You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to enhance small business access to capital; contracting programs to increase small business opportunities in securing federal contracts; direct loan programs for businesses, homeowners, and renters to assist their recovery from natural disasters; and small business management and technical assistance training programs to assist business formation and expansion. Congressional interest in these programs has increased in recent years, primarily because assisting small business is viewed as a means to enhance economic growth. The SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program has been operational since April 1971. It is designed to increase small business' access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private-sector contracting, by guaranteeing bid, performance, payment, and specified ancillary bonds "on contracts … for small and emerging contractors who cannot obtain bonding through regular commercial channels." The program guarantees individual contracts of up to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. The $6.5 million limit is periodically adjusted for inflation. The SBA's guarantee currently ranges from 80% to 90% of the surety's loss if a default occurs. In FY2018, the SBA guaranteed 10,800 bid and final surety bonds (a payment bond, performance bond, or both a payment and performance bond) with a total contract value of nearly $6.5 billion. Although the surety industry does not report the total value of the bonds it issues each year, estimates based on the total amount of premiums collected by the private sector in recent years suggest that the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program represents, by design, a relatively small percentage of the market for surety bonds (from about 1.1% to 6.7% of the value of surety bonds issued by the private sector). A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (that agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner. The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the contract's terms and conditions. If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed. The surety bond reduces the risk of contracting. Surety bonds are viewed as a means to encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and are considered to be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract's terms and conditions. The four general types of surety bonds are bid bonds guarantee that the bidder on a contract will enter into the contract and furnish the required payment and performance bonds if awarded the contract, payment bonds guarantee that suppliers and subcontractors will be paid for work performed under the contract, performance bonds guarantee that the contractor will perform the contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, and ancillary bonds ensure completion of requirements outside of performance or payment, such as maintenance. Surety bonds are important to small businesses interested in competing for a federal contract because the federal government requires prime contractors, prior to the award of a federal contract exceeding $150,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any building or public work of the United States, to furnish a performance bond issued by a surety satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract, and in an amount the contracting officer considers adequate, to protect the government. Prime contractors are also required to post a payment bond with a surety satisfactory to the contracting officer for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in carrying out the work provided for in the contract. Both bonds become legally binding upon award of the contract and their "penal amounts," or the maximum amount of the surety's obligation, must generally be 100% of the original contract price plus 100% of any price increases. Most state and local governments have adopted similar legislation, often called "Little Miller Acts," referencing the Miller Act of 1935 that established the federal requirement. Many private project owners also require contractors to furnish a surety bond before awarding them a contract. This report opens with an examination of the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program's legislative origin and provides a historical summary of the major issues that have influenced the program's development, including the decision to supplement the original Prior Approval Program with a Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program (PSB program) that initially provided SBA-approved sureties a lower guarantee rate (not to exceed 70%) than those participating in the Prior Approval Program (not to exceed 80% or 90%, depending on the size of the contract and the type of small business) in exchange for allowing preferred sureties to issue SBA-guaranteed bonds to small businesses without the SBA's prior approval; P.L. 114-92 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which increased the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses; and the decision to increase the program's bond limit. It then examines the program's current eligibility standards and requirements, and provides performance statistics, including the number and amount of bond guarantees issued annually. In addition, it provides data concerning the number and amount of final bonds guaranteed from FY1971 through FY2017 (see Table A-1 ) and for bid and final bonds combined from FY2000 through FY2017 (see Table A-2 ). P.L. 91-609, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, authorized the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. The act amended Title IV of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-699, as amended) to provide the SBA authority to guarantee any surety against loss as the result of a breach of the terms of a bid bond, payment bond, or performance bond by a principal on any contract up to $500,000. The act specified that (1) the principal of the bond is a small business, (2) the bond is required as a condition of bidding on the contract or serving as a prime contractor or subcontractor on the project, (3) the small business is not able to obtain such bond on reasonable terms and conditions without the guarantee, (4) the SBA determines that there is a reasonable expectation that the small business will perform the covenants and conditions of the contract, (5) the contact meets SBA requirements concerning the feasibility of the contract being completed successfully and at a reasonable cost, and (6) the bond's terms and conditions are reasonable in light of the risks involved and the extent of the surety's participation. The act also required that the SBA's guarantee not exceed 90% of the loss incurred by the surety in the event of a breach of the bond's terms and conditions by the small business. The SBA was authorized to finance the program through the Leasing Guarantee Revolving Loan Fund within the Department of the Treasury, which renamed that fund the Lease and Surety Bond Guarantee Revolving Fund. The act authorized the transfer of $5 million from the SBA's Business Loan and Investment Revolving Fund to the Lease and Surety Bond Guarantee Revolving Fund, raising that fund's capital to $10 million available without fiscal year limitation, to support both the lease guarantee program and the surety bond guarantee program. The act also recommended that the program be appropriated up to $1.5 million each fiscal year for three fiscal years after its date of enactment (December 31, 1970) if additional funding were needed to offset the program's expenses. The SBA was directed to administer the program "on a prudent and economically justifiable basis." It was authorized to offset the program's administrative costs by charging a uniform annual fee, subject to periodic review to ensure that the fee is the "lowest fee that experience under the program shows to be justified," and uniform fees for the processing of applications for guarantees. The SBA also was authorized to "obligate the surety to pay the Administration such portions of the bond fee as the Administration determines to be reasonable in light of the relative risks and costs involved." The program's sponsors argued in 1970 that "there is widespread evidence that a significant number of construction contracting organizations find varying degrees of difficulty in obtaining surety bonds" and that "the major share of these organizations are small businesses, and many of them are headed by minority groups." They argued that the Surety Bond Guarantee Program would "facilitate the entry and advancement of small and minority contractors in the construction business." At that time, witnesses at congressional hearings testified that surety bonds were not necessarily required for most private sector construction contracts, but they were required for most public sector construction contracts. The SBA implemented the program on a pilot basis on April 5, 1971, in Kansas City. The program later was expanded to Los Angeles and became nationwide on September 2, 1971. Initially, the SBA guaranteed 90% of the amount of all of the surety bonds in the program and charged sureties 10% of the bond premium paid to the surety company by the contractor. It also charged small business applicants for payment and performance bonds 0.2% of the contract price upon their obtaining the contract. It did not charge for the processing of bid bonds, rejected applications, or applications that did not result in a contract award. Contractors wishing to participate in the program were required to have less than $750,000 in gross annual receipts for the past fiscal year or to have averaged less than $750,000 in gross annual receipts over the past three fiscal years. This size standard was more stringent than for other SBA programs, and it was designed "to reach that segment of small business which was obviously intended to benefit from the legislation as evidenced by the limit of $500,000 on any one contract." Demand for the program exceeded the SBA's expectations. In 1971, the SBA estimated that it would guarantee about 8,000 contracts amounting to about $540 million from FY1972 through FY1974. Instead, it guaranteed 16,118 contracts amounting to nearly $1.1 billion (see Table A-1 in the Appendix). Because the demand for the program exceeded expectations and the initial fees proved to be insufficient to recoup the program's expenses, in 1974, the SBA requested an additional $25 million for the program. The SBA argued that the additional funds were necessary to take into account the program's projected growth and to establish a reserve fund "to protect against having to suspend [the] program in the fact of more rapid growth than is projected." In response to the SBA's request for additional funding for the program, Congress held congressional hearings to reassess the need for the program and to explore options concerning how to finance the program's proposed expansion. The financing discussions focused on the relative merits of relying primarily on higher fees to increase the program's revenue, reductions in the guarantee percentage to reduce the program's expenses, or additional appropriations to finance the program's proposed expansion. Although the SBA has periodically increased the program's fees and later instituted a tiered system of guarantee percentages, historically, the SBA has tried to keep the program's fees as low as economically feasible and the guarantee percentage as high as economically feasible to encourage the program's use. As an SBA official testified before Congress in 1975: SBA's loss exposure could be reduced by a decrease in the guarantee extended to sureties from 90% to 80%. Before proceeding with this recommendation, a thorough analysis will have to be made of the adverse effect on the willingness of sureties to participate in the program which would result from the increase from 10% to 20% of the sureties' share of the loss potential. An increase