GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Small Business, U.S. Senate

July 2000 SMALL BUSINESS

SBA Could Better

Focus Its 8(a)

Program to Help Firms

Obtain Contracts

GAO/RCED-00-196

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26

Appendix II: GAO’s Survey of 8(a) Firms 33

Appendix III: Comments From the Small Business Administration 44

Tables Table 1: Percentage of Minority and Disadvantaged Groups That

Considered Overcoming Discrimination as a Major

Reason for Joining the 8(a) Program 17

Table 2: Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages 28

Table 3: Sampling Errors for Selected Estimates 28

Table 4: Summary of Returns to 8(a) Mail Surveys 31

Figures Figure 1: Number of 8(a) Contracts Awarded to Firms That Have

Been in the 8(a) Program at Least 2 Years 7

Figure 2: Percentage of Firms That Have Not Obtained an 8(a)

Contract Based on the Amount of the Owners’ Management

Experience 8

Figure 3: Percentage of Firms That Have Obtained No 8(a) Contracts

by Their Years in Business Before Joining the 8(a) Program 9

Figure 4: Major Reasons Firms Joined the 8(a) Program 16

Figure 5: Major Reasons for Firms’ Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

With the 8(a) Program 18

Figure 6: Satisfaction of 8(a) Firms Based on Whether They Joined

the 8(a) Program to Learn to Manage a Business 19

Figure 7: Owners’ Experience Managing Current 8(a) Firms and

Other Companies 20

Abbreviations

IG Inspector General

SBA Small Business Administration
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284055 Letr

July 20, 2000

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond

Chairman, Committee on Small Business

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The 8(a) program, administered by the Small Business Administration

(SBA), is one of the federal government’s primary vehicles for developing

small businesses that are owned by socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals. To be certified by SBA for participation in the

program, applicants must show that their firms are owned by socially and

economically disadvantaged individuals, meet SBA’s small business size

standards, and have a reasonable potential for success, as defined in SBA

regulations. Firms in the program are eligible for contracts that federal

agencies set aside for 8(a) firms and may receive SBA technical assistance

and management training. In fiscal year 1999, about 6,000 small businesses

participated in the program, and $6.2 billion was awarded in 8(a) contracts.

Concerned about whether the program is helping 8(a) firms become more

competitive, you asked us to examine (1) the extent to which firms are

obtaining federal contracts, (2) how SBA tracks the training and assistance

provided to firms, and (3) how firms view the program. In examining the

firms’ views, we focused on the reasons why firms join the program, what

assistance firms want from SBA, and how satisfied they are with the

program. To address these questions, we conducted a nationwide mail

survey of 1,200 firms randomly selected from SBA’s database of 5,432 active

8(a) firms. Our survey response rate was 71 percent (853 firms) and our

results can be generalized to the entire population of active 8(a) firms in

the program as of September 30, 1999. Appendix I provides a more detailed

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. Our survey and the

responses to it are provided in appendix II.

Results in Brief Access by firms to 8(a) contracts—long considered the program’s biggest

benefit—remains a problem. A long-standing concern cited in our previous

reports and those of the SBA Inspector General is that a few firms receive

most of the 8(a) contracts, effectively limiting the developmental

opportunities available to other firms in the program. For example, in fiscal
B-284055

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

year 1998, 209 firms received 50 percent of the 8(a) contract dollars. SBA

acknowledges this problem and has made some changes in the program to

address it, but SBA officials said that because of differences in firms’ skills

and experience and other factors, it is reasonable that not all 8(a) firms will

receive contracts from the program. In addition, SBA relies on other federal

agencies to make the contract awards, and federal procuring officials are

confronted with the competing objectives of accomplishing their agencies’

missions at a reasonable cost and achieving the 8(a) program’s business

development goals.

SBA remains unable to track the training and assistance it provides to 8(a)

firms. We reported in 1992 that SBA did not know the full extent of

management and technical assistance provided to 8(a) firms because it did

not track the assistance provided. Almost a decade later, we found that

SBA still does not have a method of systematically tracking the training and

assistance firms receive. The lack of such a system impairs SBA’s ability to

measure the program’s performance and to determine what assistance

firms need. SBA piloted a Business Assessment Tool in 1999 that would

evaluate firms’ business development needs, but at the time of our review,

SBA had not completed its review of the pilot.

According to our survey results, almost all firms joined the program to

obtain 8(a) contracts, wanted SBA to provide contracting assistance, and

were more satisfied with the program if they had received a contract.

Eighty-six percent of the firms surveyed joined the program to obtain 8(a)

contracts. However, only about one-fifth of the firms joined the program to

learn more about how to manage a business. One reason for these firms’

not placing a higher priority on learning to manage a business is that a large

majority of the firms had owners with over 10 years’ experience managing a

business. In addition, the firms themselves were not new; over half the

firms we surveyed had been in business 5 years or more before joining the

program. Overall satisfaction with the program was mixed, but firms that

received 8(a) contracts were more satisfied than those that did not. We are

recommending that SBA take a number of actions aimed at better meeting

the purpose of the program, the needs and expectations of the firms in the

program, and improving SBA’s ability to determine how well the program is

working. We provided a draft of this report to SBA for its review and

comment. SBA concurred with the report’s recommendations and provided

technical clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate.
B-284055

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Background The Small Business Act, as amended, authorizes the 8(a) program. The

purpose of the program—which was named for a section of the Small

Business Act—is to help eligible socially and economically disadvantaged

small businesses to compete in the American economy through business

development activities. Toward this end, the Congress made three major

legislative attempts—in 1978, 1980, and 1988—to improve SBA’s

administration of the program and to emphasize its business development

aspects. The Congress enacted the 1988 act and subsequent amendments

partly because the program was not developing firms in the program into

viable businesses. To remedy this and other problems, the 1988 act made a

number of changes to improve the program’s organization and participation

standards, business development activities, and overall management.

