U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–869 2008

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION’S 

CONTRACTING PROGRAMS AND GAO’S 

EXAMINATION OF THOSE PROGRAMS 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 17, 2008 

Small Business Committee Document Number 110-106 

Available via the GPO Website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 


Congress.#13
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Minority Staff Director 

STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES 

Subcommittee on Finance and Tax 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois, Chairwoman 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology 

BRUCE BRALEY, IOWA, Chairman 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

(II) 

Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

Subcommittee on Rural and Urban Entrepreneurship 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

JASON ALTMIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, Chairman 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 1 

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Carranza, Hon. Jovita, Acting Administrator, Small Business Administration 4 

Shear, Mr. William; Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, 

U.S. General Accountability Office ..................................................................... 6 

Kutz, Mr. Gregory, Managing director, forensic Audits and Special Investigations, U.S. General Accountability Office ........................................................... 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 37 

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 39 

Altmire, Rep. Jason ................................................................................................. 40 

Carranza, Hon. Jovita, Acting Administrator, Small Business Administration 41 

Shear, Mr. William; Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, 

U.S. General Accountability Office ..................................................................... 45 

Kutz, Mr. Gregory, Managing director, forensic Audits and Special Investigations, U.S. General Accountability Office ........................................................... 67 

Statement Submitted for the Record: 

Associated General Contractors ............................................................................. 95 

(V) 

(1) 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION’S 

CONTRACTING PROGRAMS AND GAO’S 

EXAMINATION OF THOSE PROGRAMS 

Thursday, July 17, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., inRoom 

1539, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nydia M. Vela ́zquez 

[Chair of the Committee] Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Vela ́zquez, Shuler, Cuellar, Braley, 

Ellsworth, Chabot, Bartlett, Akin, and Fallin. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Good morning. I call this hearing of the 

House Small Business Committee to order. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, 

CHAIRWOMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

The economy is still mired in a recession. In addition to 6 

straight months of job losses, we are now facing considerable dropoffs in consumer spending and exports. Meanwhile, inflation continues to climb, and it seems no financial sector has been left out 

or left untouched. Just this week, news of the crumbling Freddie 

Mac and Fannie Mae prove that the housing crisis is far from over. 

Amidst this otherwise weak economy, one bright spot continues 

to shine. The Federal marketplace is booming. Last year alone, this 

industry grew by more than 9 percent. But while it should hold 

great potential for entrepreneurs, small firms are still fighting to 

break into the Government sector. 

During the past 8 years, the Bush administration has missed 

every single one of its small-business goals. In 2005 alone, entrepreneurs lost $4.5 billion in contracting opportunities. 

A broad array of programs exist to help small firms enter the 

Federal marketplace. These programs seek to give opportunities to 

the most important sector of our economy, small businesses. Entrepreneurs not only create greater economic diversity and competition, but they also offer the best value for the taxpayers’ dollar. 

Today we are going to look at one such program, which, while 

having very commendable goals, has ultimately failed our entrepreneurs and our taxpayers. HUBZones were originally designed to 

help small businesses in low-income communities. Today the program has fallen short of that mission. As a result of insufficient 

controls by the SBA and inherent flaws in the underlying program, 

we now have widespread fraud. 

2 

This Committee has long been concerned about the potential for 

HUBZone fraud. After a preliminary investigation confirmed these 

fears, we asked the GAO to conduct an investigation. Their results 

were nothing short of appalling. 

In their review, investigators found that a majority of HUBZone 

businesses failed to meet program criteria. And, yet, these firms 

still managed to collect over $100 million in Federal contracts; 24 

million of those dollars came directly out of HUBZone funds—funds 

that should have gone to low-income communities. 

These numbers are high, but they are not surprising. As noted 

in prior reports, SBA is notorious for failing to vet its programs. 

In fact, it conducts annual examinations on a mere 5 percent of certified HUBZones. When it comes to the businesses themselves, only 

36 percent of applicants are asked to show any form of documentation. It is so easy to break into the HUBZone program that investigators using fake addresses and forged credentials were able to 

do so in a matter of weeks. The entire process was easier than getting a library card. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, con artists have little trouble gaming 

SBA’s broken system. Countless unqualified corporations have applied for and been awarded millions of dollars in Government contracts. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs looking for an honest break have 

been pushed to the margin. 

Earlier this year, the House passed several provisions in attempts to stem this fraud. But the administration opposed these 

steps, including requirements for onsite inspections. President 

Bush went so far as to argue that, and I quote, ′′This provision will 

create a large burden on the Small Business Administration.′′ It 

seems the President prefers burdens of the multimillion-dollar 

fraud variety, the kind of burden we unfortunately face today. 

Small-business contract programs are important, and we need 

them. But if not adequately funded and properly managed, they 

turn into what we have today. Rather than lifting up underprivileged firms, HUBZones are lining the pockets of big corporations 

and otherwise fraudulent businesses. And they are doing so on the 

taxpayers’ dime. 

