside employment

and time devotion.

158

 Documentation addressing how the firm meets specified objectives, if it is

applying for a two-year waiver.

159

Personal History; any individual who responds ‘Yes’ to questions 7, 8 or 9 on the SBA Form 912 must submit a

completed SBA Fingerprint Card (FD 258, Fingerprint Card); and SBA Form 413, Personal Financial Statement. See

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,” SOP

80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, pp. 37-39, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

157

A certificate of good standing is issued by the Secretary of State’s Office evidencing that a business has complied

with the applicable provisions of the laws of the state, is in good standing, and authorized to transact business or to

conduct affairs within the state.

158

Principals include owner(s) of more than 10%, officers, directors, members, partners, and key employees.

159

The specified objectives are “substantial demonstration of business management experience; demonstrated technical

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 26

As mentioned, applications are processed at the San Francisco or Philadelphia CODS. In general,

the SBA processes an application and issues a decision letter within 90 days of the receipt of an

application package. The processing time will be suspended only if an applicant is referred to the

SBA OIG, for a formal size determination, or both.

160

Applicants are notified within 15 days of receipt whether the application package is complete or

incomplete. The SBA will not process an incomplete application.

161

Complete means that the

application is ready to be processed.

A BOS, at one of the CODS, initially reviews the application. If, during the eligibility review

process, it is determined that an application is incomplete, the BOS may request additional

information or clarification “via a delivery method that tracks delivery and provides return receipt

capability.”

162

The applicant must provide the requested information within five calendar days of

receipt of the request. Failure to meet the deadline may result in the applicant’s ineligibility to

participate in the program. However, a request for additional information does not stop the 90-day

processing clock. “Once the requested information is provided, the case may require priority

handling in order for the CODS to complete the eligibility review within the required

timeframe.”

163

After the initial review, the BOS submits the case file, the BOS analysis, and a decision letter to

the CODS’ chief for review. The chief examines the BOS analysis and decision letter to verify

that all required steps and regulations have been properly applied. Upon completing the

examination, the chief returns the case file and attachments to the BOS along with any applicable

comments and recommendations.

164

The BOS then makes any changes or corrections to the analysis or decision letter as requested by

the chief. The chief then signs and returns the case file to the processing BOS. The chief makes

his or her recommendation in the electronic application system (which is equivalent to

transmitting it to the OCE’s director, who approves or declines the application largely based on

the CODS’ review).

165

After the OCE review, the associate administrator for Business Development (AA/BD) ultimately

approves or declines the application in writing.

166

The electronic application system notifies the

expertise to carry out its business plan; adequate capital; record of successful performance on contracts (including

copies of contracts that will reflect the different sizes the firm can handle); and ability to obtain the personnel, facilities,

equipment, and any other requirements to perform on contracts. Applicants seeking this waiver must also provide a list

of the different services/products provided by the firm; billing invoices and bank statements reflecting deposit of

receipts; and letters of reference from the firm’s clients.” See SBA, “8(a) Application Checklist,” at

https://sbaone.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CKB/pages/96370728/8+a+Initial+Application+Document+Checklist.

160

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 73, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf;

and 13 C.F.R. §124.204(a).

161

13 C.F.R. §124.204(a).

162

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 73, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

163

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, p. 73.

164

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, p. 75.

165

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, p. 75.

166

13 C.F.R. §124.204(f).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 27

firm by issuing an approval or declination letter. All declination letters must clearly explain the

reason(s) why the firm was found to be ineligible, including a direct reference to regulatory

provisions that the applicant failed to satisfy. The letter must also include the applicant’s right to

request reconsideration and, if applicable, to appeal the decision to the SBA’s Office of Hearings

and Appeals.

167

As discussed below in the “Current Issues” section, the SBA and others have identified the

application process, and its relatively high rate of rejection, as an impediment to the 8(a)

Program’s growth.

Business Opportunity Specialists and Reporting

Requirements

The SBA’s 117 BOSs assist both prospective and existing 8(a) firms with questions related to the

application process, required forms, and the program’s various eligibility, reporting, and

performance requirements.

168

BOSs also provide general business development assistance, assist

with the firm’s planning and establishment of goals, work with the firm as it develops and

submits its required business plan, and ensure that the firm is on track regarding anticipated

business growth.

169

BOSs “on-going responsibility is to assist the Participant in developing its

business to the fullest extent possible so that it attains competitive viability during its program

participation term, and maintains viability thereafter.”

170

As directed, BOSs accomplish this by (1)

helping the firm identify its strengths and weaknesses; (2) providing advice, counsel, and

guidance in the areas of marketing to the federal government, prime contracting, and contract

administration; (3) referring the firm to appropriate internal and external resources for assistance

in technical, management, and financial matters; and (4) monitoring the firm’s progress in the

program and its compliance with program requirements.

171

8(a) firms must demonstrate program compliance by reporting specific information to the SBA on

an as needed, periodic, or requested basis. Much of the reporting is accomplished through the

required annual review, which focuses on the firm and its business development, and the

continuing eligibility review.

172

167

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 74, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf;

SBA, Office of Inspector General, “SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program Eligibility,” Audit Report, Number 16-

13, April 7, 2016, p. 2, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/oig/16-

13_SBAs_8a_Business_Development_Program_Eligibility.pdf; 13 C.F.R. §124.205; and 13 C.F.R. §124.206.

168

SBA, OIG, SBA Business Development Assistance to 8(a) Program Participants, Report No. 22-08, February 14,

2022, pp. 21-22, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-22-08-sbas-business-development-assistance-8a-program-

participants.

169

SBA, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, “Supplemental Workbook, May 2013, Module

3 Winning Contracts Pre-8(a) Business Development Program Training Series,” at https://www.sba.gov/content/pre-8a-

business-development-program-training-series.

170

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, pp. 131, 132, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/

SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

171

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, p. 132.

172

SBA, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, “Pre-8(a) Business Development Program

Module 4—Business Planning and Operational Management, transcript,” February 2015, p. 9, at https://www.sba.gov/

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 28

The annual review requires numerous forms and documentation, including the following:

 Form 1450—8(a) Annual Update Review (information about the firm, including

its tenure in the program, current financial data, business development targets,

loans and other sources of capital, and applicable bonding information);

 Form 1623—Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other

Responsibility Matters Primary Covered Transactions (detailed information

regarding any debarments, suspensions, or other potentially adverse matters);

 Form 1790—Representatives Used and Compensation Paid for Services in

Connection with Obtaining Federal Contracts (required semiannually, includes a

list of any agents, representatives, accountants, consultants, etc. that receive fees,

commissions, or compensation of any kind to assist the firm in obtaining or

seeking federal contracts);

 Form 912—Statement of Personal History (information related to claiming

disadvantaged status for all officers, directors, general partners, managing

members, and holders of more than 10% ownership in the firm); and

 Form 413—Personal Financial Statement (information concerning the owner’s

and their spouse’s personal net worth).

173

8(a) firms are also required to provide any updates or modifications to their business plan.

174

the firm participates in the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (see below) it must provide “a

narrative report detailing the contracts it has had with its mentor and benefits it has received from

the mentor/protégé relationship.”

175

In addition, the firm must provide a report for each 8(a)

contract performed during the year “explaining how the performance of work requirements are

being met for the contract, including any 8(a) contracts performed as a joint venture.”

176

In 2010, GAO reported that the district staff’s “dual role of advocacy for and monitoring of the

firms may have contributed in part to the retention of ineligible firms.”

177

In response, in 2012,

the SBA shifted responsibility for processing the continued eligibility portion of the required

annual review from BOSs located in the SBA district offices to its Washington, DC, office. While

BOSs continue to perform other components of the annual review, “shifting the responsibility for

sites/default/files/Pre8a_module4_transcript.pdf; and SBA, Office of Business Development, Standard Operating

Procedure for the Office of Business Development,” SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 212, at

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf. …Continuing eligibility reviews are conducted by the

District Office and OCE. …OCE conducts continuing eligibility review on 8(a) Participant firms that are considered

high risk/complex and those that are requested from the field staff. See SBA, Office of Business Development,

“Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,” SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016,

p. 212, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

173

SBA, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, “Pre-8(a) Business Development Program

Module 4—Business Planning and Operational Management, transcript,” February 2015, pp. 9, 10, at

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Pre8a_module4_transcript.pdf.