To be eligible for the 8(a) program, a firm must be a small business that is

at least 51-percent owned and controlled by one or more socially and

economically disadvantaged individuals. A firm is considered small if it

meets size standards established by SBA for the firm’s particular industry.

Under the program, certain ethnic groups, such as African and Hispanic

Americans, are presumed to be socially disadvantaged. Other individuals

can be admitted to the program if they can adequately document that they

are socially disadvantaged. In addition, to qualify as economically

disadvantaged, an individual must have a net worth of less than $250,000,

excluding his or her ownership interest in the firm and a primary personal

residence. A firm must also generally have been in business at least 2 years

and possess a reasonable prospect for success in the private sector as

determined by SBA on the basis of elements such as the firm’s operating

revenue and access to capital and credit.

Firms that enter the program are eligible to receive contracts that federal

agencies set aside for the program and to receive business development

assistance from SBA. Competition for 8(a) contracts is limited to firms

within the program. Firms can obtain other federal contracts, but do so in

competition with firms outside the program. Firms’ 9-year program

participation is divided into two stages—a developmental stage covering

years 1 through 4 and a transitional stage covering years 5 through 9.

During the transitional years, firms are required to meet certain non-8(a)

business contract levels in an effort to ensure firms do not develop an

unreasonable reliance on the program. According to 8(a) program

regulations, firms may also receive business development assistance, such

as contract support, financial assistance, training in developing business

strategies to enhance their ability to compete for contracts, training in
B-284055

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

transitional business planning, and assistance in forming joint ventures

with other firms.

A business opportunity specialist in the SBA district office that serves the

geographical area where a firm’s principal place of business is located is

normally assigned to service the firm while it is in the program. The

business opportunity specialist is responsible for, among other things,

assisting the firm with preparing a business plan, conducting annual

reviews of the firm’s progress in implementing its plan, providing technical

assistance, analyzing year-end financial statements for certain compliance

issues, and coordinating additional assistance and training for the firm

through SBA’s 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program.

A Few Firms Continue

to Receive Most 8(a)

Contracts

Because access to 8(a) contracts has long been considered the program’s

biggest benefit, firms’ success in obtaining these contracts has been a longstanding concern. The Congress in amending the 8(a) program in 1988

sought to improve the fair and equitable distribution of federal contracting

opportunities by increasing the number of competitive small businesses

owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged

individuals. Nonetheless, as our prior reports and those of the SBA

Inspector General (IG) have noted, (1) a large percentage of the total dollar

value of program contracts was awarded to very few firms, and (2) about

half the firms in the program in a given year receive none of these

contracts. For example, our analysis of SBA’s fiscal year 1998 program data

showed that 50 percent ($3.2 billion) of the dollar value of the 8(a)

contracts and modifications went to only 209 of the more than 6,000 firms

in the program, while over 3,000 firms did not get any program contracts.

According to SBA, because the developmental status of each firm in the

program varies greatly in any given year, the number of firms that seek 8(a)

contracts will be less than the total number of firms in the program. The IG

also listed the concentration of 8(a) contracts among a few firms as one of

the 10 most serious management challenges facing SBA in both fiscal years

1999 and 2000. The concentration of program contract awards has also

been reported as a material weakness in SBA’s Federal Managers Financial

Integrity Act Report every fiscal year since 1994.

According to our survey results, many firms have yet to actually receive an

8(a) contract. For example, as shown in figure 1, 24 percent of our survey

respondents who have been in the program for at least 2 years have not

obtained an 8(a) contract. Of those survey respondents who joined the

program primarily to obtain contracts and who have been in the program
B-284055

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

for at least 2 years, 35 percent indicated that they have not been successful

in obtaining a contract. One survey respondent wrote that their firm is

going into its fourth year in the program without obtaining any 8(a)

contracts. The respondent wrote that their firm was under the impression

that SBA staff would assist them in contacting federal agencies and

obtaining these contracts. Instead, the firm has had to use its time and

resources to fill out the paperwork required by SBA but has nothing to

show for its efforts. According to the program’s regulations, admission into

the program does not guarantee that firms will receive 8(a) contracts.

Firms are also informed upon joining the program that participation does

not guarantee their obtaining an 8(a) contract.

Figure 1: Number of 8(a) Contracts Awarded to Firms That Have Been in the 8(a)

Program at Least 2 Years

In our analysis of the survey data, we examined different factors to

determine if there were any relationships between firms that have not yet

obtained 8(a) contracts and (1) the number of years of the owners’ overall

owner management experience or (2) the number of years a firm was in

business before joining the program. The survey data indicate firms that

12% • 11 and over

24% • None

31%•

1 to 2

•20%

3 to 5

•13%

6 to 10
B-284055

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

have owners with less management experience are not as likely to obtain

8(a) contracts compared with firms with more experienced owners. As

illustrated in figure 2, nearly 63 percent of the firms surveyed have owners

with 2 to 4 years’ management experience and have not obtained a

contract.

Figure 2: Percentage of Firms That Have Not Obtained an 8(a) Contract Based on the

Amount of the Owners’ Management Experience

Our survey data indicate that no significant relationship exists between the

amount of time a firm has been in business before joining the program and

its success in obtaining an 8(a) contract. For example, as illustrated in

figure 3, there is no statistical difference between firms that have been in

business less than 2 years and those that have been in business over 10

years with regard to their success in obtaining an 8(a) contract.