Today’s hearing will be an important part of understanding the 

fraud and figuring out the next steps towards overhauling the SBA. 

It will not be an easy process, but we owe this review to our taxpayers and we owe it to our small businesses. 

I thank today’s witnesses in advance for their testimony. 

And, with that, I now yield to Ranking Member Chabot for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, RANKING 

MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

And good morning. And I thank all of you for being here this 

morning to examine the Small Business Administration’s 

HUBZone, or Historically Underutilized Business Zone, program. I 

would also like to thank the chairwoman for holding this important 

hearing. 

As early as World War II, Congress recognized that a strong 

economy and industrial base requires a robust small-business econVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:40 Sep 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\40869.TXT RUSS
3 

omy. At the end of the Korean conflict, the Small Business Administration was created to provide assistance to small businesses. 

One aspect of that policy is the requirement that small businesses be awarded a fair proportion of contracts for the purchase 

of goods and services by the Federal Government. That policy not 

only ensures that the Federal Government will have a diverse set 

of contractors from which it can obtain goods and services, it also 

provides an important tool to help grow small businesses. 

Last session, the Committee examined all of the SBA Government contracting programs. Today we are specifically focusing on 

the HUBZone program in response to two separate assessments 

done by the GAO. I have been briefed on the studies, and the results are troubling, as the chairwoman indicated, to say the least. 

I am a strong supporter of the HUBZone program, because I believe that Federal procurement can be used not just to purchase 

goods and services or even grow small businesses, but to provide 

needed assistance in the economic revitalization of poor urban and 

rural communities. 

However, if firms not actually located in HUBZones are taking 

contracts away from legitimate HUBZone firms, it defeats the purpose of the program. I will be interested in hearing from the SBA 

the steps the agency will take to ensure that only legitimate 

HUBZone firms are awarded contracts. 

The HUBZone program is designed to provide economic development in poor areas. According to a study by the Office of Advocacy, 

some HUBZone contractors are generating as much as an additional $100 per person in additional income in particular areas. Of 

course, when it costs that much to fill your car’s gas tank, the benefits of the HUBZone contracting program are dissipated. Revitalization requires not only building businesses in these areas but 

providing the people with affordable fuel. This requires increasing 

the supply of petroleum produced in this country. 

Although I recognize that this hearing is primarily about SBA’s 

management of the HUBZone program, I would be remiss not to 

mention that there are Members on both sides of the aisle whose 

constituents are severely affected by recent floods, for example, in 

the Midwest. I suspect that the Acting Administrator may receive 

some questions on this issue, and we would be very interested in 

hearing about the agency’s response in that area as well. 

Again, I want to thank the chairwoman for holding this important hearing, and look forward to working with her and the SBA 

to make necessary improvements to the HUBZone program so that 

it can truly assist in the economic revitalization of our poor urban 

and rural communities. 

And, again, I thank the chairwoman for holding this hearing, 

and yield back my time. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. 

And now I welcome the Honorable Jovita Carranza. Ms. 

Carranza is the Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration. She was nominated by President Bush and sworn in 

on December 15, 2006, as Deputy Administrator of SBA. 

Ms. Carranza, I just want to say, thank you for agreeing to testify today. I really appreciate your willingness to come before our 

Committee. I realize that you have been at SBA just 18 months 

4 

and that many of these HUBZone program problems predate you 

joining the agency. But today you are sitting in the hot seat, and 

so thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOVITA CARRANZA, ACTING 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. CARRANZA. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. That is due warning, I think. 

Ms. CARRANZA. It has been hot since I arrived here. 

Good morning, Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, and thank you very 

much for the invitation, and also Ranking Member Mr. Chabot. 

Once again, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

While I am proud of the reforms I have made in my time at SBA, 

more work remains. As other panelists will describe, the administration of our HUBZone program leaves considerable room for improvement. In fact, in September 2007, I testified about our concerns over flaws that needed attention. But the more work we identified to fix these problems, the more we uncovered. 

Mr. CHABOT. Could you possibly pull the mike a little bit closer? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Certainly. 

We welcome the GAO’s report and work. And as our response to 

their audit makes clear, we agree with their assessment. In fact, 

GAO’s conclusions only confirm what we had already uncovered. 

Now we are working so that this program will better accomplish 

its goals, and I would like to describe our specific actions. 

First, GAO recommended immediate steps to correct the 

HUBZone map. Further, they recommended that we ensure it is 

frequently updated with the most recent data. 

Problems with the map were, in fact, what uncovered the program’s serious mismanagement. In response to a congressional inquiry about whether a specific county qualified, the HUBZone program determined that it did. Then, several days later, SBA found 

that it was, in fact, not qualified. 