174

SBA, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, “Pre-8(a) Business Development Program

Module 4—Business Planning and Operational Management, transcript,” p. 10.

175

13 C.F.R. §124.112(b)(6).

176

13 C.F.R. §124.112(b)(8).

177

GAO, Small Business Administration: Steps Have Been Taken to Improve Administration of the 8(a) Program, but

Key Controls for Continued Eligibility Need Strengthening, GAO-10-353, March 30, 2010, pp. 9, 10, 26, at

http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/302582.pdf.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 29

processing continued eligibility to headquarters was designed to eliminate conflict of interest for

district offices associated with performing both assistance and oversight roles.”

178

8(a) firms may leave the program by any of the following means:

 voluntary withdrawal;

 voluntary early graduation (where the firm voluntarily decides to leave the

program after the SBA has determined that the firm has substantially achieved its

business plan’s targets, objectives, and goals and has demonstrated the ability to

compete in the marketplace without program assistance);

 involuntary early graduation (where the SBA requires a firm to leave the program

because it has determined that the firm has substantially achieved its business

plan’s targets, objectives, and goals and has demonstrated the ability to compete

in the marketplace without program assistance; or one or more of the

disadvantaged owners upon whom the firm’s eligibility is based are no longer

economically disadvantaged);

179

 termination for good cause;

180

178

GAO, Small Business Administration: Leadership Attention Needed to Overcome Management Challenges, GAO-

15-347, September 22, 2015, p. 63, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672648.pdf. …a. Upon completion of the

analysis, the District Office BOS will forward the completed annual review to the District Director through the

Assistant District Director for final disposition; b. After the review of the District Office BOS recommendation, the

District Director must then enter his/her recommendation in the 8(a) electronic tracking system to complete the Annual

Review reporting. …The District Office will send a letter to the 8(a) Participant notifying the firm that their annual

review is complete and that the Participant continues to be eligible to participate in the 8(a) BD Program. See SBA,

Office of Business Development, Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,” SOP 80 05

5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 200, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

179

13 C.F. R. §124.302. “In determining whether a Participant has substantially achieved the targets, objectives and

goals of its business plan and in assessing the overall competitive strength and viability of a Participant, SBA considers

the totality of circumstances, including the following factors: (1) Degree of sustained profitability; (2) Sales trends,

including improved ratio of non-8(a) sales to 8(a) sales since program entry; (3) Business net worth, financial ratios,

working capital, capitalization, and access to credit and capital; (4) Current ability to obtain bonding; (5) A comparison

of the Participant’s business and financial profiles with profiles of non-8(a) BD businesses having the same primary

four-digit SIC code as the Participant; (6) Strength of management experience, capability, and expertise; and (7) Ability

to operate successfully without 8(a) contracts.” See 13 C.F. R. §124.302(b).

180

Examples of termination for good cause include submission of false information in the firm’s application materials;

failure to maintain eligibility for program participation; failure, for any reason, to maintain ownership, full-time day-to-

day management, and control by disadvantaged individuals; failure to obtain prior written approval from the SBA for

any changes in ownership or business structure, management or control; failure to disclose the extent to which

nondisadvantaged persons or firms participate in the firm’s management; failure by the concern or one or more of the

concern’s principals to maintain good character; failure to provide required financial statements, requested tax returns,

reports, updated business plans, information requested by the SBA’s Office of Inspector General, or other requested

information or data within 30 days of the request; cessation of business operations; failure to pursue competitive and

commercial business in accordance with its business plan, or failure in other ways to make reasonable efforts to

develop and achieve competitive viability; a pattern of inadequate performance of awarded Section 8(a) contracts;

failure to pay or repay significant financial obligations owed to the federal government; failure to obtain and keep

current any and all required permits, licenses, and charters needed to operate the business; excessive withdrawals that

are detrimental to the achievement of the targets, objectives, and goals contained in the participant’s business plan;

unauthorized use of SBA direct or guaranteed loan proceeds or violation of an SBA loan agreement; submission by or

on behalf of a participant of false information to the SBA; debarment, suspension, voluntary exclusion, or ineligibility

of the concern or its principals pursuant to 2 C.F.R. parts 180 and 2700 or FAR subpart 9.4 (48 C.F.R. part 9, subpart

9.4); conduct by the concern, or any of its principals, indicating a lack of business integrity; willful failure to comply

with applicable labor standards and obligations; material breach of any terms and conditions of the 8(a) participation

agreement; willful violation by a concern, or any of its principals, of any SBA regulation pertaining to material issues.

See 13 C.F.R. 124.303(a)(1-20) and (b).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 30

 expiration of the program term (maximum of nine years) without meeting the

SBA’s graduation requirements;

181

 graduation at the expiration of the program term.

7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program

The SBA’s 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program assists 8(a) firms by providing

management and technical assistance training. The program’s origin dates back to 1970 when the

SBA issued regulations creating the 8(a) contracting program to “assist small concerns owned by

disadvantaged persons to become self-sufficient, viable businesses capable of competing

effectively in the market place.”

182

Using its statutory authority under Section 7(j) of the Small

Business Act to provide management and technical assistance through contracts, grants, and

cooperative agreements to qualified service providers, the regulations specified that “the SBA

may provide technical and management assistance to assist in the performance of the

subcontracts.”

183

On October 24, 1978, P.L. 95-507, To amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business

Investment Act of 1958, provided the SBA explicit statutory authority to extend financial,

management, technical, and other services to socially and economically disadvantaged small

businesses. The SBA’s current regulations indicate that the 7(j) Management and Technical

Assistance Program will, “through its private sector service providers [deliver] a wide variety of

management and technical assistance to eligible individuals or concerns to meet their specific

needs, including: (a) counseling and training in the areas of financing, management, accounting,

bookkeeping, marketing, and operation of small business concerns; and (b) the identification and

development of new business opportunities.”

184

Eligible individuals and businesses include “8(a)

certified firms, small disadvantaged businesses, businesses operating in areas of high

unemployment or low income, or small businesses owned by low income individuals.”

185

As shown in Table 2, 9,941 small businesses received 7(j) program assistance in FY2020. The

SBA has been marketing the 7(j) program to 8(a) firms in an effort increase awareness of the

program, to help those small businesses “better prepare themselves for federal contracting

opportunities,” and to retain 8(a) firms in the 8(a) program.

186

Table 2 also shows the amount of total administrative resources the SBA provides the 7(j)

program each year.

181

13 C.F. R. §124.2.

182

13 C.F.R. §124.8-1(b) (1970); and Notes, “Minority Enterprise, Federal Contracting, and the SBA’s 8(a) Program:

A New Approach to an Old Problem,” Michigan Law Review, vol. 71, no. 2 (December 1972), pp. 377, 378.

183

13 C.F.R. §124.8-1(d) (1970).

184

13 C.F.R. §124.702.

185

SBA, FY2017 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2015 Annual Performance Report, p. 50, at

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FY17-CBJ_FY15-APR.pdf, and SBA, FY2019 Congressional Budget

Justification and FY2017 Annual Performance Report, pp. 73, 74, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/

aboutsbaarticle/SBA_FY_19_508Final5_1.pdf.

186

SBA, FY2017 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2015 Annual Performance Report, p. 50, at

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FY17-CBJ_FY15-APR.pdf.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 31

Table 2. 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program Statistics,

FY2010-FY2020

Fiscal Year

Number of Small Businesses Assisted

Actual Total Administrative Resources

(Program Cost; $ in millions)

2020

9,941

$5.139

2019

8,032

$4.591

2018

6,483

$4.098

2017

4,100

$3.081

2016

5,245

$2.422

2015

5,360

$4.444

2014

4,104

$5.614

2013

3,913

$5.793

2012

3,272

$5.356

2011

3,550

$6.502

2010

3,480

$5.478

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2017 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2015 Annual

Performance Report, p. 101, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FY17-CBJ_FY15-APR.pdf (number assisted

and program cost); and U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2022 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2020

Annual Performance Report, p. 73, https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-annual-

performance-report.

Note: The 7(j) program is funded through a combination of directed appropriations, typically in the language

accompanying annual appropriations measures, and the SBA’s salaries and expenses (operating) budget account.