Percentage of firms that have not obtained an 8(a) contract

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 to 4

years

5 to 7

years

8 to 10

years

Over 10

years

Years of owner management experience

63%

51%

36% 33%
B-284055

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Figure 3: Percentage of Firms That Have Obtained No 8(a) Contracts by Their Years

in Business Before Joining the 8(a) Program

SBA agrees that the concentration of program contracts among a few firms

is a problem and has made changes to the 8(a) program in an attempt to

reduce the concentration. For example, SBA revised the program’s

regulations in June 1995 and eliminated a loophole that allowed firms to

obtain sole source contracts above a limit set for the program. In 1998, SBA

attempted to make the 8(a) contracting process more attractive for federal

agencies by negotiating memorandums of understanding that allowed

federal agencies to contract directly with 8(a) firms. Federal agency

officials we interviewed generally viewed this change as having a positive

impact on the process. Officials at one agency commented that their

memorandum of understanding has reduced the time it takes them to issue

an 8(a) contract by at least 30 days. Also, in June 1998, SBA again revised

the program’s regulations to, among other things, limit the total dollar

amount of sole source contracts firms can receive and allow 8(a) firms and

other small businesses to form joint ventures to enhance their ability to

obtain larger federal contracts. SBA stated in December 1999 that these

efforts, along with others, were reducing the contract concentration

Percentage of firms that have not obtained 8(a) contracts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Less

than 2

years 

2 to 4

years

5 to 7

years

8 to 10

years

Over 10

years

Years in business before joining 8(a) program

33%

38% 36%

31%

40%
B-284055

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

problem. The agency reported a 40-percent reduction in the dollar amount

of 8(a) contracts awarded to the top 10 firms between fiscal years 1997 and

1998. However, our analysis of SBA’s fiscal year 1999 program data showed

that this was a short-term reduction because the dollar amount of 8(a)

contracts awarded to the top 10 firms increased by 45 percent between

fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

At the same time, SBA officials said that because of the differences in skills

and experience among the firms and conflicting federal procurement

objectives, it is reasonable that not all firms in the program will receive 8(a)

contracts. According to SBA, 8(a) firms are no different from other small

businesses—some will be more successful than others. Among the factors

that define a firm’s success in obtaining 8(a) contracts are the firm’s

proximity to federal agencies; the firm’s capabilities, access to credit and

capital, and effective marketing; and the share of each federal agency’s

prime contracting dollars devoted to the program. The program’s

regulations state that admission to the program does not guarantee that a

participant will receive 8(a) contracts. In addition, SBA relies on other

federal agencies to make the contract awards, and federal procuring

officials are confronted with the competing objectives of accomplishing

their agencies’ missions at a reasonable cost and achieving the 8(a)

program’s business development goals.

SBA’s Lack of a System

to Track Assistance

Provided to 8(a) Firms

Impairs Its Ability to

Measure Program

Performance

SBA remains unable to track the training and assistance it provides to 8(a)

firms. Almost a decade after we first reported that SBA did not track the

assistance it provides to firms, we found that SBA still does not have a

method of systematically tracking the training and assistance firms receive.

The lack of such a system impairs SBA’s ability to measure the program’s

performance and to determine what assistance firms need. SBA piloted a

Business Assessment Tool in 1999 that would evaluate firms’ business

development needs, but at the time of our review, SBA officials had not

completed their assessment of the pilot. SBA has attempted to enhance the

training component of the program over the last several years, but its

efforts are limited in the number of firms they can serve because of funding

constraints.

SBA Lacks a System to

Measure Business

Development Impact

Although SBA wants to emphasize business development for 8(a) firms, it

does not currently have a method for systematically tracking the business

development training and assistance 8(a) firms receive. In January 1992, we

reported that the full extent of the management and technical assistance
B-284055

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

provided to 8(a) firms was unknown because SBA did not have a computer

network that enabled the agency to collect this information.1 In September

1996, SBA testified it had implemented an automated information system

that enabled the agency to monitor, among other things, what kind of

assistance was provided to firms and what progress was made with

business development. Yet SBA is not currently tracking the training and

assistance provided to 8(a) firms. SBA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Technology said that SBA’s current information system had the capacity to

track management training from the 7(j) Management and Technical

Assistance Program when the system was initially implemented, but this

capacity was never used because 7(j) program funding was reduced. If

information on training and assistance is needed, the 8(a) program

manager said headquarters would send an information request to the

district offices. However, officials in SBA’s district offices in Atlanta, DallasFort Worth, New York City, and San Francisco told us that they do not have

systems to track the training or assistance that they or others provide to

8(a) firms. Officials in SBA’s Washington, D.C., district office informed us

that since SBA did not have a centralized system to track training or

assistance provided to 8(a) firms, the district office maintained a

spreadsheet with this information. Our report on SBA’s 8(a) information

system discusses this issue as well as other concerns with that system.2

In addition, SBA does not have a systematic way of assessing the business

development needs of 8(a) firms or the effect of the assistance it provides

to address these needs. SBA currently relies on its business opportunity

specialists to make such an assessment through their periodic contacts

with the firms and their reviews of the firms’ business plans and the annual

8(a) program reports firms provide. It is the business opportunity

specialists’ responsibility to provide advice and guidance on management

and marketing, technical, financial, and contracting assistance and to refer

firms to other sources, both within and outside SBA, for additional

assistance. However, many business opportunity specialists are also

responsible for a myriad of other tasks, such as making sure that firms

comply with the program’s regulations before they receive 8(a) contracts,

reviewing annual financial reports from firms, and increasingly, for

program marketing activities as well. For example, in the Atlanta, Dallas1

Small Business: Problems in Restructuring SBA’s Minority Business Development Program

(GAO/RCED-92-68, Jan. 31, 1992).

2

Small Business: SBA’s 8(a) Information System Is Flawed and Does Not Support the

Program’s Mission (GAO/RCED-00-197, July 20, 2000).
B-284055

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Fort Worth, and New York City district offices, business opportunity

specialists are responsible for all tasks associated with the firms in their

portfolios. In these offices, the number of 8(a) firms each business

opportunity specialist was responsible for at the time of our visits ranged

from a low of 25 to a high of 43. In the San Francisco and Washington, D.C.,

district offices, the business opportunity specialists have a larger number

of firms in their portfolios, but they divide up the servicing responsibilities.