In determining how much a mistake was made, senior managers 

learned the initial determination was done manually. This pointed 

to the fact that the map hadn’t been updated for more than 18 

months. This, in turn, set off a cascading series of revelations. 

In getting to the bottom of these issues, a process that accelerated as time went on, the extent of the program’s problems became 

increasingly clear. It also became increasingly clear that the program needed new leadership. We have brought on new program 

management who are committed to our reform. 

Completing an objective that predates GAO’s call to fix the map, 

on July 3rd a new contract was executed. This contract provides 

strict timetables and procedures so that, going forward, the map remains current. The new map will be available August 29th. 

In its second recommendation, GAO urged more consistently obtaining supporting documents in the application process. Also, they 

recommended more frequent site visits to ensure eligibility. In response, a draft of our new application processing manual was completed July 2nd. It establishes guides about supporting documents, 

5 

what is required, and how to handle these requests. It also includes 

instructions regarding site visits. 

We believe that by more effectively marshalling our district office 

resources, we can quickly accomplish this objective. And HUBZone 

is working with the field operations to produce clear procedures. 

Presently, this draft is being reviewed and finalized. This process 

will be completed by September. 

The third GAO recommendation was to eliminate the recertifications backlog and, going forward, to stay current. In response, 

SBA hired contract employees to assist. Our goal is to clear the 

backlog by the end of fiscal year 2008, and we are on track to meet 

this benchmark. 

HUBZone’s new leadership is implementing reforms so that, with 

the backlog cleared, recertifications will be timely. I can assure you 

that SBA senior staff will oversee this task. 

The fourth GAO recommendation was to formalize time frames 

for processing proposed decertifications. In response, SBA is adding 

explicit timelines to the applicable SOP. This process will be completed by the end of August. 

The fifth and final recommendation was to develop ways to assess HUBZone’s overall effectiveness, and this largely mirrors a 

similar finding by SBA’s Office of Advocacy. In response, SBA is developing an assessment methodology to measure HUBZone’s economic benefits. This is being done by the senior economist in our 

Office of Policy and Strategic Planning. Once completed, this will 

allow HUBZone to issue regular public reports. The methodologies 

development is well under way, and the final product is expected 

by August. 

To ensure the participation of all stakeholders, SBA will publish 

this methodology for public comment. I encourage the Committee 

and all interested parties to examine the work and make suggestions about how we can better assess HUBZone’s impact. After 

evaluating the comments, SBA will publish a final methodology detailing the measures that will be used. 

In response to GAO’s forensic investigation, I have taken immediate steps to require site visits for those firms with HUBZone contracts. Additionally, we will pursue suspension and debarment proceedings against firms that have intentionally misrepresented their 

status. For example, we will begin the process to suspend and 

debar the 10 firms that GAO has discovered. SBA has already pursued firms for false certification, and we take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that the Government’s contracting partners 

are trustworthy. 

As I acknowledged earlier, HUBZone faces many challenges. 

Please know that I am committed to solving them, and I believe 

that integrity and transparency are crucial. This commitment has 

brought dramatic gains to other SBA programs, and I look forward 

to applying these lessons to HUBZone. 

For example, by month’s end, we will roll out our new Business 

Development Management Information System, which permits 

electronic 8(a) and small disadvantaged business certifications and 

annual reviews. This is a major upgrade to more effectively manage this vital program. 

6 

Last month, we released our third procurement scorecard, this 

one focused on meeting contracting goals. Improving the integrity 

of contracting data and tightening the rules to qualify are other examples. SBA’s tough-minded work has reduced the miscoding errors in contracts that had a cumulative value of more than $10 billion. The result is a more accurate, more useful and more transparent measure of small-business contracts. 

While these efforts have taught us valuable lessons, the reform 

process for HUBZone especially reminds me of the earlier need to 

re-engineer SBA’s Disaster Assistance program. Disaster Assistance, like HUBZone today, had obvious needs. But while facing 

problems head-on can be difficult, the dividends are also obvious. 

Because of our reforms, SBA was able to respond quickly and 

professionally to help victims of the recent Midwest flooding and 

tornadoes. Personally, I have been to the Midwest three times since 

the flooding, and I have seen these reforms in action. 

So while it pains me to have to describe these problems with our 

HUBZone program, I am also confident that we can solve them and 

ensure that HUBZone accomplishes the noble purpose for which it 

was established. 

Thank you. And I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Carranza can be found in the appendix at page X.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Ms. Carranza. 

Our next witness is Mr. Bill Shear. He is the director of the 

GAO’s Office of Financial Markets and Community Investment. 

The Financial Markets and Community Investment team works to 

improve effectiveness of regulatory oversight in financial and housing markets. He also oversees the management of community development programs by examining the effectiveness of specific programs and administrative functions. To do so, the office evaluates 

programs at several agencies, including SBA. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM SHEAR, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SHEAR. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, Representative Chabot and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure 

to be here this morning to discuss our program audit of SBA’s 

HUBZone program. 