All Small Mentor-Protégé Program

187

On July 30, 1998, the SBA established the 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program to “enhance the

capabilities” of 8(a) firms and “improve [their] ability to successfully compete for contracts.”

188

The program, which was merged into the SBA’s All Small Mentor-Protégé Program on

November 16, 2020, provided various forms of assistance, including technical or management

training, financial assistance in the form of equity investments or loans, subcontracts, trade

education, and assistance in performing prime contracts with the federal government through

joint venture agreements.

189

The All Small Mentor-Protégé Program’s requirements and benefits

are essentially identical to those that were in place for the 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program. The only

major difference is that the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program is available to all small businesses,

whereas the 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program was limited to firms participating in the 8(a) program.

The SBA merged the programs in an effort to “eliminate confusion regarding perceived

187

For additional information and analysis of federal Mentor-Protégé Programs, see CRS Report R41722, Small

Business Mentor-Protégé Programs, by Robert Jay Dilger.

188

SBA, “Small Business Size Regulations; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status

Determinations; Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before the Office of Hearings and Appeals: Final Rule,” 63

Federal Register 35739, June 30, 1998.

189

13 C.F.R. §124.520(a). See also GAO, Small Business: SBA Could Better Focus Its 8(a) Program to Help Firms

Obtain Contracts, GAO/RCED-00-196, July 20, 2000, p. 14, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00196.pdf; and SBA,

“Consolidation of Mentor-Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments,” 85 Federal Register

66146-66199, October 16, 2020.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 32

differences between the two programs, remove unnecessary duplication of functions within SBA,

and establish one, unified staff to better coordinate and process mentor-protégé applications.”

190

The SBA’s Office of Business Development (BD) administers the All Small Mentor-Protégé

Program. This makes it somewhat different from agency-specific mentor-protégé programs,

which are generally administered by the agency’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization (OSDBU) and may involve coordination with agency contracting offices.

191

SBA regulations govern various aspects of the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program, including who

may qualify as a mentor or protégé, the content of written agreements between mentors and

protégés, and the SBA’s evaluation of the mentor-protégé relationship. For example, a protégé

must

 be a small business with industry experience,

 have a proposed mentor prior to applying for the program,

 be organized for profit or as an agricultural cooperative, and

 have no more than two mentors in the business’s lifetime.

192

A mentor must

 be organized for profit or as an agricultural cooperative,

 demonstrate that it is capable of carrying out its responsibilities to assist the

protégé,

 possess good character and a favorable financial position,

 not be on the federal list of debarred or suspended contractors or affiliated with

the protégé at the time of application or for any reason other than the mentor-

protégé agreement, and

 have no more than three protégés at a time.

193

The SBA must determine that the mentor-provided assistance will promote real developmental

gains for the protégé and not be merely a vehicle to receive federal small business set-asides and

sole source contracts.

194

Protégé benefits include

 guidance on internal business management systems, accounting, marketing,

manufacturing, and strategic planning;

 financial assistance in the form of equity investments (of up to 40% of the

protégé’s business), loans, and bonding;

190

SBA, “Consolidation of Mentor-Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments,” 84 Federal

Contracting Amendments,” 85 Federal Register 66146-66199, October 16, 2020.

191

GAO, Mentor-Protégé Programs Have Policies That Aim to Benefit Participants But Do Not Require

Postagreement Tracking, GAO-11-548R, June 15, 2011, p. 3, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11548r.pdf. GAO

identified mentor-protégé programs in 13 federal agencies.

192

SBA, “All Small Mentor-Protégé program,” at https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-

programs/all-small-mentor-protege-program. For additional information concerning the All Small Mentor-Protégé

Program’s requirements, see 13 C.F.R. §125.9.

193

13 C.F.R. §125.9; and SBA, “All Small Mentor-Protégé program.”

194

SBA, “All Small Mentor-Protégé program.”

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 33

 assistance navigating federal contract bidding, acquisition, and performance

process;

 education about international trade, strategic planning, and finding markets;

 business development, including strategy and identifying contracting and

partnership opportunities; and

 general and administrative assistance, such as human resource sharing or security

clearance support.

195

Mentor-protégé agreements may last for no more than six years, and any changes to the

agreement must be approved by the SBA in advance.

The primary benefit for mentors is that they may form joint ventures with their protégés that

qualify for small business set-aside contracts for which the small business is eligible, including

contracts set aside for 8(a) program participants, service-disabled veteran-owned small

businesses, women-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses.

196

As of March 1, 2022, there were 1,501 active All Small Mentor-Protégé Program mentor-protégé

agreements, including 733 agreements with 8(a) firms.

197

Program Statistics

As shown in Table 3, the number of 8(a) firms assisted by SBA Business Opportunity Specialists

(BOS) generally declined from FY2005 through FY2014 and has generally increased in recent

years, reaching a high of 11,150 in FY2020. The number of federal contracts awarded to 8(a)

firms has also increased in recent years, as has the amount of federal contracts awarded with an

8(a) preference. The 8(a) program’s administrative costs have varied somewhat, with increases in

some years and decreases in others.

Table 3. 8(a) Program Statistics, Selected Years

Fiscal Year

Number of 8(a)

Small Businesses

Assisted by SBA

Business

Opportunity

Specialists

Number of 8(a)

Firms Awarded

Federal

Contracts

Amount of

Federal

Contracts

Awarded with an

8(a) Preference

($ in millions)

SBA

Administrative

Costs ($ in

millions)

2020

11,150

$20.471

$50.002

2019

7,958

3,871

$18.558

$63.117

2018

6,789

3,709

$18.514

$71.456

2017

6,655

3,421

$17.369

$54.099

2016

8,010

$17.432

$47.281

2015

6,948

$16.747

$55.600

2014

6,660

$17.151

$53.824

2013

6,661

$14.689

$51.649

195

13 C.F.R. §125.9; and SBA, “All Small Mentor-Protégé program.”

196

13 C.F.R. §125.9; and SBA, “All Small Mentor-Protégé program.”

197

SBA, “Active mentor-protégé agreements,” November 1, 2021, at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-active-

mentor-protege-agreements.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 34

Fiscal Year

Number of 8(a)

Small Businesses

Assisted by SBA

Business

Opportunity

Specialists

Number of 8(a)

Firms Awarded

Federal

Contracts

Amount of

Federal

Contracts

Awarded with an

8(a) Preference

($ in millions)

SBA

Administrative

Costs ($ in

millions)

2012

7,388

$16.570

$60.855

2011

7,814

$17.397

$58.274

2010

8,442

$18.718

$56.817

2005

9,458

$11.790

$31.387

2000

6,383

$5.780

$31.741

1995

6,002

2,755

$5.820

$32.668

1990

3,645

2,054

$3.830

$25.656

1987

2,938

1,713

$3.014

$20.788

1980

2,138

1,391

$1.600

$6.008

1977

1,482

1,044

$0.533

$3.916

Source: U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce, the

Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1978, Part 3-Justifications, hearing, 95

Cong., 1

sess., January 1, 1977 (Washington:

GPO, 1977), p. 889; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State, Justice,

Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1979, Part 3-Justifications, hearing, 95

Cong., 2

sess., January 1, 1978

(Washington: GPO, 1978), pp. 1154, 1155; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee

on the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Departments of State,

Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1980, Part 6, hearing, 96

Cong., 1

sess., March 27, 1979 (Washington: GPO, 1979), pp. 606, 629; U.S. General Accounting Office, The SBA 8(a)

Procurement Program—A Promise Unfulfilled, CED-81-55, April 8, 1981, pp. 7, 28, at https://www.gao.gov/products/

ced-81-55; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,

and the Judiciary, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for

1982, Part 7, hearing, 97

Cong., 1

sess., March 16, 1981 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 74; U.S. General

Accounting Office, Small Business Administration: Status, Operations, and Views on the 8(a) Procurement Program,

GAO/RCED-88-148BR, May 24, 1988, pp. 2, 11, 12, at https://www.gao.gov/products/rced-88-148br; U.S.

Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and

State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1992, Part 6-Related Agencies, hearing, 102

Cong., 1

sess., March 14,

1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 283; U.S. General Accounting Office, Small Business: Problems in Restructuring

SBA’s Minority Business Development Program, GAO/RCED-92-68, January 31, 1992, p. 30, at https://www.gao.gov/

products/rced-92-68; U.S. General Accounting Office, Small Business: Status of SBA’s 8(a) Minority Business

Development Program, GAO/RCED-96-259, September 18, 1996, pp. 2, 4, at https://www.gao.gov/products/t-

rced-96-259; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Departments of

Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the

Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, Part 4-Justification of the Budget Estimates, hearing,

104

Cong., 2

sess., January 1, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 770; U.S. Congress, House Committee on

Small Business, Small Business: Opportunity Denied, Scorecard III, Democratic Committee Staff Report, 107

Cong.,

sess. May 15, 2002, pp. 7, 11; U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2005 Congressional Performance Budget

Request, pp. 91, 95; U.S. General Services Administration, Sam.Gov, Data Bank, “FY2005 Small Business Goaling

Report,” at https://sam.gov/reports/awards/static; U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2017 Congressional Budget

Justification and FY2015 Annual Performance Report, pp. 47, 101, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FY17-

CBJ_FY15-APR.pdf; U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2022 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2020

Annual Performance Report, p. 73, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-

annual-performance-report;. and U.S. General Services Administration, “Sam.Gov data bank: ad hoc report,”

August 2, 2021, at https://sam.gov/reports/awards/adhoc (contract award data with an 8(a) preference generated

for FY2010-FY2020).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 35

As shown in Table 4, in FY2020, 8(a) firms were awarded $34.045 billion in federal contracts

(5.11% of all federal contracts awarded). Of that amount, these firms received $9.335 billion

through an 8(a) set-aside award, $11.136 billion through an 8(a) sole-source award, and $13.574

billion through either open competition ($2.209 billion) or with another small business preference

applied (e.g., small business set-aside and HUBZone set-aside or sole-source award) ($11.364

billion).

From FY2010 through FY2020, 8(a) firms were awarded, on average, approximately 5.46% of

the total amount of federal contracts awarded, ranging from a low of 5.09% of all federal

contracts in FY2011 to a high of 6.16% in FY2014.

During this period, 8(a) firms received about $313.962 billion in federal contracts: $88.642

billion through an 8(a) set-aside (28.2% of all 8(a) contracts), $104.971 billion through an 8(a)

sole-source award (33.4% of all 8(a) contracts), and $120.347 billion through either open

competition or with another small business preference applied (38.3% of all 8(a) contracts).

Table 4. Federal Contract Amount Awarded to 8(a) Firms,

by Award Type, FY2010-FY2020

($ in billions)

Fiscal

Year

8(a) Set-

Aside

8(a) Sole-

Source

Other 8(a)

Awards

8(a) Total

8(a) Total as a % of

All Federal

Contracts Awarded

2020

$9.335

$11.136

$13.574

$34.045

5.11% of $665.733

2019

$8.625

$9.932

$11.859

$30.418

5.15% of $590.162

2018

$9.208

$9.306

$11.633

$30.147

5.43% of $555.402

2017

$8.671

$8.697

$10.623

$27.992

5.48% of $510.668

2016

$8.601

$8.832

$10.290

$27.722

5.83% of $475.286

2015

$8.174

$8.573

$9.741

$26.488

6.02% of $440.205

2014

$8.002

$9.149

$10.358

$27.509

6.16% of $446.220

2013

$6.875

$7.813

$9.897

$24.585

5.31% of $463.425

2012

$7.158

$9.411

$12.055

$28.625

5.50% of $520.787

2011

$6.892

$10.505

$10.091

$27.487

5.09% of $539.775

2010

$7.101

$11.617

$10.226

$28.944

5.36% of $540.121

Total

$88.642

$104.971

$120.347

$313.962

5.46% of $5,747.784

Source: Data generated using U.S. General Services Administration, “Sam.Gov data bank: ad hoc report,”

August 2, 2021, at https://sam.gov/reports/awards/adhoc (for FY2020).

Notes: Other 8(a) awards include contracts awarded through open competition or with other small business

preferences applied (e.g., small business set-aside and HUBZone set-aside or sole-source award). The Federal

Procurement Data System̶ (FPDS), which is accessed through Sam.Gov, is the most comprehensive data system

available for federal contract awards and is updated continuously.

Current Issues

The SBA faces several challenges concerning the 8(a) Program, including oversight of 8(a)

participant’s continuing eligibility, disagreements related to the program’s financial thresholds

used to determine economic disadvantage, and concerns related to the performance measures

used to evaluate the program’s success.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 36

Oversight of 8(a) Program Participant’s Continuing Eligibility

Two SBA offices, the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development (GCBD) and

the Office of Field Operations (OFO), share responsibility for overseeing the 8(a) Program.

Within GCBD, BOSs assigned to the Office of Certification and Eligibility (OCE) evaluate all

8(a) program applications and conduct continuing eligibility reviews of “high-risk” or “complex”

8(a) firms, including those firms with total 8(a) revenue exceeding $10 million, are part of a joint

venture, are party to a mentor-protégé agreement, or are an entity-owned firm such as an Alaska

Native Corporation, and those that are requested from district office field staff.

198

However, an

SBA OIG audit found that the OCE reviewed the continuing eligibility of less than half of the

firms identified as high risk in FY2016 (352 of 859 firms, or 41%) and in FY2017 (350 of 798

firms, or 44%).

199

Within OFO, BOSs in each of the SBA’s 68 district offices work directly with their assigned 8(a)

firms and, among other duties, conduct annual reviews of those firms’ progress toward achieving

the targets, objectives, and goals set forth in their business development plan. According to the

8(a) Program’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) manual, BOSs in each of the SBA’s 68

district offices conduct continuing eligibility reviews for all 8(a) firms not reviewed by the GCBD

to ensure their compliance with all continuing eligibility requirements during the annual review

process.

200

However, in practice, the SBA OIG’s audit found that district office BOSs assess

continuing eligibility as part of the annual review process for all 8(a) firms, including those

deemed to be high risk or complex.

201

The SBA is also required to review the participant’s continuing eligibility “upon receipt of

specific and credible information alleging that a participant no longer meets the eligibility

requirements.”

202

Generally, the SBA receives this information from the SBA OIG’s Hotline.

203

However, the SBA OIG’s audit found that the OCE did not conduct continuing eligibility reviews

for any of the 44 OIG Hotline complaints that were referred to the GCBD from October 1, 2015,

through May 4, 2017. In addition, GCBD did not inform district office BOSs of complaints filed

against firms within their purview. As a result, district office BOSs took no action regarding the

complaints.

204

The SBA OIG’s audit reviewed the continuing eligibility of two samples of 8(a) firms to

determine whether the SBA’s continuing eligibility review process “consistently identify

ineligible firms enrolled in the program”: the 15 individually owned 8(a) firms with the highest

198

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, Report Number 18-

22, September 7, 2018, pp. 1, 2, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/oig/SBA-OIG-Report_18-22.pdf; and SBA,

Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,” SOP 80 05

5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 212, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

199

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, Report Number 18-

22, September 7, 2018, p. 4, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/oig/SBA-OIG-Report_18-22.pdf.

200

SBA, Office of Business Development, “Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development,”

SOP 80 05 5, effective September 23, 2016, p. 212, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_80_05_5_.pdf.

201

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, Report Number 18-

22, September 7, 2018, p. 2, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/oig/SBA-OIG-Report_18-22.pdf.

202

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, p. 2.

203

The SBA OIG’s Hotline is a web page that provides visitors the option of filing a written complaint by clicking on a

link on the web page or by sending the complaint to the SBA OIG by mail or courier. The Hotline also provides a toll-

free telephone number (800) 767-0385. See SBA, OIG, “Hotline,” at https://www.sba.gov/oig/hotline

204

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, Report Number 18-

22, September 7, 2018, p. 9, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/oig/SBA-OIG-Report_18-22.pdf.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 37

set-aside dollars in FY2016 that were scheduled to have continuing eligibility reviews within the

first half of FY2017 and 10 individually owned 8(a) firms that were identified as being ineligible

in Hotline complaints received between October 1, 2015, and May 4, 2017.