For the most part, the business opportunity specialists that we interviewed

said that they believe the time they have to assess 8(a) firms’

developmental needs and to provide needed assistance is limited. SBA

officials in each of the district offices we visited also told us that because of

travel constraints and other factors, business opportunity specialists are

unable to make annual site visits to all the 8(a) firms in their portfolios, as

recommended in SBA’s operating procedures for the program.

In an effort to better identify what type of assistance and training an 8(a)

firm requires, SBA piloted an automated Business Assessment Tool, but at

the time of our review, the SBA Associate Deputy Administrator

responsible for the 8(a) program said he was uncertain whether the tool

would be implemented because of budget constraints. The assessment tool

was designed to match information from a series of 58 questions that

assess a firm’s developmental assistance needs with the business training

and counseling resources provided by SBA and other service providers.

The tool also provided a mechanism for tracking the training and

assistance recommended. In July 1999, SBA piloted the Business

Assessment Tool at 14 SBA district offices where it was used to assess 53

firms. SBA officials said that the tool, which is not integrated into SBA’s

current information system, is being reassessed because the pilot showed

that it could be improved by being made more user friendly. For example, if

a business opportunity specialist was not able to complete all the data

entries in one session, the tool would not save the entries already

completed.

SBA’s Measure of Program

Success in Its Performance

Plan Needs Improvement

SBA changed how it measures the success of the 8(a) program by

realigning the program’s performance goals in the agency’s fiscal year 2001

annual performance plan with the program’s business development

emphasis. As required by the Government Performance and Results Act,

agencies must prepare annual performance plans that inform the Congress

of, among other things, the performance goals for major programs and the

measures used to gauge program performance. Previously, the 8(a)

program’s success—as measured in SBA’s fiscal year 2000 plan—was based
B-284055

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

on the number of firms still independently owned and operated 3 years

after leaving the program. SBA now defines the program’s success as the

number of 8(a) firms that complete the 9-year program term (or graduate

early from the program) and receive business development assistance.

Though the fiscal year 2001 plan did not provide specific details on what

business development assistance involved, the plan stated that it included

technical, management, and federal contract assistance.

However, as reported in our review of SBA’s fiscal year 2001 performance

plan, the new measure SBA adopted to assess the success of the 8(a)

program is an output measure—completing the program and receiving

business development assistance—and is a weaker performance measure

than the outcome measure SBA adopted in its fiscal year 2000 plan—

continued business operation 3 years after leaving the program.3 SBA’s

supporting information on the program’s success rates in its 2001 plan for

fiscal years 1997 through 1999 shows that the agency counted all firms that

completed the program as successful because district office procedures

dictate that every 8(a) firm receive at least one training session. Yet as we

previously discussed, SBA has no systematic way to track the extent to

which this and other assistance was provided.

A second performance goal in SBA’s fiscal year 2001 performance plan—to

increase the ability of small and disadvantaged businesses to successfully

supply the government with goods and services by providing them with

increased contracts and business development assistance—also affects the

8(a) program. The 2001 plan shows that SBA will measure this goal based

on the percentage of firms that receive federal contracts, technical

assistance, and mentoring. However, like the 8(a) program’s new goal to

measure program success, this performance goal also focuses on outputs

rather than on outcomes. For example, SBA’s target output measure for

technical assistance is that in fiscal year 2001, 25 percent of small and

disadvantaged businesses, including 8(a) firms, should receive business

development and financial assistance through a number of SBA programs.

3

Observations on the Small Business Administration’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report

and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-00-207R, June 30, 2000).
B-284055

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

SBA Increased Its Business

Development Focus, but

Efforts Are Limited

As part of its emphasis on business development, SBA devoted a significant

amount of the funding from the 7(j) program to executive education for

8(a) firms. Since fiscal year 1996, SBA has earmarked from 40 to 50 percent

of its 7(j) funding for this training. The executive education training, given

to select 8(a) firm executives who are nominated for participation by SBA

district offices, is conducted at various colleges and universities across the

country. A senior SBA program adviser estimated that about 10 percent of

the 8(a) firms have had executives participate in this training. The training

is divided into two parts—a basic course for executives from firms in the

developmental or transitional stages of the program and an advanced

course for executives who have attended the basic course. Both courses

focus on developing needed business skills for an 8(a) firm’s president or

chief executive officer.

Owners of two 8(a) firms we interviewed when developing our survey had

taken the executive training and were very positive about the impact it had

on their businesses. For example, one of the owners said that as a result of

the training, she was able to expand her personnel firm so that it now

provides business services. The other owner said that he considered

himself very proficient in the engineering field but lacked sophisticated

management skills. He credited the training with helping him focus his

business plan and further develop his management skills. However, both

owners stressed that SBA selects the more successful firms for executive

development training.

Funding for the 7(j) program has decreased dramatically starting in fiscal

year 1996. The program’s funding for fiscal years 1990 through 1995

averaged about $8.4 million per year, exceeding SBA’s average budgetary

request of $7.2 million per year. In contrast, for fiscal years 1996 through

1999, funding for 7(j) averaged about $2.6 million per year, well below

SBA’s average budgetary request of $7.1 million. As a result of the

decreased 7(j) funding levels, the 8(a) program manager said that SBA has

relied on its other programs, such as the Small Business Development

Centers and the Women-Owned Business Centers, to provide business

development assistance to 8(a) firms. These programs have always been

available to firms, but according to the program manager, they generally do

not provide firms with specific contracting assistance.

During fiscal year 1999, SBA initiated the 8(a) Business Development

Mentor-Protégé Program. The program encourages private sector

relationships with mentors who can provide technical assistance, financial

assistance (equity investments or loans), subcontract support, and
B-284055

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

assistance in performing prime contracts through joint venture

arrangements with 8(a) firms. As of April 2000, SBA had established 40

mentor-protégé agreements and planned to have an additional 60

agreements in place by the end of fiscal year 2000. Nonetheless, if this

participation level continues, the Mentor-Protégé program will only be able

to reach a small fraction of the over 6,000 8(a) firms.