My testimony is based on a report which is being released today 

that addresses, first, the criteria and process that SBA uses to 

identify and map HUBZone areas; second, SBA mechanisms to ensure that only eligible small businesses participate in the 

HUBZone program; and, third, steps SBA has taken to assess the 

results of the program and the extent to which Federal agencies 

have met their HUBZone contracting goals. 

In summary, first, because SBA relies on Federal law to identify 

qualified HUBZone areas, recent statutory changes have resulted 

in an increase in the number and types of HUBZone areas, changes 

that could diffuse the economic benefits of the program. 

Further, the map that SBA uses to help firms interested in participating in the program to help determine if they are located in 

7 

a HUBZone area is inaccurate. Specifically, the map incorrectly includes 50 metropolitan counties as difficult development areas. In 

addition, 27 non-metropolitan counties that are eligible based on 

their unemployment rates were excluded, because SBA has not updated its maps since August 2006. As a result, ineligible businesses 

participated in the program and eligible businesses have not been 

able to participate. We recommended that SBA take steps to correct the map and to update the map on a more frequent basis. 

Second, the mechanisms that SBA uses to certify and monitor 

HUBZone firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms 

participate in the program. For certification and recertification, 

firms self-report information on their applications. However, we 

found that SBA requested documentation or conducted site visits of 

firms to validate the self-reported data in only limited instances. 

Our analysis of the 125 applications submitted in September 

2007 show that SBA requested supporting documentation for 36 

percent of the applications and conducted one site visit. While 

SBA’s policies and procedures require program examinations, the 

one process that consistently includes review of supporting documentation, the agency conducts them on 5 percent of certified 

HUBZone firms each year. 

We also identified deficiencies in SBA’s recertification and decertification processes. As a result of a lack of controls and weaknesses in the application and monitoring-related processes, SBA 

lacks assurances that only eligible firms participate in the program. We made recommendations to SBA to address these deficiencies. 

Finally, SBA has taken limited steps to assess the effectiveness 

of the HUBZone program. SBA tracks the number of firms certified 

or recertified, the annual value of contracts awarded to HUBZone 

firms, and the number of program examinations completed annually, but has not devoted resources to completing an evaluation of 

the program. 

Consequently, SBA lacks key information that could help it better manage and assess the results of the program and provide information to this Committee and the Congress. We recommended 

that SBA further assess the effectiveness of the program. 

It is a pleasure to present our work before this Committee. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Shear can be found in the appendix at 

page X.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Shear. 

Our next witness is Mr. Greg Kutz. He is the managing director 

of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations at GAO. The FSI unit 

investigates waste, fraud and abuse related to Government programs and taxpayers’ dollars. FSI has recently investigated abuses 

of Hurricane Katrina relief dollars, border security, and overtime 

and minimum wage complaints, among other topics. 

Also sitting with the panel from GAO’s FSI unit is Mr. Bruce 

Causseaux, a senior-level specialist who participated in the 

HUBZone investigation. Although Mr. Causseaux will not be offering testimony, he will be available to answer questions about FSI’s 

findings. 

Thank you, and welcome. 

8 

STATEMENT OF MR. GREGORY KUTZ, MANAGING DIRECTOR 

OF FORENSICS AUDITS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE. 

Mr. KUTZ. Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the HUBZone program. 

Today’s testimony highlights the results of our investigation of 

this program. My testimony has two parts. First, I will discuss our 

covert testing of the application process, and second, I will discuss 

several cases that we investigated. 

First, our covert testing shows that SBA does not have an effective fraud-prevention program. 

To test the application process, we created several bogus companies with fictitious officers and employees. Over the course of several months, we submitted four HUBZone applications. In all four 

cases, SBA approved our applications and certified our bogus companies. The picture on the wall shows an example of one of the letters we received from SBA that approved our bogus company. 

The entire application process was online. We never had to speak 

to any SBA officials. For our first application, SBA requested several documents by e-mail. In response, we created bogus documents, using publicly available hardware and software, and then 

we faxed the information to SBA. For our other three applications, 

SBA did not request any supporting documentation. It appears that 

SBA did nothing to validate any of the information that we provided. 

To participate in this program, the office where the greatest 

number of employees work, which is referred to as the principal office, must be located in a HUBZone. The most sophisticated principal office that we established was a virtual office that we never 

visited except to sign the original lease agreement and to collect 

the mail. Two of our HUBZone companies were actually mailboxes 

that we rented for less than $25 a month. The picture on the monitors shows our fourth HUBZone principal office, which is a 

Starbucks coffee shop. 