205

The SBA OIG found that “despite OCE and district offices having shared responsibility for

assessing 8(a) firms’ continuing eligibility, they did not detect that 4 of the 15 individually-owned

8(a) firms we reviewed were ineligible for the 8(a) Program,” and “our review of the 10 firms

referred by the OIG Hotline revealed that they were all ineligible for the 8(a) program, based on

issues such as excessive income and lack of good character.”

206

In addition, the SBA OIG found

that the SBA had identified eligibility concerns through its annual reviews and continuing

eligibility reviews for 6 of the 15 individually owned 8(a) firms the OIG had reviewed, but “did

not take timely action to remove these firms from the 8(a) Program or document resolution of

eligibility issues.”

207

The SBA OIG concluded that 20 of the 25 firms it reviewed should have been removed from the

8(a) Program and made 11 recommendations “to improve the overall management and

effectiveness” of the 8(a) Program’s continuing eligibility review process.

208

SBA management

agreed with seven of the recommendations, partially agreed to the other four recommendations,

and indicated that it would conduct continuing eligibility reviews for the firms identified in the

SBA OIG’s audit as ineligible and take appropriate action.

209

205

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, p. 14.

206

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, pp. 4, 9.

207

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, p. 7.

208

The recommendations are (1) Coordinate with the Associate Administrator for the Office of Field Operations to

improve the transfer of continuing eligibility review documents for high risk firms from the district offices to the Office

of Certification and Eligibility; (2) Revise its current process to ensure that it accurately identifies all high risk firms to

receive continuing eligibility reviews from the Office of Certification and Eligibility; (3) Establish and implement clear

policies and procedures for evaluating 8(a) continuing eligibility, including ensuring that district offices use

standardized analysis tools that conform with 8(a) continuing eligibility requirements found in 13 C.F.R. 124, and train

employees on these procedures; (4) Develop and implement a comprehensive oversight plan to ensure completion of

continuing eligibility reviews of all 8(a) firms, monitor the quality of continuing eligibility reviews, and eliminate

duplication between the Office of Certification and Eligibility and the district offices; (5) Conduct continuing eligibility

reviews for the firms that we identified as ineligible that are still active in the 8(a) program, and take timely action to

remove firms found to be ineligible; (6) Develop and implement a centralized process to track and document all

adverse actions and voluntary withdrawals from the 8(a) program, from recommendation through resolution; (7)

Establish and implement clear policies and procedures that include timelines for sending Notices of Intent to Terminate

and to Graduate Early firms after eligibility issues are first identified; (8) Conduct continuing eligibility reviews for the

firms we identified as ineligible that are still active in the 8(a) program, and take timely action to remove firms found to

be ineligible; (9) Establish and implement clear policies and detailed procedures, consistent with 13 C.F.R. 124.112(c),

to timely and effectively review and address complaints regarding 8(a) continuing eligibility, including communicating

the content of the complaint to the district office, and train employees implementing the 8(a) program on the updated

procedures; (10) Develop a robust system for tracking complaints that are received regarding firms’ continuing

eligibility for the 8(a) program, and tracking the actions taken to address the complaints; and (11) Conduct continuing

eligibility reviews, including assessing the allegations in the 77 OIG Hotline complaints, for the firms that were the

subject of the complaints that are still active in the 8(a) program, and for which the complainant provided specific and

credible information, and, if necessary, take appropriate action to remove ineligible firms from the 8(a) program. See

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, pp. 5, 6, 8, 11-13.

209

SBA OIG, Improvements Needed in SBA’s Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility Processes, pp. 11-13. SBA

management concurred with recommendations (2), (3), (6), (7), (9), (10), and (11) and partially concurred with

recommendations (1), (4), (5), and (8) listed above.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 38

Financial Thresholds for Economic Disadvantaged Status

Section 8(a)(6)(A) of the Small Business Act defines economically disadvantaged individuals as

“socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has

been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the

same business area who are not socially disadvantaged.” In determining the degree of diminished

credit and capital opportunities, Section 8(a)(6)(A) authorizes the SBA to “consider, but not be

limited to, the assets and net worth of such socially disadvantaged individual.”

The SBA uses a three-part test for determining economic disadvantage relating to the degree of

applicant’s diminished credit and capital opportunities: the applicant’s net worth, personal

income, and total assets. As mentioned, the SBA began transitioning to the use of objective

monetary thresholds to assess these personal financial characteristics in 1989. At that time, the

SBA established by regulation that the applicant’s personal net worth had to be less than

$250,000 at the time of entry into the program and less than $750,000 for continuing eligibility.

210

In 2011, the SBA added monetary thresholds for the applicant’s personal income (generally

cannot exceed $250,000, averaged over the previous three years, at the time of application, and

$350,000, averaged over the previous three years, for continuing eligibility) and total assets

(cannot exceed $4 million at entry and $6 million for continued eligibility).

211

On May 11, 2020, the SBA set the following monetary thresholds, which are currently in effect:

 net worth of less than $750,000 (excluding ownership interest in the applicant’s

business, equity in their primary personal residence, and funds invested in an

official retirement account);

 generally no more than $350,000 in average adjusted gross income over the

preceding three years; and

 no more than $6 million in assets (excluding funds invested in an official

retirement account).

212

Prior to the SBA’s decision to eliminate the $250,000 personal net worth threshold at the time of

entry into the 8(a) program and increase the thresholds for personal income and total assets, some

Members of Congress had argued that the 8(a) program’s financial thresholds should be increased

or periodically adjusted for inflation. During the 112

Congress, H.R. 3754, the Not Too Small to

Succeed in Business Act of 2011, would have increased the net worth thresholds to $750,000 for

8(a) Program admission and $2.25 million for continued participation after admission. H.R. 2424,

the Expanding Opportunities for Main Street Act of 2011, would have amended Section

8(a)(6)(A) by inserting after “disadvantaged individual” the following: “For purposes of this

section, an individual having a net worth of more than $1,500,000 is not economically

disadvantaged.” Legislation with provisions similar to those in H.R. 2424 was also introduced

during the 113

Congress (H.R. 2550, the Minority Small Business Enhancement Act of 2013,

and H.R. 2551, the Expanding Opportunities for Main Street Act of 2013).

210

SBA, “Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program: Final Rule,” 54 Federal Register

34692, August 21, 1989 (codified, as amended, at 13 C.F.R. §124.104(c)).

211

SBA, “Small Business Size Regulations; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status

Determinations,” 76 Federal Register 8229-8231, February 11, 2011.

212

SBA, “Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business

Certification,” 85 Federal Register 27650-27665, May 11, 2020.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 39

Advocates for increasing the program’s personal net worth threshold noted that the Department of

Transportation (DOT) increased the personal net worth threshold for determining eligibility for

the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in 2011 to account for inflation. The DBE

threshold was increased from $750,000 (which was set by DOT in 1999, and was based on the

8(a) Program’s $750,000 threshold) to $1.32 million.

213

DBE firms, which are provided special

consideration in the awarding of federal transportation contracts, argued that the limit penalized

success and imposed “a glass ceiling on the growth and competitiveness of DBE firms.”

214

Opponents argued that the $1.32 million limit was too high and would include business owners

who were not truly disadvantaged and that raising the limit would favor larger, established, and

richer DBEs at the expense of smaller, start-up firms because the larger companies would be able

to stay in the program longer.

215

More recently, the SBA’s OIG has argued that the SBA’s decision to exclude equity in a primary

residence from an individual’s net worth calculation “serves as a loophole allowing affluent

business owners to shelter wealth in personal real estate, while taking advantage of a program

designed to help the socially and economically disadvantaged.”

216

Measuring Program Success

Pursuant to P.L. 100-656, the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, the SBA

is required to “develop and implement a process for the systematic collection of data on the

operations of the [8(a)] Program” and to report this data, not later than April 30 of each year, to

Congress.

217

The act requires the report to include the following:

 The average personal net worth of individuals who own and control concerns that

were initially certified for program participation during the immediately

preceding fiscal year and the dollar distribution of each of these individual’s net

worth, at $50,000 increments.

213

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary, “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: Program

Improvements,” 75 Federal Register 25817, May 10, 2010; and DOT, Office of the Secretary, “Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise: Program Improvements,” 76 Federal Register 5085, January 8, 2011 (codified at 49 C.F.R.

§26.67(a)(2)(i)).