in contractor's fees would obviously be beneficial to the operating income of the program, but would also increase the bids which small business-contractors would have to make, thus placing them at a competitive disadvantage with contractors with more ready access to bonding. Moreover, as mentioned previously, the SBA is required by statute to ensure that the fees are the lowest "that experience under the program shows to be justified." Determining the program's appropriate size became a recurring theme at congressional hearings, and continues to be of congressional interest today. For example, Congress has regularly requested testimony from representatives of the surety bond industry and various construction organizations concerning the extent to which the program is necessary to assist small businesses generally, and minority-owned small businesses in particular, in gaining access to surety bonds. Congress has also periodically asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the need for the SBA's surety bond guarantee program and to recommend ways to improve the program's management. That testimony and GAO's reports have supported a need for the program, but, as will be discussed, have had somewhat limited usefulness in helping Congress determine the program's appropriate size. In 1974, Congress responded to the SBA's request for additional funding by passing P.L. 93-386 , the Small Business Amendments of 1974. It established a separate Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund account (hereinafter Revolving Fund) within the Department of the Treasury to support the program. The act also increased the total contract amount that could be guaranteed to $1 million from $500,000 and recommended that the Revolving Fund receive $35 million in additional funding. The Ford Administration objected to providing additional appropriations for the Revolving Fund. Instead, the Administration recommended that the Revolving Fund receive a $20 million transfer from the SBA's Business Loan and Investment Revolving Fund. The transfer would provide the program access to additional capital without affecting the federal budget deficit. Congress approved the Administration's proposal. As shown in Table 1 , the Revolving Fund received $130.5 million in additional appropriations for FY1976 through FY1979 and continued to receive additional appropriations during the 1980s and 1990s. In addition, the program's bond limit was increased to $1.25 million from $1 million in 1986. As discussed below, the increased appropriations and bond limit were not sufficient to continue the program's growth. Instead, both the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA began to slowly diminish. This general trend continued until the maximum individual surety contract amount was increased, first on a temporary basis by P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and later, on a permanent statutory basis, by P.L. 112-239 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. As shown in Table 1 , Congress did not appropriate funding for the Revolving Fund from FY2000 to FY2004, allowing the program to cover the cost of claim defaults through its reserve. Congress also increased the program's bond limit to $2 million from $1.25 million in 2000. Congress provided the Revolving Fund $2.9 million in FY2005, $2.86 million in FY2006, $2.86 million in FY2007, and $3 million in FY2008. During the 111 th Congress, P.L. 111-5 provided the Revolving Fund a separate appropriation of $15 million to support a temporary increase in the program's bond limit to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million was necessary, from $2 million. Those funds were in addition to the $2 million appropriation that had already been approved for FY2009. In FY2010, the Revolving Fund received $1 million. Congress has not approved appropriations for the Revolving Fund since then, noting that there have been sufficient funds in the program's reserve to cover the cost of anticipated claim defaults. As mentioned previously, the SBA relied primarily on increased appropriations to finance the program's expansion during the 1970s, but it also increased the program's fees charged to applicants and sureties. For example, in 1976, the SBA increased its fees to sureties to 20% from 10% of the bond premium, instituted a deductible clause on bond claims, and generally limited its approval for bid, participation, and performance bonds to $250,000 unless specified circumstances were met. In 1977, it increased the contractor applicant fee for payment and performance bonds to 0.5% from 0.2% of the contract price upon obtaining the contract. The program's current fee structure is discussed later in this report. Both the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA increased relatively rapidly during the 1970s (see Table A-1 in the Appendix). The number of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA increased from 1,339 in FY1972 to 20,095 in FY1979, and the amount guaranteed by the SBA increased from $94.4 million in FY1972 to $1.39 billion in FY1979. During the 1980s and 1990s, both the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA generally declined, in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars. A review of congressional testimony during that period suggests that there was no single, discernible factor to account for the program's slow contraction. Because the demand for surety bonds tends to fluctuate with changes in the economy, the program might have been expected to contract somewhat during recessions, but the economy experienced periods of both economic growth and decline during the 1980s and 1990s. There also was no indication that the ability of small businesses to access surety bonds in the private marketplace without the SBA's assistance had materially improved, which, if that had been the case, might have contributed to the decline by reducing the number of small businesses applying for assistance. One possible contributing factor to the decline in SBA-guaranteed surety bonds during that period was the continuing reluctance of many surety companies to participate in the program, either because they did not view the program as particularly profitable or they "had developed alternative methods to the program, such as requiring collateral or funds controls and underwriting programs based in part on credit scores, in order to write small and emerging contractors." Another possible contributing factor was a change in the way the program was perceived by congressional leaders and their reluctance to provide additional resources to continue the program's expansion. During the 1970s, at congressional hearings, witnesses praised the program as a great success in helping small businesses access surety bonds and compete for government contracts. During the 1980s and 1990s, congressional hearings focused less on the program's successes and more on its shortcomings. For example, in 1982, the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business indicted that the program was subject to "the most insidious types of fraud," including "evidence of involvement of organized crime figures." In addition, reports by both GAO and the SBA's inspector general questioned the SBA's management of the program, arguing, among other things, that the SBA lacked useful underwriting guidelines for surety companies and adequate procedures for verifying applicants' information. During the 1980s, the SBA guaranteed, on average, 11,840 final surety bonds each fiscal year, with the SBA's share of those bonds' value averaging $1.0 billion. During the 1990s, the SBA guaranteed, on average, 5,859 final surety bonds each fiscal year, with the SBA's share of those bonds' value averaging $823 million. During the first decade of the 2000s, the SBA guaranteed, on average, about 1,802 final surety bonds each fiscal year, with the SBA's share of those bonds' value averaging about $385 million. Since then, as indicated in Table 2 and Table A-1 , the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA has generally increased. This increase is likely due to generally improving economic conditions and the increase in 2013 of the maximum individual contract amount that could be guaranteed from $2 million to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. The surety bonding process begins when a contractor applies for a bond. As GAO has reported Surety companies are generally corporations that are licensed under various insurance laws and, under their charters, have legal power to act as a surety (making themselves responsible for another's obligations) for others. Most surety companies accept business only through independent agents and brokers. In screening a bond applicant, a surety attempts to measure the contractor's ability to undertake and complete the job. When the surety's evaluation of the contractor's acceptability to perform the contract is favorable, the surety underwrites the bond. If the surety does not provide a bond to the bond applicant, the appropriate forms are forwarded to SBA for consideration of a surety bond guarantee. Initially, the SBA surety guaranteed program's bonds were underwritten and issued by large, "standard" surety companies. However, these companies' participation in the program soon began to decline, reportedly because of the administrative burdens associated with the program, such as the SBA's requirement that sureties submit all bond applications to the SBA for review and approval. In addition, the administrative costs of dealing with relatively small bonds versus relatively large ones may have also played a role in the larger, standard surety companies leaving the program. As a congressional witness testified in 1976: You have a professional underwriter, who ... is going to be asked to spend 3 or 4 days looking into a $25,000 first-time application. There are many expenses involved. That same underwriter could very easily be writing four or five bonds for $10 million for contractors that everyone knows can perform. And it becomes a matter of how much time and resources can the surety industry devote to this type of business. Another reason may have been the outbreak of the Israeli-Egyptian War in 1973, which was followed by a tripling of oil prices and double-digit inflation. This led to the failure of many smaller contracting companies. In response to the economic downturn, many surety companies enhanced their underwriting standards to protect themselves from rising defaults. As a result, many of the larger surety companies became increasingly reluctant to participate in a program in which the profit margins were relatively small given the required paperwork and the program's limitation on the bond amount, and when the risk of defaults was at a historically high level. As standard sureties left the program, "specialty" surety companies filled the void. Initially, specialty sureties devoted almost all their business exclusively to SBA-guaranteed surety bonds. These companies later expanded their business into offering other high-risk bonds not normally handled by standard sureties. Specialty sureties typically required the contractor to provide collateral for the projects they bonded, and, in most cases, charged higher premiums than standard sureties. In 1982, the SBA invited officials from the Surety Association of America, representing the standard surety companies, to recommend ways to encourage their participation in the program. As mentioned previously, at that time, some specialty surety companies had been accused of associating with organized crime and GAO and the SBA's inspector general had reported fraud and mismanagement in the program. This may help to explain why the SBA was interested in encouraging the larger, more established surety companies to return to the program. The SBA also hoped that greater participation by the larger sureties would lead to lower premiums for small business contractors. During this outreach period, standard surety