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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadyaf0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUMENT B3SUaE
06368 - [B1746777]
SBA's 8(a) Procurement Program. June 20, 1978. 13 pp.
enclosure (2 pp.).
Tribtimony before the House Committee on Small Dusiness: minority
Enterprise and General Oversight Succumittes; by John Landicho,
Associate Director, Community and Ecctemic Development Viv.
Contact: Community and Economic Develclsent Div.
Orqanization Concerned: Small Business Administratics.
congressional Relevance: House Committee on Snall Business:
Minority Enterprise and General Oversight Subcommittee.
Authority: Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.
The Small Business Administration (SEA) uses the 8 (a)
procurement program to assist socially or eccacrically
disadvantaqed small 1usinessmen to achieve a competitive
position in the financial marketplace by entering into
procuraent contracts ith Federal agencies and* in turne
Lubcontractinq the voLik to these small businessmen. 1vopty-eigbt
8(a) applications in SHAes region I in fiscal year 1977 were
reviewed. Three basic conclusions on 8(a) program eligibility
were reached: i1) the eligibility criteria were vague and not
applied in a uniform and consistent manner; (2) region 1U was
not complying with program procedures tecause its files did not
identify specific criteria used to apzova eligibility, and it
did L.ot document the connection between an applicantfs social or
economic disadvantage and the inability to successfully ccapete
in the economic mainstream; and (3) diffe:ent offices can reach
differen decisions on eligibility in the sane case. One example
of the differinq interpretations of eligibility citr a
involved a particular architect/engineering firm. Although one
district office approved the firs as being eligible for the 8(a)
proqram, another office refused to recommend the company when
the application was transferred to its district; the regional
committee found the applicant ineligible, whereas the Regional
Director, interpreting the criteria differently, admitted the
firm to the progiam. (RRS)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadyaf0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)