Moving on to my second point, given SBA’s ineffective fraud-prevention controls, it is not surprising that we were able to easily 

identify 10 HUBZone companies that are clearly not eligible for 

this program. Six of these companies failed to meet the principal 

office test. The other criteria we tested requires that 35 percent of 

the company’s employees live in a HUBZone. None of these 10 companies met this requirement. 

Here are some of the more egregious examples. 

First, the picture on the wall shows, on the left, the supposed 

principal office for one of our case studies. The owner of this building told us that no one had been there in some time. As it turns 

out, the picture on the right represents the real principal office for 

this company, located in McLean, Virginia. 

In another case, the company’s supposed principal office was actually a rundown duplex in Landover, Maryland. The vice president of this company admitted to us that nobody actually worked 

at this location. Two other companies had supposed principal offices located in HUBZones. However, nobody actually worked at 

these locations. The real principal offices for these two companies 

9 

were in Hyattsville, Maryland, and, once again, in McLean, Virginia. 

And finally, the four companies that passed the principal office 

test clearly failed the 35 percent employee test. The actual percentage of employees living in a HUBZone for these companies was 17, 

15, 6 and 0. 

In conclusion, our work clearly shows that anybody with a computer and a mailbox that is willing to lie to the SBA can become 

a HUBZone company. Most of the companies that we investigated 

made false representations to stay in this program. 

These companies have been awarded tens of millions of dollars 

as prime contractors using their HUBZone status. However, rather 

than stimulating economically distressed areas, these HUBZone 

contract dollars are stimulating areas such as McLean, Virginia, 

one of the richest areas in the country. 

Madam Chairwoman, this ends my statement. Mr. Causseaux 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Kutz can be found in the appendix at page 

X.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Kutz. 

Mr. Shear, to tell you the truth, I don’t know where I should 

start. But let me try. 

Mr. SHEAR. Okay. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. GAO analysis of the 125 HUBZone applications showed that SBA requested supporting documentation 

for only 36 percent and conducted only one visit. In addition, the 

agency conducted program examinations on only 5 percent of certified HUBZone program firms each year. 

It appears that SBA has virtually no control over who is participating in this program. Is this the case? 

Mr. SHEAR. We say that there is limited assurance, based on our 

program evaluation, there is only limited assurance that only eligible firms are participating. 

We did identify it as a program that is susceptible to fraud. And 

that was one reason it led us to say there should be a fraud investigation. 

What we look for when we look at internal controls is some finding of reasonable assurance. And here we clearly do not see it for 

this program. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. Do you believe that the agency’s 

current approach to implementing the HUBZone program is conducive to promoting effective internal controls? 

Mr. SHEAR. No, it is not. It relies too heavily on self-reported information without verification and a lack of site visits. It relies too 

much on self-policing by the companies themselves and if self-policing going to occur it is difficult to do, given the information requirements. 

So the current approach just does not provide what we would 

consider reasonable assurance. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, given the potential that 

billions of dollars of taxpayer funds are at risk, will you make a 

commitment to not certify any new HUBZone companies until SBA 

implements the improvements you lay out in your testimony? 

10 

Ms. CARRANZA. Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, I would appreciate the 

opportunity to expound on the controls that we have put in place 

immediately after we reviewed the GAO audit. And with the five 

recommendations we have expanded— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, with all due respect, I 

asked you a question and I need an answer. 

Given the fact that there is a potential that billions of dollars of 

taxpayers’ funds are at risk, will you make a commitment not to 

certify any company, any HUBZone company, until you have in 

place internal controls that will guarantee taxpayers in this country that it is fraud-free? 

Ms. CARRANZA. I would like to emphasize again and respond to 

your question with a level of confidence, Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, 

that we have addressed the applications that have been received. 

We have also addressed a thousand applications, firms that received Government contracts, and we have taken the position of 

validating all of the information that has been submitted on those 

applications much more aggressively than we have in the past. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Your answer to my question is a no. 

And so you would allow for fraud to continue. And what we are 

saying to Federal agencies here today is that they shouldn’t be 

using this program because you are opening your agency to fraud. 

So SBA has a responsibility to give these Federal agencies assurances that the HUBZone program is free of fraud. It is not today. 

Ms. Carranza, SBA has come before this Committee several 

times in recent years, and I often take the opportunity to voice my 

concern regarding fraud in the HUBZone program. I would like to 

take a minute to read to you some of the most recent responses I 

have had from your agency. 

The first response, and I quote, ′′I am not aware of any fraud involved in the program,′′ Anthony Martoccia, Associate Deputy Administrator, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, March 30, 2006. 

Another response, and I quote, ′′We have recognized the flaws. 

We have actually taken the position we are going to implement, if 

not 90 percent, approximately 100 percent of the SBA IG recommendations to address problems in the HUBZone program,′′ 

Jovita Carranza, Deputy Administrator, September 19, 2007. 