companies indicated a willingness to increase their participation in the program if the SBA would create a second special program, similar to the SBA's 7(a) loan guarantee program's Preferred Lenders Program. Under the proposal, a surety meeting specified qualification standards would be designed as a "preferred surety" and would be allowed to issue SBA-guaranteed surety bonds prior to receiving the SBA's approval. To participate in the preferred program, the surety's underwriting and administrative standards and procedures would be pre-approved by the SBA, and the surety's decisions would be subject to regular, annual audits. In addition, the SBA's reporting and access to records requirements would be retained. As a measure of their confidence in their own underwriting standards and claims decisions, the standard surety firms indicated that they would accept a 70% guarantee against losses as opposed to the then-allowed 80% or 90% guarantee against losses, as long as firms would not be required to seek the SBA's prior approval for underwriting decisions, bond administration, and claims procedures. Congress subsequently authorized the proposed Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program in P.L. 100-590 , the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988 (Title II, the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program Act of 1988). The program was initially authorized on a three-year trial basis, and it was provided permanent statutory authority by P.L. 108-447 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005. As discussed in " 114th Congress: Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Rates " below, P.L. 114-92 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, increased the SBA's guarantee for preferred sureties from not less than 70% to not less than 90% of losses. The SBA is authorized to guarantee surety bonds issued to contractors or subcontractors when the business, together with its affiliates, meets the SBA's size standard for the primary industry in which it is engaged; the bond is required; the applicant is not able to obtain such bond on reasonable terms and conditions without a guarantee; and there is a reasonable expectation that the applicant will perform the covenants and conditions of the contract, and the terms and conditions of the bond are reasonable in light of the risks involved and the extent of the surety's participation. The applicant must also "possess good character and reputation," as demonstrated by (1) not being under indictment, being convicted of a felony, or having a final civil judgment stating that the applicant has committed a breach of trust or has violated a law or regulation protecting the integrity of business transactions or business relationships; (2) not having a regulatory authority revoke, cancel, or suspend a license held by the applicant, which is necessary to perform the contract; and (3) never having obtained a bond guarantee by fraud or material misrepresentation or failing to keep the surety informed of unbonded contracts or of a contract bonded by another surety. Applicants must also certify the percentage of work under the contract to be subcontracted. The SBA does not guarantee bonds for applicants that are primarily brokers or have effectively transferred control over the project to one or more subcontractors. Applicants must also certify that they are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from transactions with any federal department or agency. In addition, the SBA will not guarantee a bond issued by a particular surety if that surety, an affiliate of that surety, or a close relative or member of the household of that surety or affiliate owns, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the business applying for the guarantee. This conflict of interest prohibition also applies to ownership interests in any of the applicant's affiliates. As mentioned previously, the SBA guarantees contracts up to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. There is no limit to the number of bonds that can be guaranteed for any one contractor. The SBA guarantees up to 90% of the loss incurred and paid by a surety if the contract is $100,000 or less, or if the bond is issued on behalf of a socially and economically disadvantaged-owned and controlled small business, a qualified HUBZone small business, a veteran-owned and controlled small business, or a service-disabled veteran-owned and controlled small business. The guarantee rate is 80% if the contract is greater than $100,000, and the business is not owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, a qualified HUBZone small business, or a veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business. The SBA does not charge principals (small business applicants) application or bid bond guarantee fees. If the SBA guarantees a final bond, the principal must pay a contractor fee equal to a percentage of the contract amount, which is determined by the SBA and published in the Federal Register . The FY2019 contractor fee is 0.6% of the contract price for a final bond. The contractor fee is rounded to the nearest dollar, paid to the surety, and the surety remits the fee to the SBA. Sureties also charge principals a premium for issuing and servicing the bond. Sureties are not allowed to charge principals a premium that is more than the amount permitted under applicable state law. Premiums vary depending on the surety's assessment of the risk involved and job size; typically ranging from 1.5% to 3.0% of the contract amount. Sureties interested in participating in the Prior Approval Program or the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program (PSB program) must apply in writing to the SBA. Applicants must be a corporation listed by the U.S. Treasury as eligible to issue bonds in connection with federal procurement contracts. The SBA considers several factors when evaluating sureties for the PSB program: the surety must have an underwriting limitation of at least $6.5 million on the Department of the Treasury's list of acceptable sureties; the surety must agree that it will neither charge a bond premium in excess of that authorized by the appropriate state insurance department nor impose any non-premium fee unless such fee is permitted by applicable state law and approved by the SBA; the surety's premium income from contract bonds guaranteed by any government agency (federal, state, or local) can account for no more than one-quarter of the surety's total contract bond premium income; and the surety must vest the underwriting authority for SBA guaranteed bonds to its own employees and final settlement authority for claims and recovery to employees in the surety's permanent claims department. The SBA also considers the surety's rating or ranking designation assigned by a recognized authority. Sureties participating in the PSB program are not eligible to participate in the Prior Approval Program. However, this prohibition does not apply to the surety's affiliates provided that the affiliate is not a participant in the PSB program, their affiliation has been fully disclosed to the SBA, and the affiliate has been approved to participate in the Prior Approval Program. Sureties in the Prior Approval Program must obtain the SBA's approval before issuing a guaranteed bond. Sureties in the PSB program may issue, monitor, and service SBA-guaranteed bonds without prior approval. However, these sureties must notify the SBA electronically of all bonds issued and, for final bonds, they must report and submit to the SBA on a monthly basis all contractor and surety fees that are due. These sureties are also subject to a periodic maximum guarantee authority amount set by the SBA. In addition, effective August 21, 2017, sureties are required, during their initial nine months in the PSB program, to obtain the SBA's prior written approval before executing a bond greater than $2 million. The SBA argued that it was in the taxpayer's interest to require newer sureties to "demonstrate an understanding of the program before being allowed to issue bonds larger than $2 million without SBA's oversight." The terms and conditions of the SBA's bond guarantee agreements with the surety, including the guarantee percentage, may vary from surety to surety, depending on past experience with the SBA. The SBA may take into consideration, among other things, the rating or ranking assigned to the surety by recognized authorities, the surety's loss rate, average contract amount, average bond penalty per guaranteed bond, and the ratio of bid bonds to final bonds, all in comparison with other sureties participating in the same SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program (Prior Approval or PSB programs). Sureties are required, among other things, to evaluate the credit, capacity, and character of a principal using standards generally accepted by the surety industry and in accordance with the SBA's standard operating procedures on underwriting and the surety's principles and practices on unguaranteed bonds; reasonably expect that the principal will successfully perform the contract to be bonded; provide bond terms and conditions that are reasonable in light of the risks involved and the extent of the surety's participation; be satisfied as to the reasonableness of cost and the feasibility of successful completion of the contract; ensure that the principal remains viable and eligible for the program; monitor the principal's progress on guaranteed contracts; maintain documentation of job status requests; take all reasonable action to minimize risk of loss, including, but not limited to, obtaining from each principal a written indemnity agreement, secured by such collateral as the surety or the SBA finds appropriate, which covers actual losses under the contract and imminent breach payments; and in the case of loss, pursue all possible sources of salvage and recovery. Participating sureties are subject to audits by SBA-selected and -approved examiners. Prior Approval Program sureties are audited at least once each year and PSB sureties are audited at least once every three years. The SBA does not charge sureties (or small businesses) application or bid bond guarantee fees. It does require sureties to pay a guarantee fee on each SBA-guaranteed bond (other than bid bonds). The surety fee, which is determined by the SBA and published in the Federal Register , is a percentage of the bond premium. The FY2019 surety fee is 20% of the bond premium that the surety charges the small business, rounded to the nearest dollar. The surety fee is due within 60 days after the SBA's approval of the prior approval payment or performance bond. The SBA does not receive any portion of a surety's non-premium charges. As shown in Table 2 , the number and amount of bid bonds guaranteed by the SBA has generally increased in recent years. For example, in FY2007, the SBA guaranteed 4,192 bid bonds totaling $1.7 billion. In FY2018, the SBA guaranteed 7,354 bid bonds totaling $4.7 billion. Table 2 also shows that the number and amount of SBA-guaranteed final bonds declined somewhat from FY2007 through FY2009 (coinciding with the 2007-2009 recession), and has generally increased since then. Recent increases are likely due to generally improving economic conditions and legislation that temporarily ( P.L. 111-5 ) and then permanently ( P.L. 112-239 ) raised the program's maximum individual contract amount from $2 million to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. As shown in Table 3 , excluding program costs of about $4 million annually, the program has experienced a net positive cash flow in each of the past 12 fiscal years. There is about $97 million in the Surety Bond Guarantee Program Revolving Fund. Historically, the program's default rate has averaged about 3% to 5%. According to the SBA, on average, the default rate on larger contracts tends to be lower than for smaller contracts and the recovery rate for larger contract defaults