The DBE program’s personal net worth inflation adjustment in 2011 used 1989 as the base year, even though DOT

adopted the personal net worth limit in 1999. DOT argued that it was appropriate to use 1989 as the base year because

the SBA’s standard, which DOT used, was adopted in 1989 and had not been adjusted for inflation at any time. See

DOT, Office of the Secretary, “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: Program Improvements,” 76 Federal Register

5086, January 8, 2011.

214

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: Program

Improvements,” 75 Federal Register 25817, May 10, 2010.… DBE regulations require state and local transportation

agencies that receive DOT financial assistance, to establish goals for the participation of DBEs. Each DOT-assisted

State and local transportation agency is required to establish annual DBE goals, and review the scopes of anticipated

large prime contracts throughout the year and establish contract-specific DBE subcontracting goals.… There has been,

since 1983, a statutory provision requiring DOT to ensure that at least 10% of the funds authorized for the highway and

transit financial assistance programs be expended with DBEs. DOT has established a single DBE goal, encompassing

both firms owned by women and minority group members. See U.S. Department of Transportation, “Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise (DBE) Program,” at https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/disadvantaged-business-enterprise.

215

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: Program

Improvements,” 76 Federal Register 5085, January 8, 2011.

216

SBA, Office of Inspector General (SBA OIG), Report on the Most Serious Management and Performance

Challenges in Fiscal Year 2017, Report Number 17-02, October 14, 2016, p. 12, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/

files/oig/FY_2017_-_Management_Challenges_-_10_14_16_7.pdf.

217

P.L. 100-656, the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, §408. Data Collection, 102 Stat. 3877,

15 U.S.C. §636(j)16(A)(B)(C).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 40

 A description and estimate of the benefits and costs that have accrued to the

economy and the federal government in the immediately preceding fiscal year

due to the operations of those business concerns that were performing 8(a)

contracts.

 A compilation and evaluation of those business concerns that have exited the

program during the immediately preceding three fiscal years, including the

number of concerns actively engaged in business operations, those that have

ceased or substantially curtailed operations, including the reasons for such

actions, and those concerns that have been acquired by other firms or

organizations owned and controlled by other than socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals. For those businesses that have continued operations

after they exited from the program, the SBA Administrator is required to

separately detail the benefits and costs that have accrued to the economy during

the immediately preceding fiscal year due to their operations.

 A listing of all program participants during the preceding fiscal year identifying,

by state and region, for each firm: the concern’s name, the race or ethnicity, and

gender of the disadvantaged owners, the dollar value of all contracts received in

the preceding year, the dollar amount of advance payments received by each

concern pursuant to contracts awarded under Section 8(a), and a description

including (if appropriate) an estimate of the dollar value of all benefits and loans

received during such year.

 The total dollar value of 8(a) contracts and options awarded during the preceding

fiscal year and such amount expressed as a percentage of total sales of all firms

participating in the program during such year; and of firms in each of the nine

years of program participation.

 A description of additional resources or program authorities required to provide

the types of services needed over the next two-year period to service the expected

portfolio of 8(a) certified firms.

 The total dollar value of 8(a) contracts and options, at such dollar increments as

the SBA Administrator deems appropriate, for each four digit standard industrial

classification code under which such contracts and options were classified.

The SBA’s FY2015 report (the latest one available) indicated that 5,399 businesses participated

in the 8(a) program in FY2015 and “contributed an estimated 116,006 jobs to the Nation’s

economy,” and that 2,381 of the 2,453 firms that had exited and completed the program during

the three preceding fiscal years (October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2014) were still active,

48 had ceased operations, and 24 did not have data available for determining their status as

reported by Dun and Bradstreet. Of the active firms, “two were acquired by another firm or

organization owned and controlled by other than socially and economically disadvantage[d]

individuals and 34 firms were substantially curtailed.”

218

In addition, the 2,381 still active firms

reported FY2015 revenue of approximately $5.21 billion and provided jobs for approximately

77,753 persons.

219

218

SBA, Office of Business Development, “FY2015 408 Report to the Congress,” p. 4, at

https://www.sba.gov/document/report-408-report-us-congress-minority-small-business-capital-ownership-

development.

219

SBA, Office of Business Development, “FY2015 408 Report to the Congress,” p. 4.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 41

In 2000, GAO recommended that the SBA augment its data collection activities by periodically

surveying a nationwide sample of 8(a) firms. GAO argued that a survey would improve the

SBA’s ability to determine how well the program is working, further arguing that “at a minimum,

the survey should assess whether SBA assistance is meeting the firms’ expectations and needs.”

220

Previously, the SBA contracted with a third party to conduct an annual client satisfaction survey

of small businesses that received management training and technical assistance from Small

Business Development Centers, SCORE, and Women Business Centers. The survey’s objective

was to measure these programs’ impact “on the creation, financial development and survival of

client firms.”

221

The survey’s questions, which focused on client satisfaction and the programs’

impact on client behavior and economic success, is available on the SBA’s website and could

prove useful should the SBA decide to conduct a nationwide survey of 8(a) firms.

222

In a related development, on February 22, 2022, the SBA OIG issued an audit of the 8(a) Program

focusing on the SBA’s measurement and monitoring of 8(a) participants’ progress in achieving

their individual business development goals and on the SBA’s efforts to ensure that 8(a)

participants receive business assistance necessary to meet their individual goals.

The OIG found that the SBA “did not consistently monitor 8(a) firms’ progress in achieving their

individual business development goals,” “did not establish outcome-based performance measures

for the program or its leaders to determine the success of the program,” and that 15 of the 40

firms that the OIG reviewed “did not have approved business plans that identified the firms’

goals.”

223

For example, instead of relying on “performance measures that reflected the program’s

business development objectives and intended outcomes in order to understand program effects

on small businesses,” the SBA “reported only on the 1) percentage of annual reviews completed

and 2) the number of small businesses assisted by the 8(a) program.”

224

The OIG provided eight recommendations for improving SBA’s oversight of 8(a) participants and

for measuring the program’s success. The SBA agreed with five of the recommendations,

including the recommendation “to establish outcome-based performance goals and measurements

to assess whether the program achieved business development objectives.”

225

The SBA partially

agreed with two of the recommendations, and disagree with a recommendation to use outcome-

based, data-driven reviews of program leaders’ personal performance plans.

226

220

GAO, Small Business: SBA Could Better Focus Its 8(a) Program to Help Firms Obtain Contracts, GAO-RCED-00-

196, July 20, 2000, p. 23, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/230496.pdf.

221

SBA, “Impact Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: Office of Entrepreneurial Development Resource Partners’ Face-

to-Face Counseling,” Concentrance Consulting Group, Inc., September 2013, p. 1, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/

files/files/OED_ImpactReport_09302013_Final.pdf.

222

Concentrance Consulting Group, Inc, “Impact Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: Office of Entrepreneurial

Development Resource Partners; Face-to-Face Counseling,” September 2013, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/

files/2020-11/Impact_Study_of_Entrepreneurial_Development_Resources_2013_09.pdf. Previous reports can be found

at SBA, “Entrepreneurial Development Impact Report,” at https://www.sba.gov/document/report—entrepreneurial-

development-impact-report.

223

SBA, OIG, SBA Business Development Assistance to 8(a) Program Participants, Report No. 22-08, February 14,

2022, p. 5, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-22-08-sbas-business-development-assistance-8a-program-

participants.

224

SBA, OIG, SBA Business Development Assistance to 8(a) Program Participants, Report No. 22-08, February 14,

2022, p. 9.

225

SBA, OIG, SBA Business Development Assistance to 8(a) Program Participants, Report No. 22-08, February 14,

2022, p. 10.

226

SBA, OIG, SBA Business Development Assistance to 8(a) Program Participants, Report No. 22-08, February 14,

2022, pp. 9-13.

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 42

Appendix. Comparison of the Requirements

Pertaining to Different Types of 8(a) Firms

Table A-1. Requirements for Different Types of 8(a) Firms

Category

8(a) Firms

Generally

Tribally Owned

ANC-Owned

NHO-Owned

CDC-Owned

“Small”

Independently

owned and

operated; not

dominant in

field of

operation;

meets size

standards

(15

U.S.C. §631(a))

All affiliations

count

(13

C.F.R.