Another response, ′′We have taken many actions that we think 

significantly tighten up the process around HUBZones. And I 

should also mention that we have met with our IG, and we are in 

concurrence and acting on every single one of those recommendations,′′ Steven Preston, Administrator, October 4, 2007. 

And finally, I most recently asked Mr. Preston on February 7, 

2008, the following question, just 5 months ago: ′′I want to ask 

you—and I want a ’yes’ or ’no’ answer—do you believe that the 

HUBZone program has sufficient internal controls to prevent 

fraud?′′ He replied, ′′I think we have sufficient internal resources 

to address this issue.′′ 

So, Ms. Carranza, when you say that you will solve these problems, I cannot help but think that we have heard this before, and 

yet clearly nothing has changed. 

How is today any different from the last four times that I have 

asked the SBA about the program and we were told that it was 

11 

under control? Why should this Committee believe that you will actually do something this time, rather than just give us lip service? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, it has gone beyond speculation or an assumption. There is hard data from the GAO assessment of the vulnerabilities that we have. I am just as frustrated, 

and I was shocked to learn the depth of the issues that we have, 

both on data accuracy with the mapping a weak maintenance or 

management of our contractor. 

As a result of that, we have reassigned management personnel. 

We are recruiting additional staff with different skill-sets who will 

be totally focused on the reform agenda that we have for the Government Contracting Office. We have made significant progress in 

various divisions in Government contracting. Not only are we addressing resources that are in play as we speak, but we are also 

identifying the contractors’ problem areas and we have developed 

a new contract agreement with stringent timelines, with 

deliverables within 30 and 60 days. 

So there is tangible evidence of the changes that we have instituted, with timelines that we are prepared to report to your office, 

as well as to work closely with Bill and his staff. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. You will? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Kutz, GAO was four out of four in gaining fraudulent access 

to the HUBZone program. Without getting into specifics of other 

GAO investigations, can you tell us how susceptible the HUBZone 

program is to fraud, as compared to other programs GAO has reviewed for similar programs? 

Mr. KUTZ. Clearly, it is very susceptible to fraud. There is no 

question about that. They do not really have, from what we saw, 

a fraud-prevention program, which has many elements to it. 

And it is interesting, one of the charts you have put up there, 

that they have tightened their controls, well, what we tested was 

the tightened controls, obviously. So I would hate to see what they 

were before that. 

But, clearly, this opens the door to billions of dollars of contracts. 

That is why people will lie to get into a program like this, because 

there is a lot of money at stake. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Let me ask you, how does the potential 

for fraud in the HUBZone program compare to what you saw in 

Katrina-related disaster payments? 

Mr. KUTZ. It is substantially worse. We looked at the individual 

assistance program, which has eligibility controls. To get individual 

payments for Katrina, people had to actually live in the disaster 

area at the time that Katrina or Rita hit. And so FEMA did not 

have effective fraud-prevention controls in that program, although 

they did have some validation. Here we saw little or none, so this 

is as bad or worse. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. In your estimation, do you believe that 

self-policing is a valuable policy for reducing fraud in the program? 

Mr. KUTZ. Not in and of itself, certainly. If you look at a broad 

fraud-prevention program, it is an element of it, but it is, by far, 

one of the less significant elements, in my view. 

12 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. What makes the program so susceptible to fraud? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, again, the lack of fraud-prevention controls. I 

would say this, if you are going to put your money into anything 

for this program, it has to be at the application process. Here you 

have a situation where anybody can get in, basically, that wants 

to. And, again, hopefully, most people are honest. 

But you not only have that problem now and you want to cut 

them off at the beginning, I have heard in your questioning here, 

but you also have the bigger problem of 10,000 or more companies 

already in there and how you deal with that situation at this point. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Let me ask you a final question here. 

What potential actions would you recommend or suggest to SBA to 

rectify this problem? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, a fraud-prevention program consists of three 

things: people, processes and technology. They need to have the 

right people, the right training, the right outlook. 

They need to have strong processes, for example, random, unannounced site visits, with technology behind that, where, before they 

do the site visit, they have the research tools to determine whether 

or not people own the businesses, whether they were renting them, 

or whatever the case may be. 

So it is a combination of those three areas. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

And I recognize Mr. Chabot. 

And I have tons of other questions. We will stay here until I am 

able to get all those questions out. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Kutz, let me ask you, first of all, if I can, of the firms that 

received contracts through the HUBZone program in the DC metropolitan area that you referred to this morning, how did you select 

the 17 for detailed investigation? 

Mr. KUTZ. We did data-mining. It was not a random sample, so 

we cannot project this to the population. So we used data-mining 

for various types of characteristics of a company. 

And even the 17 is not all. We looked at the virtual offices. I 

don’t know if you saw part of this, too. We data-mined, in that 

case, for people where there was a suite with 10 HUBZone companies using the same suite, which is a high indicator of fraud. So, 

various characteristics like that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. So there are indications that indicate 

that there may be problems, there may be a reason to go further. 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. And those are some of the tools that 

we would recommend SBA consider as part of a fraud-prevention 

program. 