tends to be greater than for smaller contract defaults. Currently, 28 sureties participate in the Prior Approval Program and 6 participate in the PSB program. Agents empowered to represent a participating surety company are located, or licensed, in all 50 states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. About 80% of the SBA's surety bonds are issued through the Prior Approval Program and 20% through the PSB program. P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the program an additional appropriation of $15 million and temporarily increased, from February 17, 2009, through September 30, 2010, the maximum bond amount from $2 million to $5 million. The act also authorized the SBA to guarantee a bond of up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million was necessary. It also revised the program's size standard to "the size standard for the primary industry in which such business concern, and the affiliates of such business concern, is engaged, as determined by the Administrator in accordance with the North American Industry Classification System." The new size standard (e.g., up to $36.5 million in average annual receipts over the previous three years for most heavy construction contractors, and up to $15 million in average annual receipts over the previous three years for specialty trade contractors) increased the number of businesses that qualified for the program. Using its rulemaking authority, the SBA made ARRA's temporary size standard permanent on August 11, 2010. Proponents argued that the increased bond limit and size were necessary to "ensure that small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they need to compete for contracts, grow, and hire more employees." They also argued that "in our current economic recession, small businesses are finding it even more difficult to secure the credit lines necessary to get bonds in the private sector." In their view, the temporary changes would create "significant opportunities to create jobs now in which small businesses will participate and be the driving engine for creation of new jobs in our country." There was no apparent organized opposition to these specific temporary changes to the Surety Bond Guarantee Program. However, there was opposition to ARRA's package of program enhancements for the SBA as a whole, which among other things, provided the SBA $730 million in additional funding, including $255 million for a temporary, two-year small business stabilization program to guarantee loans of $35,000 or less to small businesses for qualified debt consolidation, later named the America's Recovery Capital (ARC) Loan program and $375 million to temporarily subsidize fees for the SBA's 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. Instead of modifying the SBA's program requirements and increasing the SBA's appropriation, opponents advocated business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses, generate economic growth, and create jobs. On September 12, 2011, the Obama Administration advocated, as part of its proposed American Jobs Act, a temporary increase in the SBA surety bond limit to $5 million until the end of FY2012. The Administration argued that raising the program's bond limit "will make it easier for small businesses to take advantage of contracting opportunities generated by the American Jobs Act's proposed infrastructure investments." On December 7, 2012, the Administration also recommended, as part of its request for an additional $60.4 billion in federal resources to address damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, that the SBA surety bond limit be increased to $5 million to enable "more small businesses to participate in the recovery efforts." There were several legislative efforts during the 112 th Congress to increase the program's bond limit. S. 1334 , the Expanding Opportunities for Main Street Act of 2011, and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 2424 , would have reinstated and made permanent ARRA's higher limits (up to $5 million and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million is necessary). Neither of these bills was reported by a committee for consideration by the House or the Senate. S. 1660 , the American Jobs Act of 2011, and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 12 , would have provided $3 million in additional funding to pay for the cost of temporarily increasing the program's bond limit to $5 million from $2 million until the end of FY2012. Cloture on a motion to proceed to S. 1660 was not invoked in the Senate on October 11, 2011, by a vote of 50 to 49. H.R. 12 was not reported by a committee for consideration in the House. On December 12, 2012, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released its draft of the Hurricane Sandy Emergency Assistance Supplemental bill. It included a provision to increase the program's bond limit to $5 million. This provision was later removed following congressional approval of H.R. 4310 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which became law ( P.L. 112-239 ) on January 2, 2013. It increased the program's bond limit to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. There was relatively little discussion in the legislative record concerning the reasons for increasing the surety bond program's bond limits, and even less discussion of the reasons for not increasing the limits. Hearings were not held on S. 1334 and H.R. 2424 . Also, only one witness during hearings on H.R. 4310 addressed the SBA surety bond program. That witness supported an increase in the surety bond limit to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a contracting officer certifies its necessity. Advocates argued that bond limits should be raised to bring them more in line with the contracting amounts for other small business programs, such as the 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program, the Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract program, and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns Program. For example, under 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program, federal contracting officials, at that time, could provide a sole source award to a 8(a) small business if the anticipated award price of the contract did not exceed $6.5 million for manufacturing contracts (now $7.0 million) or $4 million for other contract opportunities, and the contracting officer believed that the award could be made at a fair and reasonable price. Advocates argued that raising the program's bond limit would provide more consistency across small business contracting programs and make it easier for agencies experiencing difficulty issuing contracts in increments of $2 million or less (e.g., the Department of Defense [DOD], the General Services Administration, and the Department of State) to participate in the program. Advocates also argued that small businesses awarded contracts exceeding $2 million under the other small business contracting programs are at risk of not being able to complete those contracts due to difficulties in securing a surety bond. For example, the House Committee on Armed Services' Panel on Business Challenges in the Defense Industry argued that the SBA surety bond program's limit should be increased to $6.5 million to match the 8(a) program's $6.5 million threshold for manufacturing contracts and to "increase the opportunities for small businesses to compete for federal contracts, especially in those departments, such as the Department of Defense, where the average size of construction contracts awarded to small businesses for FY2010 exceeded $5.9 million—nearly triple the size for which SBA can provide bonding support." There was no organized opposition to raising the program's bond limits. One possible argument that could have been raised is that higher limits could lead to higher amounts being guaranteed by the SBA and, as a result, increase the risk of program losses. However, the SBA's experience with Recovery Act bonds (over $2 million) suggested that raising the limit may not lead to an increased risk of program losses. The SBA reported that the program's default rate on Recovery Act bonds was lower, in 2009 and 2010, than for its other bonds. The SBA guaranteed 166 Recovery Act bid bonds valued at $518 million and 52 Recovery Act final bonds valued at $145.4 million. There were two defaults, with a bond value of $2.7 million and $2.2 million, respectively. In an effort to enhance surety participation in the SBA's program, H.R. 776 , the Security in Bonding Act of 2013, introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Small Business on February 15, 2013, would have increased the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses. The bill was reported favorably by both committees on May 21, 2014, and included in H.R. 4435 , the Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which was passed by the House on May 22, 2014. This provision was not included in the final version of the bill which was subsequently passed by Congress. Advocates of increasing the PSB program's guarantee rate argued that Despite the different guarantee amounts and the differing levels of review, both the PAP [Prior Approval Program] and PSBP [Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program] have similar levels of default. However, over the years, the PSBP program has become less effective for small businesses since only four sureties currently participate in the program because the guarantee rates are no longer competitive enough to encourage commercial sureties to participate. Therefore, since the PSBP is the more efficient program and … does not expose taxpayers to any risk, this legislation amends the SBIA [Small Business Investment Act] to standardize the guarantee rate at 90 percent. The SBA did not formally endorse the proposed guarantee rate increase. However, in its FY2015 and FY2016 congressional budget justification documents, the SBA indicated that it "will investigate establishing a single guaranty percentage in the Prior Approval and PSB programs and restructuring the Prior Approval program." Also, when asked at a congressional hearing held on May 23, 2013, about the proposed guarantee rate increase, an SBA official testified that We are looking very closely at the program. We have seen a decline in the preferred sureties going down from 50% to 14% of our program, which is a very small number. We would like to see more participation in that program. Because of the additional cash flow we have, we do not expect it to increase our costs. And we have some history in our other programs that demonstrate that having the same guarantee level is not a disincentive. There was no discussion in the legislative record during the 113 th Congress opposing an increase in the guarantee rate for the PSB program. One possible objection might have been that increasing the guarantee rate could increase the risk of program losses and result in higher program fees. Higher fees, in turn, could cause hardship for some companies seeking a surety bond. H.R. 838 , the Security in Bonding Act of 2015, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Small Business on February 10, 2015. The bill would have increased the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90%, specify requirements concerning the pledge of assets by individual sureties, and require GAO to examine the effects of these changes on small businesses. The House-passed version of H.R. 1735 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, included H.R. 838 's provisions. The Senate-passed version of the bill did not. The conference agreement for H.R. 1735 , which became P.L. 114-92 , included H.R. 838 's provision to increase the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses and its provision to specify requirements concerning the pledge of assets by individual sureties, subject to a one-year delay "to allow for the necessary rulemaking." Congress specified additional requirements