§121.103)

Independently

owned and

operated; not

dominant in field of

operation; meets

size standards (15

U.S.C. §631(a))

Affiliations based on

the tribe or tribal

ownership, among

others, do not count

(15 U.S.C.

§636(j)(10)(J)(ii); 13

C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(2))

Independently

owned and

operated; not

dominant in field of

operation; meets

size standards (15

U.S.C. §631(a))

Affiliations based on

the ANC or

ownership by the

ANC, among others,

do not count (15

U.S.C.

§636(j)(10)(J)(ii); 13

C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(2))

Independently

owned and

operated; not

dominant in

field of

operation;

meets size

standards (15

U.S.C. §631(a))

Affiliations

based on the

NHO or

ownership by

the NHO,

among others,

do not count

(15 U.S.C.

§636(j)(10)(J)(ii);

13 C.F.R.

§124.110(c))

Independently

owned and

operated; not

dominant in

field of

operation;

meets size

standards (15

U.S.C. §631(a))

Affiliations

based on the

CDC or

ownership by

the CDC,

among others,

do not count

(15 U.S.C.

§636(j)(10)(J)(ii);

13 C.F.R.

§124.111(c))

“Business”

For-profit

entity with its

place of

business in the

United States;

operates

primarily

within the

United States

or makes a

significant

contribution

to the U.S.

economy (13

C.F.R.

§121.105(a)

(1))

For-profit entity

with its place of

business in the

United States;

operates primarily

within the United

States or makes a

significant

contribution to the

U.S. economy (13

C.F.R.

§121.105(a)(1))

For-profit entity

with its place of

business in the

United States;

operates primarily

within the United

States or makes a

significant

contribution to the

U.S. economy (13

C.F.R.

§121.105(a)(1))

Although ANC may

be nonprofit, ANC-

owned firms must

be for-profit to be

eligible for 8(a)

Program (13 C.F.R.

§124.109(a)(3))

For-profit entity

with its place of

business in the

United States;

operates

primarily within

the United

States or makes

a significant

contribution to

the U.S.

economy (13

C.F.R.

§121.105(a)(1))

For-profit entity

with its place of

business in the

United States;

operates

primarily within

the United

States or makes

a significant

contribution to

the U.S.

economy (13

C.F.R.

§121.105(a)(1))

“Unconditionally

owned and

controlled”

At least 51%

unconditionally

and directly

owned by one

or more

disadvantaged

individuals

who are U.S.

citizens (13

At least 51% tribally

owned (13 C.F.R.

§124.109(b))

Management may be

conducted by

individuals who are

not members of the

tribe provided that

the SBA determines

At least 51% ANC-

owned (13 C.F.R.

§124.109(a)(3))

Management may be

conducted by

individuals who are

not Alaska Natives

provided that the

SBA determines that

At least 51%

NHO-owned

(13 C.F.R.

§124.110(a))

NHO must

control the

board of

directors, but

individual who

At least 51%

CDC-owned

(13 C.F.R.

§124.111(a))

Management

and daily

business

operations to

be conducted

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 43

Category

8(a) Firms

Generally

Tribally Owned

ANC-Owned

NHO-Owned

CDC-Owned

C.F.R.

§124.105)

Management

and daily

business

operations

must be

conducted by

one or more

disadvantaged

individuals (13

C.F.R.

§124.106)

that such

management is

necessary to assist

the business’s

development, among

other things (13

C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(4)(B))

such management is

necessary to assist

the business’s

development, among

other things (13

C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(4)(B))

is responsible

for day-to-day

management

need not

establish

personal social

and economic

disadvantage

(13 C.F.R.

§124.110(d))

by individuals

having

managerial

experience of

an extent and

complexity

needed to run

the firm (13

C.F.R.

§124.111(b))

“Socially

disadvantaged

individual”

Members of

designated

groups

presumed to

be socially

disadvantaged;

other

individuals may

prove personal

disadvantage

by a

preponderance

of the

evidence (13

C.F.R.

§124.103)

Indian tribes

presumed to be

socially

disadvantaged (43

U.S.C. §1626(e); 15

U.S.C.

§637(a)(4)(A)-(B);

13 C.F.R.

§124.109(b)(1))

ANCs presumed to

be socially

disadvantaged (43

U.S.C. §1626(e); 15

U.S.C.

§637(a)(4)(A)-(B);

13 C.F.R.

§124.109(b)(1))

NHOs

presumed to be

socially

disadvantaged

(43 U.S.C.

§1626(e); 15

U.S.C.

§637(a)(4)(A)-

(B); 13 C.F.R.

§124.109(b)

(1))

CDCs

presumed to be

socially

disadvantaged

(42 U.S.C.

§9815(a)(2))

“Economically

disadvantaged

individual”

Financial

information

(e.g., personal

income,

personal net

worth, fair

market value

of assets) must

show

diminished

financial capital

and credit

opportunities

(13 C.F.R.

§124.104)

Tribe must prove

economic

disadvantage the

first time a tribally

owned firm applies

to the 8(a) Program;

thereafter, a tribe

need only prove

economic

disadvantage at the

request of the SBA

(13 C.F.R.

§124.109(b)(2))

Deemed to be

economically

disadvantaged (43

U.S.C. §1626(e); 13

C.F.R.

§124.109(a)(2))

NHO must

prove economic

disadvantage

the first time a

NHO owned

firm applies to

the 8(a)

Program;

thereafter, a

NHO need only

prove economic

disadvantage at

the request of

the SBA

(13 C.F.R.

§124.110(c)

CDCs

presumed to be

economically

disadvantaged

(42 U.S.C.

§9815(a)(2))

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 44

Category

8(a) Firms

Generally

Tribally Owned

ANC-Owned

NHO-Owned

CDC-Owned

“Good

character”

Criminal

conduct or

violations of

SBA

regulations

may result in

denial of

participation;

cannot be

debarred or

suspended

from

government

contracting

(13 C.F.R.

§124.108(a))

Criminal conduct or

violations of SBA

regulations may

result in denial of

participation; cannot

be debarred or

suspended from

government

contracting (13

C.F.R. §124.108(a))

Requirement applies

only to officers,

directors, and

shareholders owning

more than a 20%

interest in the

business, not to all

members of the

tribe (13 C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(7)(B)(ii))

Criminal conduct or

violations of SBA

regulations may

result in denial of

participation; cannot

be debarred or

suspended from

government

contracting (13

C.F.R. §124.108(a))

Requirement applies

only to officers,

directors, and

shareholders owning

more than a 20%

interest in the

business, not to all

ANC shareholders

(13 C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(7)(B)(ii))

Criminal

conduct or

violations of

SBA regulations

may result in

denial of

participation;

cannot be

debarred or

suspended from

government

contracting (13

C.F.R.

§124.108(a))

Regulations do

not address to

whom

requirements

apply

Criminal

conduct or

violations of

SBA regulations

may result in

denial of

participation;

cannot be

debarred or

suspended from

government

contracting (13

C.F.R.

§124.108(a))

Requirements

apply to the

firm and “all its

principals” (13

C.F.R.

§124.111(g))

“Demonstrated

potential for

success”

Firm must

generally have

been in

business in

primary

industry for at

least two full

years prior to

date of

application to

8(a) Program

unless SBA

grants a

waiver; waiver

based on 5

conditions

(13 C.F.R.

§124.107)

Firm must have

been in business in

primary industry for

at least two full

years prior to date

of application to 8(a)

Program; individuals

who will manage the

firm must have

substantial

experience, and firm

must have had

successful

performance and

adequate capital; or

Tribe must have

made written

commitment to

support the firm and

have the financial

ability to do so

(13 C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(6)(i)-(iii)

Firm must have

been in business in

primary industry for

at least two full

years prior to date

of application to 8(a)

Program; individuals

who will manage the

firm must have

substantial

experience, and firm

must have had

successful

performance and

adequate capital; or

ANC must have

made written

commitment to

support the firm and

have the financial

ability to do so

(13 C.F.R.

§124.109(c)(6)(i)-(iii)

Firm must have

been in business

in primary

industry for at

least two full

years prior to

date of

application to

8(a) Program;

individuals who

will manage the

firm must have

substantial

experience, and

firm must have

had successful

performance

and adequate

capital; or NHO

must have made

written

commitment to

support the

firm and have

the financial

ability to do so

(13 C.F.R.