Most Firms Join the

Program Primarily to

Obtain 8(a) Contracts,

and Their Satisfaction

Depends on

Contracting

Opportunities

The most important reason that 86 percent of the firms cited for joining the

8(a) program was to obtain federal contracts set aside for the program.

However, only about one-fifth of the firms in the program felt that they

needed assistance from SBA in learning how to manage a business and

would rather have had SBA assistance in finding contract opportunities.

Overall satisfaction with the program was mixed, but firms that received

8(a) contracts were more satisfied than those that did not.

Firms Enter the Program

Primarily to Receive 8(a)

Contracts

According to our survey results, a major reason 86 percent of the firms

cited for joining the 8(a) program was to obtain federal contracts that are

set aside for the program. As shown in figure 4, a significant number of the

firms we surveyed also entered the program to broaden their customer

base to include the federal government and to increase their net income.

For example, one respondent wrote that their firm is an established

company that joined the 8(a) program just to expand its opportunities with

the federal government. Another survey respondent wrote that the program

should do more to help good minority companies obtain federal contracts.
B-284055

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Figure 4: Major Reasons Firms Joined the 8(a) Program

Another major reason firms joined the 8(a) program was to overcome

barriers of discrimination. While 69 percent of the respondents gave this

reason, the percentage varied somewhat depending on the group with

which a firm’s owner identified. As table 1 indicates, 81 percent of the firms

owned by minority women considered overcoming discrimination to be a

major reason for joining the program, while 58 percent of the firms owned

by Hispanic Americans saw it as a major reason. One survey respondent

wrote that discrimination still exists and that, without the 8(a) program, it

would have been almost impossible for their company to compete against

large corporations for federal contracts. Another survey respondent wrote

that the program is the only one available for minority firms to grow their

businesses.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Obtain 8(a) contracts

 Broaden customer base to

the federal government

Overcome barriers

of discrimination

Increase net income

Improve chances of obtaining

contracts outside of the 8(a) program

To make it easier to be awarded

 state and local contracts

Have access to training

offered to 8(a) firms

Improve access to

credit/financing

Learn more about

managing a business

86%

80%

69%

68%

48%

39%

34%

33%

22%
B-284055

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Table 1: Percentage of Minority and Disadvantaged Groups That Considered

Overcoming Discrimination as a Major Reason for Joining the 8(a) Program

Firms’ Satisfaction With the

8(a) Program Depends on

Contract Receipt

Overall satisfaction with the program was mixed, but firms that received

8(a) contracts were more satisfied than those that did not. For example,

over 48 percent of the firms in the program for at least 2 years that had

obtained at least one 8(a) contract were satisfied with the program.

However, only about 9 percent of the firms in the program for at least 2

years that had not obtained an 8(a) contract were satisfied. One respondent

wrote in their survey that they were frustrated because their firm had spent

a considerable amount of money marketing to various federal agencies for

over 2 years with no results.

When asked about satisfaction with general aspects of the 8(a) program,

firms expressed the most dissatisfaction with two items relating to

contracting issues. As shown in figure 5, 58 percent of 8(a) firms indicated

that they were dissatisfied with the amount of contracting opportunities

from the program. Over half the firms surveyed were also dissatisfied with

their efforts to find the right contact at a federal agency to discuss potential

8(a) contracts. Additionally, over 40 percent were dissatisfied with the

amount of individual assistance SBA provided and the level of interest

federal agencies showed for working with 8(a) firms. One respondent

commented in their survey that their firm had not received any assistance

from its business opportunity specialist in over 5 years. One respondent

also wrote that they did not even know who to contact at SBA and that the

only information they received from SBA was paperwork for recertification

and requests for financial information. Another respondent wrote that

federal agencies were reluctant to use the 8(a) program. The respondent

also wrote that SBA had failed to understand the concerns of federal

agencies and that this kept the agencies from using the program.

Minority/disadvantaged group Percentage

Minority women 81

Nonminority women 78

African American 78

Native American 64

Asian American 63

Hispanic American 58
B-284055

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Other firms were more satisfied with the amount of contracting

opportunities provided by the 8(a) program. For example, one survey

respondent noted that that the program had helped their business to gain

not only government contracts but also commercial ones. Another firm

wrote that the program had provided an opportunity to participate in

federal government contracts that were not available to the firm prior to

joining.

Figure 5: Major Reasons for Firms’ Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction With the 8(a)

Program

Note: Those who responded “uncertain” were not included in this figure. As a result, totals do not tally

to 100 percent.

According to our survey, firms that joined the 8(a) program to learn to

manage a business were generally more satisfied with the program than

those that did not join for this purpose. Half of the firms we surveyed that

Amount of 8(a)

contract opportunities

Level of effort to find the right

person at a federal agency to

discuss potential 8(a) contracts

Amount of individual assistance

SBA provides 8(a) firms

Level of interest that federal agencies

show for working with 8(a) firms

Number of opportunities to

develop new lines of business

Amount of paperwork SBA requires

Match between the training 8(a)

program offers and what firm needs

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

24%

26%

33%

33%

30%

31%

26%

15%

19%

20%

20%

24%

31%

36%

58%

51%

44%

43%

41%

36%

31%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
B-284055

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

joined the program to learn more about managing a business were

satisfied, while only 30 percent of those that did not join for this purpose

were satisfied. Additionally, as illustrated in figure 6, 60 percent of those

that joined to learn to manage a business were satisfied with the business

knowledge gained from the program. In contrast, only 24 percent who said

that they did not join to learn to manage a business were satisfied with the

business knowledge gained.