Mr. CHABOT. How many was that out of, approximately, in that 

particular HUBZone area? How many firms are we talking about? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. In DC, I think there are about 280-some, but we 

also looked in suburban Maryland and northern Virginia. The actual 17 we looked at, HUBZone companies that had received a 

HUBZone sole source set-aside or price-preference award, not just 

that they were a HUBZone company. We selected companies that 

had received, with only one exception, at least $450,000 in those 

13 

HUBZone-specific contracts in 2006 and 2007, obligations on those 

contracts. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Now, of those where you did determine that there is clear evidence of fraud, will you turn this over to another agency in order 

to pursue this criminally? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. We have referred the 10 case examples to the 

SBA IG for further investigation, yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. And, Ms. Carranza, is that what your agency will 

do? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congressman Chabot, we have also assigned 

what we call a suspension and debarment official who will address 

the 10 companies once we have a list of them and assess whether 

we should suspend or debar, and up to and including prosecution, 

as we have done so successfully in Kentucky with the support of 

Department of Justice. 

So there are memorandums that are out already for public review. We believe not only in detection, because, as GAO staff has 

informed me, detection is just one part of the solution. We need to 

look at deterrence. 

There is reference to the application and the validation of information. I am here not to deny that it was lax. I am here to compel 

you to learn adequately, concisely, that we are now expanding not 

only the validation and verification but also the search engines 

that were not previously utilized to verify the information on the 

application. And that is all to prevent fraud or misrepresentation 

of information. 

Mr. CHABOT. It is my understanding that back some years ago, 

maybe it was 2002-2003 approximately, that the SBA’s Inspector 

General did an inspection, I believe it was in Idaho, and I think 

they found two-thirds or so of those that were on the rolls were ineligible, as well. 

I see some nodding of heads. Would anybody want to touch on 

that? 

Mr. SHEAR. Yes. Over the years, the IG has done a number of 

examinations looking at control issues. And while ours was more 

current and might have been more expansive, we basically come to 

a very similar place in that there is a very big problem up front 

with the certification process and the problem is also there for the 

recertification process, that there isn’t validation. This is where the 

biggest problems occur, through the front door. 

And then what we see is that, in those instances where SBA 

looks very closely at all, asks for verification of information, you see 

a large number of decertifications, which is, rather than saying 

that shows that they are on top of the situation, because they are 

only looking at a few firms closely, it shows that when there is a 

close look, there is a problem. 

So our results are very consistent with what the IG has found 

over time. 

Mr. CHABOT. And for the record, Ms. Carranza, if you are aware, 

or whoever is, approximately how many HUBZones are there nationwide? I don’t need an exact number but just approximately. 

Ms. CARRANZA. There are approximately 14,000. 

14 

Mr. CHABOT. 14,000 HUBZones. Now, the one that is at issue 

today and then the one that I mentioned in Idaho are just two of 

literally 14,000. Is it reasonable to assume, if you have looked very 

closely at these and found real problems, that it is reasonable to 

assume that there are problems in other areas throughout the 

country? 

Ms. CARRANZA. I would like to answer that question on the affirmative. And that is why we have taken some very aggressive 

measures to train the district personnel who are currently performing site visits to physically go out and perform the site visits. 

And Chairwoman Vela ́zquez had mentioned that at one of our 

previous hearings, and we went back and looked at assessing how 

many we could accomplish. And we referred to the IG audit, where 

we came to an agreement that if we could adequately perform 5 

percent, that that would be a good measure for us to detect any 

issues. It is quite evident that we did not comply effectively to that 

commitment. 

Mr. CHABOT. And obviously one of the reasons that this is so disturbing is that the HUBZone goal of the program is to help areas 

that are economically challenged, whether they are in an urban 

area—I have many of those types of areas in my district, in the city 

of Cincinnati, and there are also rural areas that have these same 

challenges. And there are limited tax dollars available to help start 

up and grow small businesses to hopefully improve those communities and create jobs for people. And if those dollars are being essentially ripped off by those participating in these fraudulent situations, certainly that is unacceptable. 

And so I would be pleased to join the chairwoman in reforming 

and improving this program so that it is doing what its intended 

purposes were. 

Let me just conclude by, one more time, Ms. Carranza, when did 

you receive the report? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Last Thursday. 

Mr. CHABOT. Just last Thursday. 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. And it was a verbal report, not a written report, Congressman. 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. So it would probably be unrealistic to expect to you have a whole list of things that have already been implemented and a timetable and that sort of thing. But I would assume that this would be a high priority, in reforming the program 

and making sure that these things are dealt with very quickly and 

very thoroughly. 

And, again, I would be pleased to— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CHABOT. I would be happy to yield. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, isn’t it a fact that you 

had a draft of the report months ago from the GAO? 