§124.110 (g)(1)-

(3)

Firm must have

been in business

in primary

industry for at

least two full

years prior to

date of

application to

8(a) Program;

individuals who

will manage the

firm must have

substantial

experience, and

firm must have

had successful

performance

and adequate

capital; or CDC

must have made

written

commitment to

support the

firm and have

the financial

ability to do so

(13 C.F.R.

§124.111 (f)(1)-

(3)

Sole-source

awards

With

contracts

valued at over

$4.5 million

($7.5 million

for

manufacturing

Can be made with

contracts valued at

over $4.5 million

($7.5 million for

manufacturing

contracts) even if

there is a reasonable

Can be made with

contracts valued at

over $4.5 million

($7.5 million for

manufacturing

contracts) even if

there is a reasonable

Can be made

with

Department of

Defense

contracts

valued at over

$4.5 million

With contracts

valued at over

$4.5 million

($7.5 million for

manufacturing

contracts), sole-

source awards

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 45

Category

8(a) Firms

Generally

Tribally Owned

ANC-Owned

NHO-Owned

CDC-Owned

contracts),

sole-source

awards

permissible

only if there is

not a

reasonable

expectation

that at least

two eligible

8(a) firms will

submit offers

and the award

can be made at

fair market

price (48

C.F.R.

§19.805-

1(b)(1)-(2))

expectation that at

least two eligible

8(a) firms will

submit offers and

the award can be

made at fair market

price (15 U.S.C.

§637(a)(1)(D)(i)-(ii);

48 C.F.R. §19.805-

1(b)(1)-(2))

expectation that at

least two eligible

8(a) firms will

submit offers and

the award can be

made at fair market

price (15 U.S.C.

§637(a)(1)(D)(i)-(ii);

48 C.F.R. §19.805-

1(b)(1)-(2))

($7.5 million for

manufacturing

contracts) even

if there is a

reasonable

expectation that

at least two

eligible 8(a)

firms will

submit offers

and the award

can be made at

fair market

price (48 C.F.R.

§219.805-

1(b)(2)(A)-(B)).

Otherwise

cannot be made

unless there is

not a

reasonable

expectation that

at least two

eligible 8(a)

firms will

submit offers

and the award

can be made at

fair market

price (48 C.F.R.

§19.805-1(b)(1)-

(2))

permissible only

if there is not a

reasonable

expectation that

at least two

eligible 8(a)

firms will

submit offers

and the award

can be made at

fair market

price (48 C.F.R.

§19.805-1(b)(1)-

(2))

Inability to

protest eligibility

for award

Firm’s

eligibility for

award cannot

be challenged

or protested

as part of the

solicitation or

proposed

contract

award (48

C.F.R.

§19.805-2(d))

Firm’s eligibility for

award cannot be

challenged or

protested as part of

the solicitation or

proposed contract

award (48 C.F.R.

§19.805-2(d))

Firm’s eligibility for

award cannot be

challenged or

protested as part of

the solicitation or

proposed contract

award (48 C.F.R.

§19.805-2(d))

Firm’s eligibility

for award

cannot be

challenged or

protested as

part of the

solicitation or

proposed

contract award

(48 C.F.R.

§19.805-2(d))

Firm’s eligibility

for award

cannot be

challenged or

protested as

part of the

solicitation or

proposed

contract award

(48 C.F.R.

§19.805-2(d))

Maximum of

nine years in the

8(a) Program

Firm receives

“a program

term of nine

years” but

could be

terminated or

graduated

early (13

C.F.R. §124.2)

One year

extension

available for

Firm receives “a

program term of

nine years” but

could be terminated

or graduated early

(13 C.F.R. §124.2)

One year extension

available for firms

participating in the

program from

March 13, 2020,

Firm receives “a

program term of

nine years” but

could be terminated

or graduated early

(13 C.F.R. §124.2)

One year extension

available for firms

participating in the

program from

March 13, 2020,

Firm receives “a

program term

of nine years”

but could be

terminated or

graduated early

(13 C.F.R.

§124.2)

One year

extension

available for

firms

Firm receives “a

program term

of nine years”

but could be

terminated or

graduated early

(13 C.F.R.

§124.2)

One year

extension

available for

firms

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service 46

Category

8(a) Firms

Generally

Tribally Owned

ANC-Owned

NHO-Owned

CDC-Owned

firms

participating in

the program

from March

13, 2020,

through

September 9,

2020

through September

9, 2020

through September

9, 2020

participating in

the program

from March 13,

2020, through

September 9,

2020

participating in

the program

from March 13,

2020, through

September 9,

2020

One-time

eligibility for

8(a) Program

Applies to

both

disadvantaged

owners and

firms (13

C.F.R.

§124.108(b))

Applies only to

tribally owned firms,

not tribes (15 U.S.C.

§636(j)(11)(B)-(C))

Applies only to

ANC-owned firms,

not ANCs (15

U.S.C.

§636(j)(11)(B)-(C))

Applies only to

NHO-owned

firms, not

NHOs (15

U.S.C.

§636(j)(11)(B)-

(C))

Applies only to

CDC-owned

firms, not

CDCs (15

U.S.C.

§636(j)(11)(B)-

(C))

Limits on the

amount of 8(a)

contracts that a

firm may receive

No sole-

source awards

possible once

the firm has

received

combined total

of competitive

and sole-

source 8(a)

contracts in

excess of the

dollar amount

set forth in 13

C.F.R.

§124.519 (13

C.F.R.

§124.519(a))

Firms must

receive an

increasing

percentage of

revenue from

non-8(a)

sources

throughout

their

participation in

the 8(a)

Program (13

C.F.R.

§124.509(b))

Can make sole-

source awards even

when a firm has

received combined

total of competitive

and sole-source 8(a)

contracts in excess

of the dollar amount

set forth in 13

C.F.R. §124.519 (13

C.F.R. §124.519(a))

Firms must receive

an increasing

percentage of

revenue from non-

8(a) sources

throughout their

participation in the

8(a) Program (13

C.F.R. §124.509(b))

Can make sole-

source awards even

when a firm has

combined total of

competitive and

sole-source 8(a)

contracts in excess

of the dollar amount

set forth in 13

C.F.R. §124.519 (13

C.F.R. §124.519(a))

Firms must receive

an increasing

percentage of

revenue from non-

8(a) sources

throughout their

participation in the

8(a) Program (13

C.F.R. §124.509(b))

Can make sole-

source awards

even when a

firm has

combined total

of competitive

and sole-source

8(a) contracts

in excess of the

dollar amount

set forth in 13

C.F.R. §124.519

(13 C.F.R.

§124.519(a))

Firms must

receive an

increasing

percentage of

revenue from

non-8(a)

sources

throughout

their

participation in

the 8(a)

Program (13

C.F.R.

§124.509(b))

Combined total

of competitive

and sole-source

8(a) contracts

in excess of the

dollar amount

set forth in 13

C.F.R. §124.519

not explicitly

addressed in

regulation

Firms must

receive an

increasing

percentage of

revenue from

non-8(a)

sources

throughout

their

participation in

the 8(a)

Program (13

C.F.R.

§124.509(b))

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on 8(a) Program statutory and regulatory requirements.

a. The rules governing NHO- or CDC-owned firms do not address this issue, and although the general rules

apply where no “special rules” exist, it seems unlikely that NHO- or CDC-owned firms are treated

differently than tribally or ANC-owned firms in this regard.

b. These criteria include (1) the management experience of the disadvantaged individual(s) upon whom

eligibility is based; (2) the business’s technical experience; (3) the firm’s capital; (4) the firm’s performance

record on prior federal or other contracts in its primary field of operations; and (5) whether the firm

presently has, or can demonstrate its ability to timely obtain, the personnel, facilities, equipment, and other

resources necessary to perform contracts under Section 8(a).

SBA’s “8(a) Program”: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Congressional Research Service R44844 · VERSION 32 · UPDATED 47

Author Information

Robert Jay Dilger

Senior Specialist in American National Government

R. Corinne Blackford

Analyst in Small Business and Economic

Development Policy

Acknowledgments

Kate Manuel, who has left CRS, authored a previous version of this report.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to