Figure 6: Satisfaction of 8(a) Firms Based on Whether They Joined the 8(a) Program

to Learn to Manage a Business

Firms that joined the program to learn to manage a business also joined to

obtain 8(a) contracts. For example, 83 percent of the firms that joined to

learn to manage a business reported that obtaining 8(a) contracts was a

major reason for joining. However, most of the firms that joined the

program to learn to manage a business were dissatisfied with the

Percentage of firms satisfied

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Amount of

business

knowledge

gained

Amount of

individual

assistance SBA

provides in

developing

business

The match

between the

training 8(a)

offers and what

firms need

60%

46%

24%

46%

38%

23%

44%

28%

15%

Major reason for joining the 8(a) program

Minor reason for joining the 8(a) program

Not a reason for joining the 8(a) program
B-284055

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

contracting aspect of the program—only 26 percent of these respondents

were satisfied with the amount of 8(a) contract opportunities.

While firms that joined the 8(a) program to learn to manage a business

were generally more satisfied with the program, only about one-fifth of

those surveyed indicated that this was a major reason for joining. One

reason for these firms’ not placing a higher priority on learning to manage a

business is that a large majority of the firms already had business

experience. As shown in figure 7, 70 percent of firms had owners with over

10 years’ experience managing their current 8(a) firm and other companies.

Furthermore, over 50 percent of the firms we surveyed were in business 5

years or more before joining the program. One respondent wrote in their

survey that their company had been in business 12 years before being

certified as an 8(a) firm. Another respondent wrote that they had over 20

years business experience and just needed help finding contracting

opportunities, help they had not received from their local SBA office.

Figure 7: Owners’ Experience Managing Current 8(a) Firms and Other Companies

According to our survey data, most firms would like to see SBA implement

changes that would place a greater emphasis on increasing 8(a) contract

opportunities. For example, 90 percent of those surveyed wanted SBA to

24% • 5 to 10 years

• 5%

4 years or less

71%

•

Over 10 years
B-284055

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

place a high priority on increasing efforts to link 8(a) firms with specific

federal program managers. Over 80 percent wanted SBA to make sure that

contacts at federal agencies are familiar with the program. Furthermore, 83

percent of the survey respondents wanted SBA to increase the number of

ways the agency informs 8(a) firms about contract opportunities. Among

the survey comments we received, one respondent stated that SBA should

change the nature of the 8(a) program from a business development

program to a contracting program. The respondent wrote that by changing

the nature of the program, SBA would have more time to monitor

compliance and promote the program to other federal agencies. Another

survey respondent wrote that SBA should be more involved with firms as

they seek out contracts and suggested that SBA hold quarterly meetings

with firms at their place of business to discuss their progress. A third

survey respondent wrote that SBA should place its highest priority on

seeing that firms obtain their first 8(a) contract. Additionally, SBA’s

assessment of the data collected during SBA’s pilot of the Business

Assessment Tool also emphasized an increased contracting focus and

recommended that contract assistance or counseling be provided to over

80 percent of the 53 firms assessed.

Conclusions The purpose of the 8(a) program is to assist eligible small disadvantaged

firms compete in the American economy through business development.

SBA’s program regulations state that, among other things, business

development includes training to aid in developing strategies to compete

successfully for both 8(a) and non-8(a) contracts. Our survey showed that

8(a) firms join the program primarily to obtain contracts and that their

satisfaction with the program is tied to their receipt of contracts.

Therefore, SBA should consider making contracting assistance its first

priority for the program. To do this, SBA would need to increase its

outreach efforts to federal agencies and develop strategies to increase the

percentage of 8(a) firms that obtain contracts. In addition, SBA’s district

offices would need to focus resources on helping inform firms about

contract opportunities, assisting firms with contracts at federal agencies,

and being more involved with firms as they seek and negotiate contracts.

By focusing its efforts on providing contracting assistance and outreach to

federal agencies, SBA could better achieve the purpose of the program,

improve customer satisfaction, and make more progress toward

eliminating its long-standing problem with contract concentration.

SBA has no way to tell how well the 8(a) program is working. SBA has

never surveyed its customers in a meaningful way as we did to determine
B-284055

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

what their needs are and to find out how satisfied they are with the

program. Additionally, almost a decade after we first reported that SBA did

not know the full extent of business development assistance provided to

8(a) firms because it did not track this assistance, SBA still does not have a

tracking system in place. The Business Assessment Tool that SBA

developed and piloted is a step in the right direction in terms of tracking

training needs and the assistance provided, but pilot tests showed that it

needs to be improved before it can be implemented. The lack of systematic

data limits SBA’s ability to monitor the program’s results and to assess its

effectiveness under the Government Performance and Results Act in an

accurate and meaningful way. SBA has revised the program’s success

measure to include a provision of business development assistance as a

factor. Yet the measure is meaningless because SBA simply assumes that

every firm that completes the 9-year program has received a training

session. Thus, all a firm has to do to be successful under this measure is to

stay in the program for 9 years and attend one training session.

Because SBA does not know what business development assistance its

customers—the 8(a) firms—want or need from the program, its efforts are

not aligned with the needs and expectations of the firms. Recognizing that

the owners of over two-thirds of the firms in our survey had over 10 years

of management experience and that training funds available through the

7(j) program are severely limited, SBA could limit business development

assistance that is not contracting-related to only the 8(a) firms that are

identified as requiring it. Length of management experience could be used

as a simple indicator to determine which firms might need assistance and

which do not. Alternatively, SBA could refocus 7(j) program funding

toward contracting-related training and refer firms that need management

training to other sources.

Recommendations To better address the purpose of the 8(a) program, meet the needs and

expectations of the firms in the program, and improve SBA’s ability to

determine how well the program is working, we recommend that the

Administrator of the Small Business Administration take the following

steps:

• Instruct the district offices to place their highest priority on helping

inform firms about contracting opportunities, assisting firms with

contacts at federal agencies, and becoming more involved with firms as

they seek and negotiate contracts.
B-284055

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

• Periodically perform a nationwide sample survey of 8(a) firms to obtain

measurable program data. At a minimum, the survey should assess

whether SBA assistance is meeting the firms’ expectations and needs.