concerning the pledge of assets by individual sureties as a means to ensure that "individual sureties have sufficient assets to redeem the bonds." The SBA's final rule implementing the increased PSB program's guarantee rate was effective as of September 20, 2017. The SBA has reported that it is focusing on "strengthening relationships with individual surety companies and the large network of bond agents and producers across the country in order to reach more small businesses in need of bonding." As part of this outreach effort, the SBA has reported that it will continue to emphasize "process improvements that will streamline the application requirements for small businesses and surety companies and their agents." For example, in August 2012, the SBA announced a "Quick APP" for surety bonds up to $250,000 that provides a streamlined underwriting and application process by combining "two applications into one to make it easier and faster for small businesses and contractors, including veteran-owned small businesses, to compete for contracts." The SBA increased the Quick APP (now called the Quick Bond Program) eligibility threshold to $400,000 in 2017. In addition, the SBA reported in 2016 that it was also considering combing the Prior Approval Program and PSB program into a single program featuring the streamlined bond approval and monitoring processes under the PSB program. Several industry groups, including the National Association of Surety Bond Producers and The Surety & Fidelity Association of America, have recommended that the programs be merged, the emphasis on reduced regulatory burdens under the PSB program be maintained, and the program's fees kept as low as economically feasible as a means to encourage more sureties to participate in the program. Perhaps because the proposal has not been formally introduced as a bill, there are no public statements opposing the merger of the two programs. Opposition might come from (1) those who are not convinced that the Surety Bond Guarantee Program is necessary to supplement the private market for surety bonds and would prefer that the program be eliminated rather than reformed or (2) those who believe that a federal program is necessary to supplement the private market for surety bonds, but the existing program is sufficient to meet that need and does not require changes to encourage its expansion. Still other opponents might argue that providing additional authority to sureties to approve and monitor bonds could increase the risk of defaults and program losses. Throughout the program's history, both congressional testimony and GAO examinations have indicated that smaller contracting firms, and especially minority-owned and women-owned small business contracting firms, often have a more difficult time accessing surety bonds in the private marketplace than larger firms. For example, in 1995, GAO reported that "it is not unusual for a small construction company to have some difficulty in obtaining a surety bond." GAO found that about one in three of the smallest contracting firms it surveyed, compared with about one in six of the larger contracting firms it surveyed, reported that they were required to provide collateral. GAO also reported The experiences of the minority-owned firms differed from those of the firms not owned by minorities in several areas. For example, these firms were more likely to be asked to provide certain types of financial documentation, as well as to provide collateral or to meet other conditions; were more likely to be denied a bond and to report losing an opportunity to bid because of delays in processing their request for a bond; and were more likely to depend on jobs requiring bonds for a higher proportion of their revenues. The women-owned firms differed from the firms not owned by women in a few key respects. For example, they … were more likely to be asked to provide more types of financial or other documentation to obtain a bond. In addition, the minority-owned firms reported more often than the firms not owned by minorities that they had to (1) establish an escrow account controlled by the surety company, (2) hire a CPA or a management or consulting firm selected by the surety company to manage the contract, and (3) enter into an arrangement that allows the surety company to manage the job even when the firm is not in default. Although congressional testimony and GAO examinations have supported the need for a program such as the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, that testimony and GAO's surveys of businesses have been somewhat less useful in helping Congress determine the appropriate size for the program. For example, a review of congressional hearings since the program's inception suggests that congressional witnesses representing the surety companies and various construction organizations, including minority-owned small contracting businesses, have focused their testimony on the need to reduce the SBA's paperwork requirements, which are designed to prevent fraud but increase the sureties' costs; keep the program's fees as low as possible; and keep the program's guarantee rates as high as possible. The SBA's testimony has tended to focus on the need to attract more sureties to the program so that it can reverse the slow downward trajectory the program has experienced over the past two decades in the number and amount of final bonds guaranteed. There has been relatively little testimony provided concerning the broader issue of how large the program should be in comparison with the private sector and what measures or metrics could be used to help make that determination. One possible starting point for determining the program's size in comparison with the private sector is to examine congressional testimony concerning the supply and demand for sureties in the private sector. That testimony suggests that the supply and demand for sureties tends to fluctuate with changes in the overall economy, with the supply of sureties contracting during economic recessions and expanding during economic expansions and the demand for sureties slowing during economic recessions and increasing during economic expansions. Arguably, federal policies could take these fluctuations into account—enacting policies that expand federal support for surety guarantees when supply is tight and reducing federal support for surety guarantees when supply is more plentiful. Of course, when making these decisions, it is necessary to first establish measures or metrics to determine current market conditions. In addition, this line of reasoning assumes that having a federal presence in the surety marketplace is desirable, an assumption not held by all. Ultimately, although having established measures or metrics concerning the supply and demand for surety bonds might be helpful in determining the appropriate size for the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, that decision will largely rest on personal views concerning the role of the federal government in the private marketplace and the level of acceptable risk in assisting small businesses to gain greater access to surety bonds.

 

 Report 2:
The LDA requires lobbyists to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and to file quarterly reports disclosing their respective lobbying activities. Lobbyists are required to file their registrations and reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House through a single entry point. Registrations and reports must be publicly available in downloadable, searchable databases from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. No specific statutory requirements exist for lobbyists to generate or maintain documentation in support of the information disclosed in the reports they file. However, guidance issued by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House recommends that lobbyists retain copies of their filings and documentation supporting reported income and expenses for at least 6 years after they file their reports. The LDA requires that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House guide and assist lobbyists with the registration and reporting requirements and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for LDA compliance. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House review the guidance semiannually. It was last revised January 31, 2017, to (among other issues) update the registration threshold to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, and clarify the identification of clients and covered officials and issues related to rounding income and expenses. The guidance provides definitions of LDA terms, elaborates on registration and reporting requirements, includes specific examples of different scenarios, and provides explanations of why certain scenarios prompt or do not prompt disclosure under the LDA. The offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House told us they continue to consider information we report on lobbying disclosure compliance when they periodically update the guidance. In addition, they told us they e-mail registered lobbyists quarterly on common compliance issues and reminders to file reports by the due dates. The LDA defines a lobbyist as an individual who is employed or retained by a client for compensation, who has made more than one lobbying contact (written or oral communication to covered officials, such as a high ranking agency official or a Member of Congress made on behalf of a client), and whose lobbying activities represent at least 20 percent of the time that he or she spends on behalf of the client during the quarter. Lobbying firms are persons or entities that have one or more employees who lobby on behalf of a client other than that person or entity. Figure 1 provides an overview of the registration and filing process. Lobbying firms are required to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for each client if the firms receive or expect to receive more than $3,000 in income from that client for lobbying activities. Lobbyists are also required to submit an LD-2 quarterly report for each registration filed. The LD-2s contain information that includes: the name of the lobbyist reporting on quarterly lobbying activities; the name of the client for whom the lobbyist lobbied; a list of individuals who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client during the reporting period; whether any lobbyists served in covered positions in the executive or legislative branch such as high-ranking agency officials or congressional staff positions, in the previous 20 years; codes describing general issue areas, such as agriculture and education; a description of the specific lobbying issues; houses of Congress and federal agencies lobbied during the reporting reported income (or expenses for organizations with in-house lobbyists) related to lobbying activities during the quarter (rounded to the nearest $10,000). The LDA also requires lobbyists to report certain political contributions semiannually in the LD-203 report. These reports must be filed 30 days after the end of a semiannual period by each lobbying firm registered to lobby and by each individual listed as a lobbyist on a firm’s lobbying report. The lobbyists or lobbying firms must: list the name of each federal candidate or officeholder, leadership political action committee, or political party committee to which he or she contributed at least $200 in the aggregate during the semiannual period; report contributions made to presidential library foundations and presidential inaugural committees; report funds contributed to pay the cost of an event to honor or recognize an official who was previously in a covered position, funds paid to an entity named for or controlled by a covered official, and contributions to a person or entity in recognition of an official, or to pay the costs of a meeting or other event held by or in the name of a covered official; and certify that they have read and are familiar with the gift and travel rules of the Senate and House and that they have not provided, requested, or directed a gift or travel to a member, officer, or employee of Congress that would violate those rules. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, along with USAO, are responsible for ensuring LDA compliance. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House notify lobbyists or lobbying firms in writing that they are not complying with the LDA reporting. Subsequently, they refer those lobbyists who fail to provide an appropriate response to USAO. USAO researches these referrals and sends additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyists or lobbying firms, requesting that they file reports or terminate their registration. If USAO does not receive a response after 60 days, it decides whether to pursue a civil or criminal case against each noncompliant lobbyist. A civil case could lead to penalties up to $200,000 for each violation, while a criminal case—usually pursued if a lobbyist’s noncompliance is found to be knowing and corrupt—could lead to a maximum of 5 years in prison. Generally, under the LDA, within 45 days of being employed or retained to make a lobbying contact on behalf of a client, the lobbyist must register by filing an LD-1 form with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Thereafter, the lobbyist must file quarterly disclosure (LD-2) reports detailing the lobbying activities. Of the 3,433 new registrations we identified for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, we matched 2,995 of them (87.2 percent) to corresponding LD-2 reports filed within the same quarter as the registration. These results are consistent with the findings we have reported in prior reviews. We used the House lobbyists’ disclosure database as the source of the reports. We also used an electronic matching algorithm that allows for misspellings and other minor inconsistencies between the registrations and reports. Figure 2 shows lobbyists filed disclosure reports as required for most new lobbying registrations from 2010 through 2017. For selected elements of lobbyists’ LD-2 reports that can be generalized to the population of lobbying reports, our findings have generally been consistent from year to year. Most lobbyists reporting $5,000 or more in income or expenses provided written documentation to varying degrees for the reporting elements in their disclosure reports. Figure 3 shows that for most LD-2 reports, lobbyists provided documentation for income and expenses for sampled reports from 2010 through 2017. However, in recent years our findings showed some variation in the estimated percentage of lobbyists who have reports with documentation for income and expense supporting lobbying activities. Specifically, our estimate for 2017 (99 percent) represents a statistically significant increase from 2016. Figure 4 shows that for some LD-2 reports, lobbyists did not round their income or expenses as the guidance requires. In 2017, we estimate 25 percent of reports did not round reported income or expenses according to the guidance. We have found that rounding difficulties have been a recurring issue on LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2017. As we previously reported, several lobbyists who listed expenses told us that based on their reading of the LD-2 form they believed they were required to report the exact amount. While this is not consistent with the LDA and the guidance, this may be a source of some of the confusion regarding rounding errors. In 2016, the guidance was updated to include an additional example about rounding expenses to the nearest $10,000. In 2017, 11 percent of lobbyists reported $10,000 or more in income or expenses. The LDA requires lobbyists to disclose lobbying contacts made with federal agencies on behalf of the client for the reporting period. This year, of the 98 LD-2 reports in our sample, 51 reports disclosed lobbying activities at federal agencies. Of those, lobbyists provided documentation for all lobbying activities at executive branch agencies for 34 LD-2 reports. Figures 5 through 8 show that lobbyists for most LD-2 reports provided documentation for selected elements of their LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2017. Lobbyists for an estimated 93 percent of LD-2 reports filed year-end 2016 for all lobbyists listed political contributions on the report as required. Figure 9 shows that lobbyists for most lobbying firms filed contribution reports as required in our sample from 2010 through 2017. All individual lobbyists and lobbying firms reporting lobbying activity are required to file LD-203 reports semiannually, even if they have no contributions to report, because they must certify compliance with the gift and travel rules. The LDA requires a lobbyist to disclose previously held covered positions in the executive or legislative branch, such as high ranking agency officials and congressional staff, when first registering as a lobbyist for a new client. This can be done either on a new LD-1 or on the quarterly LD- 2 filing when added as a new lobbyist. This year, we estimate that 15 percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed previously held covered positions as required. As in our other reports, some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions. Figure 10 shows the extent to which lobbyists may not have properly disclosed one or more covered positions as required from 2010 through 2017. Lobbyists amended 15 of the 98 LD-2 disclosure reports in our original sample to change previously reported information after we contacted them. Of the 15 reports, 7 were amended after we notified the lobbyists of our review, but before we met with them. An additional 8 of the 15 reports were amended after we met with the lobbyists to review their documentation. We consistently find a notable number of amended LD-2 reports in our sample each year following notification of our review. This suggests that sometimes our contact spurs lobbyists to more closely scrutinize their reports than they would have without our review. Table 1 lists reasons lobbying firms in our sample amended their LD-1 or LD-2 reports. As part of our review, we compared contributions listed on lobbyists’ and lobbying firms’ LD-203 reports against those political contributions reported in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) database to identify whether political contributions were omitted on LD-203 reports in our sample. The sample of LD-203 reports we reviewed contained 80 reports with contributions and 80 reports without contributions. We estimate that overall for 2017, lobbyists failed to disclose one or more reportable contributions on 12 percent of reports. Additionally, ten LD-203 reports were amended in response to our review. For this element in prior reports, we reported an estimated minimum percentage of reports based on a one-sided 95 percent confidence interval rather than the estimated proportion as shown here. Estimates in the table have a maximum margin of error of 11 percentage points. The year to year differences are not statistically significant. Table 2 illustrates that from 2010 through 2017 most lobbyists disclosed FEC reportable contributions on their LD-203 reports as required. As part of our review, 88 different lobbying firms were included in our 2017 sample of LD-2 disclosure reports. Consistent with prior reviews, most lobbying firms reported that they found it “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to comply with reporting requirements. Of the 88 different lobbying firms in our sample, 34 reported that the disclosure requirements were “very easy,” 40 reported them “somewhat easy,” and 13 reported them “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” (see figure 11). Most lobbying firms we surveyed rated the definitions of terms used in LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand with regard to meeting their reporting requirements. This is consistent with prior reviews. Figures 12 through 16 show what lobbyists reported as their ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements from 2012 through 2017. U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) officials stated that they continue to have sufficient personnel resources and authority under the LDA to enforce reporting requirements. This includes imposing civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. Noncompliance refers to a lobbyist’s or lobbying firm’s failure to comply with the LDA. However, USAO noted that the number of assigned personnel has decreased due to attrition. USAO officials stated that lobbyists resolve their noncompliance issues by filing LD-2, LD-203, or LD-2 amendments, or by terminating their registration, depending on the issue. Resolving referrals can take anywhere from a few days to years, depending on the circumstances. During this time, USAO creates summary reports from its database to track the overall number of referrals that are pending or become compliant as a result of the lobbyist receiving an e-mail, phone call, or noncompliance letter. Referrals remain in the pending category until they are resolved. The pending category is divided into the following areas: “initial research for referral,” “responded but not compliant,” “no response/waiting for a response,” “bad address,” and “unable to locate.” The USAO attempts to review and update all pending cases every six months. USAO focuses its enforcement efforts primarily on the “responded but not compliant” and the “no response/waiting for a response” groups. Officials told us that, if the USAO, after several unsuccessful attempts, has been unsuccessful in contacting the non-compliant firm or its lobbyist, USAO confers with both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to determine whether further action is needed. In the cases where the lobbying firm is repeatedly referred for not filing disclosure reports but does not appear to be actively lobbying, USAO suspends enforcement actions. USAO officials reported they will continue to monitor these firms and will resume enforcement actions if required. USAO received 3,213 referrals from both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for failure to comply with LD-2 reporting requirements cumulatively for filing years 2009 through 2015. Table 4 shows the number and status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into compliance. Enforcement actions include USAO attempts to bring lobbyists into compliance through letters, e-mails, and calls. About 45 percent (1,450 of 3,213) of the total referrals received are now compliant because lobbying firms either filed their reports or terminated their registrations. In addition, some of the referrals were found to be compliant when USAO received the referral. Therefore, no action was taken. This may occur when lobbying firms respond to the contact letters from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House after USAO received the referrals. About 55 percent (1,752 of 3,213) of referrals are pending further action because USAO could not locate the lobbying firm, did not receive a response from the firm after an enforcement action, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbying firm. The remaining 11 referrals did not require action or were suspended because the lobbyist or client was no longer in business or the lobbyist was deceased. LD-203 referrals consist of two types: (1) LD-203(R) referrals represent lobbying firms that have failed to file LD-203 reports for their lobbying firm and (2) LD-203 referrals represent the lobbyists at the lobbying firm who have failed to file their individual LD-203 reports as required. USAO received 2,255 LD-203(R) referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2015) and 3,716 LD-203 referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2014 from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for lobbying firms and lobbyists for noncompliance with reporting requirements). LD- 