About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-197880 1 (1981-05-27)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabjcb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES S .WASHINGTON D.C. 20548 B-197880 May 27, 1981 The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield g. Chairman, Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: We have reviewed the Small Business Administration's (SBA) April 6, 1981, comments on our report entitled The 8(a) Pilot Program for Disadvantaged Small Businesses Has Not Been Effective. (CED-81-22, January 23, 1981). These coiriments, which were sub- mitted pursuant to section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, strongly disagree with the overall report and several of its conclusions and recommendations. We would like to point out that SBA initially commented on the draft report on December 2, 1980, and said the report unduly criticized the pilot program but did not offer any additional data to cause GAO to revise or modify the report. SBA also said it was seeking methods, which it did not identify, to improve the program. SBA's comments, which we thought did not adequately re- spond to our recommendations, as well as our evaluation of their comments are discussed on pages 9, 18, and 23 of the report. Besides disagreeing with many of our conclusions and recom- mendations, SBA's recently submitted conments now take issue with the methodology GAO used during the review. SBA also questions factual data in the report and describes the report as being sub- jective and biased. We take exception to these charges for the following reasons. In SBA's opening comments, it claims that the report is too one-sided since we criticized SBA's implementation of and not Army's participation in the program. Even though the first objective of our review clearly states that we were to determine how effec- tively SBA and the Army used the program to meet the requirements of Public Law 95-507, SBA believes the report focused primarily on SBA's performance and totally disregarded the actions of the Army. SBA's claims are not correct. We describe in the scope and methodology section of chapter 1 that our work was performed at SBA's central office and the Office of the Secretary of the Army; SBA field offices- in San' Francisco and Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C.; and Army installations at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and Omaha, Nebraska, which were responsible for negoti- ating the three initial 'contracts we reviewed. 6

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most