• Provide a method for collecting data on each firm’s training needs for

tracking the assistance provided.

• Revise the 8(a) program’s success measure in SBA’s future annual

performance plans to make the measure a more meaningful assessment

of the program’s impact.

Reassess the agency’s use of 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance

Program funding. The reassessment should consider whether to devote

most of the 7(j) program’s funding to training designed to develop the

abilities of 8(a) firms to obtain contracts or to retain the current business

development focus but restrict the training to firms with a demonstrated

need.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of our report to SBA for its review and comment. SBA

concurred with the report’s recommendations and provided technical

clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate. SBA’s comments

are in appendix III.

We conducted our review from September 1999 through July 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days. At that

time, copies of this report will be sent to the Honorable John Kerry,

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee; other interested

congressional committees; the Honorable Aida Alvarez, Administrator,

Small Business Administration; and other interested parties. We will also

make copies available to others on request.
B-284055

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at (202) 512-7631. Key contributors to this report were Susan Campbell,

Amy Carroll, Andy Clinton, Fran Featherston, Curtis Groves, Barbara

Johnson, and Kirk Menard.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley J. Czerwinski

Associate Director, Housing,

Community Development, and

Telecommunications Issues
Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which firms in the Small

Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program are obtaining federal

contracts, (2) how SBA tracks the training and assistance provided to

firms, and (3) how firms view the program. In answering our first and

second objectives, we visited and interviewed SBA officials involved with

the 8(a) program at SBA headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at SBA

district offices in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, New York City, San Francisco,

and Washington, D.C. We selected these district offices based on the

number of 8(a) firms they oversee and the geographic locations of the

offices. Officials at SBA headquarters and the five district offices provided

us with information on SBA’s management of the 8(a) program, its current

focus, and recent SBA initiatives intended to improve the program.

We also obtained and reviewed SBA’s annual performance plans from fiscal

years 1999 through 2001; annual SBA reports to the Congress on the 8(a)

program from fiscal years 1995 through 1998; the program’s regulations,

which included the most recent changes from June 1998; various SBA

procedural and information notices about the program; SBA’s March 2000

proposed reorganization plan involving the program; and our prior reports

on the program dating back to 1981. We also reviewed reports by the SBA

Inspector General and information on the 8(a) program and discussed with

Inspector General officials their past work involving the program.

To obtain a perspective on the focus of the program beyond SBA, we

interviewed officials from selected Offices of Small Disadvantaged

Business Utilization and various contracting officers for the Air Force, the

Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the

General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and

the Department of Veterans Affairs. We selected these federal agencies

because of the dollar amount of 8(a) contracts they awarded to 8(a) firms

in fiscal year 1998, according to information from the Federal Procurement

Data System.1 The Air Force, General Services Administration, and

Department of Veterans Affairs were 3 of the 10 federal agencies with the

highest dollar amount of 8(a) contracts. The Department of Education,

Environmental Protection Agency, and Office of Personnel Management

were 3 of the 15 federal agencies with the lowest 8(a) contract amounts

above $1 million. We also obtained information on the program from our

1

Air Force 8(a) contract dollars are combined with overall 8(a) information for the

Department of Defense.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

interviews with officials at the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense

and Education Fund and the National Federation of 8(a) Companies.

To answer our third objective on how firms view the program, we

conducted a nationwide mail survey of active 8(a) firms. Our survey

focused on the reasons why firms join the program, what assistance firms

want from SBA, and how satisfied they are with the program. To determine

which firms were eligible for our survey, we obtained a data file from SBA

of all 8(a) firms. We then drew a random sample of 1,200 firms out of the

5,432 firms in the program listed as active as of September 30, 1999, and

mailed our survey to these 1,200 firms.

Since we used a sample (called a probability sample) of 1,200 8(a) firms to

develop our estimates, each estimate has a measurable precision, or

sampling error, that may be expressed as a plus/minus figure. A sampling

error indicates how closely we can reproduce from a sample the results

that we could obtain if we were to take a complete count of the universe

using the same measurement methods. By adding the sampling error to and

subtracting it from the estimate, we can develop upper and lower bounds

for each estimate. This range is called a confidence interval. Sampling

errors and confidence intervals are stated at a certain confidence level—in

this case, 95 percent. For example, a confidence interval at the 95-percent

confidence level means that in 95 out of 100 instances, the sampling

procedure we used would produce a confidence interval containing the

universe value we are estimating.

Table 2 shows sampling errors for selected estimates that use the entire

group of firms responding to our survey. Sampling errors are no more than

3 percent at the 95-percent confidence level for any estimate that has at

least 750 respondents answering the question. Sampling errors for

subgroups will be larger, depending upon the number of respondents in the

subgroup. Table 3 shows sampling errors at the 95-percent confidence level

for estimates in our report that use subgroups of firms.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Table 2: Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages

Table 3: Sampling Errors for Selected Estimates

Reported survey percentages (between 750

and 853 respondents)

Sampling

error

1 to 5 percent ±1 percent

6 to 20 percent ±2 percent

21 to 79 percent ±3 percent

80 to 94 percent ±2 percent

95 to 99 percent ±1 percent

Number of cases Estimated percent Sampling error

Table 1: Percentage of minority and disadvantaged groups

that considered overcoming discrimination as a major

reason for joining the 8(a) program

Minority woman 117 81 ±6 percent

Nonminority woman 18 78 ±19 percent

African American 253 78 ±5 percent

Native American 56 64 ±11 percent

Asian American 153 63 ±7 percent

Hispanic American 187 58 ±6 percent

Figure 1: Number of 8(a) contracts awarded to firms that

have been in the 8(a) program at least 2 years

None 553 24 ±3 percent

1 to 2 contracts 553 31 ±3 percent

3 to 5 contracts 553 20 ±3 percent

6 to 10 contracts 553 13 ±2 percent

11 and over 553 12 ±2 percent
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Figure 2: Percentage of firms that have not obtained an 8(a)