203 referrals are more complicated than LD-2 referrals because both the lobbying firm and the individual lobbyists within the firm are each required to file a LD-203. Lobbyists employed by a lobbying firm typically use the firm’s contact information and not the lobbyists’ personal contact information. This makes it difficult to locate a lobbyist who is not in compliance and may have left the firm. USAO officials reported that, while many firms have assisted USAO by providing contact information for lobbyists, they are not required to do so. According to officials, USAO has difficulty pursuing LD-203 referrals for lobbyists who have departed a firm without leaving forwarding contact information with the firm. While USAO utilizes web searches and online databases, including social media, to find these missing lobbyists, it is not always successful. Table 5 shows the status of LD-203 (R) referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into compliance. A little more than 44 percent (998 of 2,255) of the lobbying firms referred by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for noncompliance from calendar years 2009 through 2015 are now considered compliant because firms either filed their reports or terminated their registrations. About 56 percent (1,251 of 2,255) of the referrals are pending further action. Table 6 shows that USAO received 3,716 LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for calendar years 2009 through 2014. It also shows the status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbyists into compliance. In addition, table 6 shows that about 47 percent (1,741 of 3,716) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist. About 53 percent (1,966 of 3,716) of the referrals are pending further action because USAO could not locate the lobbyist, did not receive a response from the lobbyist, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyist. Table 7 shows that USAO received LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for 4,991 lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for any filing year from 2009 through 2014. It also shows the status of compliance for individual lobbyists listed on referrals to USAO. About 51 percent (2,526 of 4,991) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist. About 50 percent (2,465 of 4,991) of the referrals are pending action because USAO could not locate the lobbyists, did not receive a response from the lobbyists, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyists. USAO officials said that many of the pending LD-203 referrals represent lobbyists who no longer lobby for the lobbying firms affiliated with the referrals, even though these lobbying firms may be listed on the lobbyist’s LD-203 report. According to USAO officials, lobbyists and lobbying firms who repeatedly fail to file reports are labeled chronic offenders and referred to one of the assigned attorneys for follow-up. USAO also receives complaints regarding lobbyists who are allegedly lobbying but never filed an LD-203. USAO officials added that USAO monitors and investigates chronic offenders to ultimately determine the appropriate enforcement actions, which may include settlement or other civil actions. In regards to the four active cases involving chronic offenders they reported to us in 2016, USAO officials noted that the agency is investigating one case, negotiating a resolution that will include a civil penalty in another case, and closing two other investigations without further action. In addition, USAO is reviewing its records to identify additional chronic offenders for further action due to noncompliance. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment. The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, Secretary of the Senate, Clerk of the House of Representatives, and interested congressional committees and members. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which lobbyists are able to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA) by providing documentation to support information contained on registrations and reports filed under the LDA; to identify challenges and potential improvements to compliance, if any; and to describe the resources and authorities available to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO), its role in enforcing LDA compliance, and the efforts it has made to improve LDA enforcement. We used information in the lobbying disclosure database maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives (Clerk of the House). To assess whether these disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, we reviewed relevant documentation and consulted with knowledgeable officials. Although registrations and reports are filed through a single web portal, each chamber subsequently receives copies of the data and follows different data-cleaning, processing, and editing procedures before storing the data in either individual files (in the House) or databases (in the Senate). Currently, there is no means of reconciling discrepancies between the two databases caused by the differences in data processing. For example, Senate staff told us during previous reviews they set aside a greater proportion of registration and report submissions than the House for manual review before entering the information into the database. As a result, the Senate database would be slightly less current than the House database on any given day pending review and clearance. House staff told us during previous reviews that they rely heavily on automated processing. In addition, while they manually review reports that do not perfectly match information on file for a given lobbyist or client, staff members approve and upload such reports as originally filed by each lobbyist, even if the reports contain errors or discrepancies (such as a variant on how a name is spelled). Nevertheless, we do not have reasons to believe that the content of the Senate and House systems would vary substantially. Based on interviews with knowledgeable officials and a review of documentation, we determined that House disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for identifying a sample of quarterly disclosure reports (LD-2) and for assessing whether newly filed lobbyists also filed required reports. We used the House database for sampling LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, as well as for sampling year-end 2016 and midyear 2017 political contributions reports (LD-203). We also used the database for matching quarterly registrations with filed reports. We did not evaluate the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House, both of which have key roles in the lobbying disclosure process. However, we did consult with officials from each office. They provided us with general background information at our request. To assess the extent to which lobbyists could provide evidence of their compliance with reporting requirements, we examined a stratified random sample of 98 LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017. The sample size of 98 LD-2 reports for this year’s review represents an increase from the sample size selected for the 2015 and 2016 reviews, and is a return to the sample size selected in reviews prior to 2015. We increased the sample size because, in 2016, we observed a change in the estimate of the percentage of reports that had documentation of income and expenses (83 percent down from 92 percent in 2015). At that time, we were unable to state that this was a statistically significant change because, in part, the reduced sample size of 80 did not give us enough power to detect and report on the change of that size. We excluded reports with no lobbying activity or with income or expenses of less than $5,000 from our sampling frame. We drew our sample from 45,818 activity reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017 available in the public House database, as of our final download date for each quarter. Our sample of LD-2 reports was not designed to detect differences over time. However, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2017 for the generalizable elements of our review. We found that results were generally consistent from year to year and there were few statistically significant changes after using a Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiple comparisons. For this year’s review, we identified that the estimated change in the percent of LD-2 reports that provided written documentation for the income and expenses from 2016 to 2017 is notable. In recent years, our findings show some variation in the estimate percentage of reports with documentation. Specifically, our estimate for 2017 (99 percent) represents a statistically significant increase from 2016. These changes are identified in the report. The inability to detect significant differences from year to year in our results may be related to sampling error alone or the nature of our sample, which was relatively small and was designed only for cross-sectional analysis. Our sample is based on a stratified random selection and is only one of a large number of samples that we may have drawn. Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This interval would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could have drawn. The percentage estimates for LD-2 reports have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer of the estimate itself. We contacted all the lobbyists and lobbying firms in our sample and, using a structured web-based survey, asked them to confirm key elements of the LD-2 and whether they could provide written documentation for key elements in their reports, including the amount of income reported for lobbying activities; the amount of expenses reported on lobbying activities; the names of those lobbyists listed in the report; the houses of Congress and federal agencies that they lobbied, and the issue codes listed to describe their lobbying activity. After reviewing the survey results for completeness, we interviewed lobbyists and lobbying firms to review the documentation they reported as having on their online survey for selected elements of their respective LD- 2 report. Prior to each interview, we conducted a search to determine whether lobbyists properly disclosed their covered position as required by the LDA. We reviewed the lobbyists’ previous work histories by searching lobbying firms’ websites, LinkedIn, Leadership Directories, Legistorm, and Google. Prior to 2008, lobbyists were only required to disclose covered official positions held within 2 years of registering as a lobbyist for the client. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 amended that time frame to require disclosure of positions held 20 years before the date the lobbyists first lobbied on behalf of the client. Lobbyists are required to disclose previously held covered official positions either on the client registration (LD-1) or on an LD-2 report. Consequently, those who held covered official positions may have disclosed the information on the LD-1 or a LD-2 report filed prior to the report we examined as part of our random sample. Therefore, where we found evidence that a lobbyist previously held a covered official position, and that information was not disclosed on the LD-2 report under review, we conducted an additional review of the publicly available Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House database to determine whether the lobbyist properly disclosed the covered official position on a prior report or LD-1. Finally, if a lobbyist appeared to hold a covered position that was not disclosed, we asked for an explanation at the interview with the lobbying firm to ensure that our research was accurate. In previous reports, we reported the lower bound of a 90 percent confidence interval to provide a minimum estimate of omitted covered positions and omitted contributions with a 95 percent confidence level. We did so to account for the possibility that our searches may have failed to identify all possible omitted covered positions and contributions. As we have developed our methodology over time, we are more confident in the comprehensiveness of our searches for these items. Accordingly, this report presents the estimated percentages for omitted contributions and omitted covered positions, rather than the minimum estimates. As a result, percentage estimates for these items will differ slightly from the minimum percentage estimates presented in prior reports. In addition to examining the content of the LD-2 reports, we confirmed whether the most recent LD-203 reports had been filed for each firm and lobbyist listed on the LD-2 reports in our random sample. Although this review represents a random selection of lobbyists and firms, it is not a direct probability sample of firms filing LD-2 reports or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports. As such, we did not estimate the likelihood that LD-203 reports were appropriately filed for the population of firms or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports. To determine if the LDA’s requirement for lobbyists to file a report in the quarter of registration was met for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, we used data filed with the Clerk of the House to match newly filed registrations with corresponding disclosure reports. Using an electronic matching algorithm that includes strict and loose text matching procedures, we identified matching disclosure reports for 2,995, or 87.2 percent, of the 3,433 newly filed registrations. We began by standardizing client and lobbyist names in both the report and registration files (including removing punctuation and standardizing words and abbreviations, such as “company” and “CO”). We then matched reports and registrations using the House identification number (which is linked to a unique lobbyist-client pair), as well as the names of the lobbyist and client. For reports we could not match by identification number and standardized name, we also attempted to match reports and registrations by client and lobbyist name, allowing for variations in the names to accommodate minor misspellings or typos. For these cases, we used professional judgment to determine whether cases with typos were sufficiently similar to consider as matches. We could not readily identify matches in the report database for the remaining registrations using electronic means. To assess the accuracy of the LD-203 reports, we analyzed stratified random samples of LD-203 reports from the 30,594 total LD-203 reports. The first sample contains 80 reports of the 9,474 reports with political contributions and the second contains 80 reports of the 20,335 reports listing no contributions. Each sample contains 40 reports from the year- end 2016 filing period and 40 reports from the midyear 2017 filing period. The samples from 2017 allow us to generalize estimates in this report to either the population of LD-203 reports with contributions or the reports without contributions to within a 95 percent confidence interval of within plus or minus 11 percentage points or fewer. Although our sample of LD- 203 reports was not designed to detect differences over time, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2017 and found no statistically significant differences after adjusting for multiple comparisons. While the results provide some confidence that apparent fluctuations in our results across years are likely attributable to sampling error, the inability to detect significant differences may also be related to the nature of our sample, which was relatively small and designed only for cross- sectional analysis. We analyzed the contents of the LD-203 reports and compared them to contribution data found in the publicly available Federal Elections Commission’s (FEC) political contribution database. We consulted with staff at FEC responsible for administering the database. We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We compared the FEC-reportable contributions on the LD-203 reports with information in the FEC database. The verification process required text and pattern matching procedures so we used professional judgment when assessing whether an individual listed is the same individual filing an LD-203. For contributions reported in the FEC database and not on the LD-203 report, we asked the lobbyists or organizations to explain why the contribution was not listed on the LD-203 report or to provide documentation of those contributions. As with covered positions on LD-2 disclosure reports, we cannot be certain that our review identified all cases of FEC-reportable contributions that were inappropriately omitted from a lobbyist’s LD-203 report. We did not estimate the percentage of other non-FEC political contributions that were omitted because they tend to constitute a small minority of all listed contributions and cannot be verified against an external source. To identify challenges to compliance, we used a structured web-based survey and obtained the views from 88 different lobbying firms included in our sample on any challenges to compliance. The number of different lobbying firms is 88, which is less than our original sample of 98 reports because some lobbying firms had more than one LD-2 report included in our sample. We calculated responses based on the number of different lobbying firms that we contacted rather than the number of interviews. Prior to our calculations, we removed the duplicate lobbying firms based on the most recent date of their responses. For those cases with the same response date, the decision rule was to keep the cases with the smallest assigned case identification number. To obtain their views, we asked them to rate their ease with complying with the LD-2 disclosure requirements using a scale of “very easy,” “somewhat easy,” “somewhat difficult,” or “very difficult.” In addition, using the same scale we asked them to rate the ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements. To describe the resources and authorities available to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) and its efforts to improve its LDA enforcement, we interviewed USAO officials. We obtained information on the capabilities of the system officials established to track and report compliance trends and referrals and on other practices established to focus resources on LDA enforcement. USAO provided us with reports from the tracking system on the number and status of referrals and chronically noncompliant lobbyists and lobbying firms. The mandate does not require us to identify lobbyists who failed to register and report in accordance with the LDA requirements, or determine for those lobbyists who did register and report whether all lobbying activity or contributions were disclosed. Therefore, this was outside the scope of our audit. We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was based on unique combination of House ID, lobbyist, and client names (see table 8). See table 9 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of lobbying contribution reports with contributions. See table 10 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of lobbying contribution reports without contributions. In addition to the contact named above, Clifton G. Douglas Jr. (Assistant Director), Shirley Jones (Assistant General Counsel) and Ulyana Panchishin (Analyst-In-Charge) supervised the development of this report. James Ashley, Ann Czapiewski, Krista Loose, Kathleen Jones, Amanda Miller, Sharon Miller, Stewart W. Small, and Kayla L. Robinson made key contributions to this report. Assisting with lobbyist file reviews were Justine Augeri, Matthew Bond, James A. Howard, Jesse Jordan, Sherrice Kerns, Dalton Matthew Lauderback, Alexandria Palmer, Alan Rozzi, Shane Spencer, Jessica Walker, Ralanda Winborn, and Kate Wulff. Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with New Disclosure Requirements. GAO-08-1099. Washington, D.C: September 30, 2008. 2008 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-09-487. Washington, D.C: April 1, 2009. 2009 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-10-499. Washington, D.C: April 1, 2010. 2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-11-452. Washington, D.C: April 1, 2011. 2011 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-12-492. Washington, D.C: March 30, 2012. 2012 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-13-437. Washington, D.C: April 1, 2013. 2013 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-14-485. Washington, D.C: May 28, 2014. 2014 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-15-310. Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2015. 2015 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-16-320. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2016. 2016 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-17-385. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2017.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Surety Bond Guarantee Program is designed to increase small businesses' access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private-sector contracts, by guaranteeing bid, performance, and payment bonds for small businesses that cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels. The program guarantees individual contracts of up to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. The SBA's guarantee currently ranges from 80% to 90% of the surety's loss if a default occurs. In FY2018, the SBA guaranteed 10,800 bid and final surety bonds with a total contract value of nearly $6.5 billion. A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner. The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the contract's terms and conditions. If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed. Surety bonds encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and may be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract's terms and conditions. Surety bonds are important to small businesses interested in competing for federal contracts because the federal government requires prime contractors—prior to the award of a federal contract exceeding $150,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any building or public work of the United States—to furnish a performance bond issued by a surety satisfactory to the contracting officer in an amount that the officer considers adequate to protect the government. P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, increased the program's bond limit to $6.5 million, or up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. The limit had been $2 million since 2000, with a temporary increase from February 17, 2009, through September 30, 2010, to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified in writing that such a guarantee was necessary. Advocates of raising the program's bond limit argued that doing so would increase contracting opportunities for small businesses and bring the limit more in line with limits of other small business programs, such as the 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program and the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. Opponents argued that raising the limit could lead to higher amounts being guaranteed by the SBA and, as a result, increase the risk of program losses. This report examines the program's origin and development, including (1) the decision to supplement the original Prior Approval Program with the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program that initially provided a lower guarantee rate (not to exceed 70%) than the Prior Approval Program (not to exceed 80% or 90%, depending on the size of the contract and the type of small business) in exchange for allowing preferred sureties to issue SBA-guaranteed surety bonds without the SBA's prior approval; (2) P.L. 114-92, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which increased the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses; and (3) the decision to increase the program's bond limit.