contract based on the amount of the owners’ management

experience

2 to 4 years 38 63 ±14 percent

5 to 7 years 103 51 ±9 percent

8 to 10 years 101 36 ±8 percent

Over 10 years 580 33 ±3 percent

Figure 3: Percentage of firms that have obtained no 8(a)

contracts by their years in business before joining the 8(a)

program

Less than 2 years 87 33 ±9 percent

2 to 4 years 318 38 ±5 percent

5 to 7 years 177 36 ±6 percent

8 to 10 years 101 31 ±8 percent

Over 10 years 141 40 ±7 percent

Figure 6: Satisfaction of 8(a) firms based on whether they

joined the 8(a) program to learn to manage a business

Reason for joining 8(a) program: Amount of business knowledge

gained

Major reason 178 60 ±6 percent

Minor reason 252 46 ±5 percent

Not a reason 382 24 ±4 percent

Reason for joining 8(a) program: Amount of individual assistance

SBA provides in developing business

Major reason 178 46 ±6 percent

Minor reason 252 38 ±5 percent

Not a reason 382 23 ±4 percent

Reason for joining 8(a) program: The match between the training

8(a) offers and what firms need

Major reason 178 44 ±6 percent

Minor reason 252 28 ±5 percent

Not a reason 382 15 ±3 percent

Selected estimates from text of report

Percentage satisfied with 8(a) program for firms in program at

least 2 years

No awards 117 09 ±5 percent

1 or more awards 410 48 ±4 percent

Percentage of firms with one or more awards

Firms who joined 8(a) program to obtain contracts 635 41 ±3 percent

Percentage of firms satisfied with 8(a) program

(Continued From Previous Page) Number of cases Estimated percent Sampling error
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

We conducted 11 pretests of our survey with 8(a) firms in 3 of SBA’s 10

regions. We selected firms for our pretest to provide testing from a variety

of regions and from both firms that had and had not received 8(a) contract

awards. We also conducted our pretesting with firms in a variety of

industries. Each pretest consisted of a visit with a firm’s representative by

two members of our staff. The pretest attempted to simulate the actual

survey experience by asking the firm’s representative to fill out the

questionnaire while our staff observed and unobtrusively took notes. Then

the firm’s representative was interviewed about the questionnaire items to

ensure that (1) questions were readable and clear, (2) terms used were

clear, (3) the survey did not place undue burden on firms that would result

in a lack of cooperation, and (4) the survey appeared independent and

unbiased in its point of view. Appropriate changes were incorporated in the

final survey based on our pretesting.

In addition to our pretesting, we discussed a draft copy of our

questionnaire with officials at SBA headquarters and the SBA Inspector

General office in Washington, D.C. We incorporated comments from these

discussions, as appropriate.

During the pretesting phase of our survey, it became evident that

respondents considered the survey questions to be sensitive. Specifically,

one respondent expressed the opinion that firms might be concerned that

they would jeopardize their status with the 8(a) program if their answers

were made public. To address these concerns, we developed procedures to

guarantee the complete anonymity of all survey responses. To do this, we

did not retain any identification of a respondent on the survey booklet or

return envelope. This procedure prevented us from knowing the identity of

the respondents for any of the surveys returned to us. The use of a separate

Firms that reported learning to manage a business was a major

reason for joining 8(a) program

161 51 ±7 percent

Firms that reported learning to manage a business was not a

reason for joining 8(a) program

349 30 ±4 percent

Percentage of firms that joined program to obtain 8(a) contracts

Firms that reported learning to manage a business was a major

reason for joining 8(a) program

176 83 ±5 percent

Percentage of firms satisfied with amount of contract

opportunities

Firms that reported learning to manage a business was a major

reason for joining 8(a) program

188 26 ±6 percent

(Continued From Previous Page) Number of cases Estimated percent Sampling error
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

return postcard allowed us, nevertheless, to track which respondents did

and did not mail back survey responses so that we could follow up on

nonresponses. In discussing these procedures with pretest respondents,

they told us these measures would be helpful in encouraging survey

responses.

To increase the response to our survey, we mailed a prenotification letter to

respondents a week before we mailed the survey on January 13, 2000. We

also used three mailings after the survey mailings, including (1) a reminder

postcard a week after the survey, (2) a reminder letter to nonrespondents

16 days after the survey, and (3) a replacement survey for respondents not

yet responding, mailed 4 weeks after the survey. During the return period,

over 100 survey packages were returned to us because of incorrect

addresses. We attempted a second mailing to these firms when we could

locate replacement addresses. We received the last survey included in our

analysis on April 7, 2000.

We received survey responses from 853 firms for a response rate of 71

percent. Additionally, we received responses from 22 firms that no longer

are active in the 8(a) program. Only respondents active in the program at

the time of our survey are included in our survey results in this report.

Table 4 shows a summary of the survey returns.

Table 4: Summary of Returns to 8(a) Mail Surveys

a

Does not include surveys returned that were not filled out.

b

106 of the 1,200 survey addresses obtained from SBA’s 8(a) database were incorrect. We

obtained correct addresses for 77 of the 106 firms through additional effort on our part.

Survey information Number of 8(a) firms

Population size 5,432

Total sample size 1,200

Surveys returneda 875

Eligible 853

Not eligible 22

Surveys not returned 325

Undeliverableb 29

Nonresponsec 296

Response rate (number of eligible surveys returned/total

sample size)

71%
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

c

Includes surveys returned blank, surveys received after our deadline, and surveys not

received.

We conducted our review from September 1999 through July 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms ApendxiI
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Appendix II

GAO's Survey of 8(a) Firms

Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus

Appendix III

Comments From the Small Business

Administration ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments From the Small Business

Administration

(385824) Letr Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-196 8(a) Program Focus
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00