Ms. CARRANZA. The first time that was— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. From Mr. Shear’s report. 

Ms. CARRANZA. The first time that we sat down and reviewed the 

particulars of the fraud investigation with Mr. Shear and Mr. 

Causseaux was on Thursday, was given an overview, one-on-one 

with a couple of the staff members. At that time, I knew the depth 

and breadth of the issues. 

15 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Shear, for the record, when did you 

provide a draft to the SBA? 

Mr. SHEAR. It was, I believe, during the month of May that we 

gave a draft report. And, as you will see in the report that is released today, that SBA’s comment letter is included. I think the 

comment letter was from the first week in June, responding to the 

recommendations of our program audit. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

for clearing that up. 

So then would you, just once again—I am not asking for a long, 

detailed report—but tell us what has occurred since that time and 

where you intend to head with this in the future? 

Ms. CARRANZA. The time that I learned the details of the exposures or problems, serious problems with the program, was last 

week. I immediately assembled the top management in the agency. 

At that point, I was quite determined to fix the problem immediately and address contractors who could deal with improving and 

correcting and updating the data, the map data. They had already 

started a couple months prior, but we put some very strict guidelines and timelines. So, by August 29th, that should be completed. 

We identified a couple of other contractors; first one to look at 

the overall HUBZone processes, so that they can assess not only 

the impact that the program has on economic development and job 

creation but also the overall impact of our procedures, which either 

we failed to comply with, adhere, or are insufficient to ensure the 

impact of the HUBZone program. 

In addition to the resources and developing some accountability 

tools, we also have looked at new enforcement rules so from new 

leadership to new processes, including more compelling enforcement on any discrepancies that we may find either in the eligibility 

or the recertification process which would involve up to and including suspension and debarment, as well as, subject to legal grounds, 

prosecution. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Ellsworth? 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Shear, whose request—was it this Committee’s request to do 

this audit, go in and do this study or this operation? 

Mr. SHEAR. We began our—I am making a distinction between 

the program audit and the investigation—we began this program 

audit at the request of Chairwoman Vela ́zquez. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. And to your knowledge, is this the first time 

this type of an audit has been done of this, the HUBZone program? 

Mr. SHEAR. I am not quite sure what you mean by ′′this type of 

audit,′′ because, as I responded to Mr. Chabot, the IG has done, 

some work evaluating the HUBZone program. We have, further 

back in the beginning years of the program, before my time doing 

small-business work, there were some evaluations of the HUBZone 

program. 

16 

So I think that there have been evaluations. It is just a question 

of, what we did is more recent, and we looked at a different set of 

questions than what some of the other evaluations did. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Do you think that these methods of defrauding 

our Government and our people, are they anything new? Are using 

a different storefront, doing it online, are these all just brand-new 

things that you all, in your experience, have never seen before or 

the IG may have seen? Or is this—I mean, that is not a rocketscience way of doing this new technology of being a criminal, I 

don’t think. 

Mr. KUTZ. No, there is not a whole lot of sophistication necessary 

to beat this program, at this point. I mean, it just isn’t really significant. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. So, Ms. Carranza, in your experience—and I 

know you came from UPS. 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. And thank you. And I know that company is a 

wonderful company. But I also know they build in—they pay so 

much attention to detail. I was visiting a hub not too long ago, and 

they even talked about they don’t take left turns to build efficiencies and check their system to reduce accidents and to cut 

down on time. So I know their security system is also very sophisticated. 

Was there a time in your—and I know your tenure is short as 

the director—was there a time when you brought these or anyone 

brought concerns to the previous director? 

And I would go back to this. It seems like the heads of agencies 

change about maybe every 8 or 9 months, and then there is always 

that, ′′I have only been here this long.′′ And I am not accusing you 

of that, because I respect what you did, and I think we can always 

borrow from the private agency. 

But were there times when you brought these concerns to your 

predecessor and they fell on deaf ears? And I saw the testimony of 

Chairwoman Vela ́zquez about the previous answers, that you were 

frustrated because you didn’t get cooperation on these things. 

Ms. CARRANZA. I would like to address that question about my 

previous experience of the attention to detail. And you can appreciate why I was so frustrated to learn from Mr. Shear and others 

that the attention to detail, the management of not only data but 

procedures, was not adhered to in the HUBZone program office. 

We spoke adamantly, I believe, Mr. Shear, about how this could 

actually occur with very senior management in play and very highly automated systems where you can capture a lot of data. 

What I believe has occurred is that we have a combination of factors that caused this problem. One, the management became totally reliant on technology to perform their tasks. Second, for the 

validation of information, since it is a self-certifying process, they 

took the applicants on full face value. Based on a couple of documents to validate certain information, that was sufficient to get 

into the program. 

Thirdly, the site visits were desktop visits in the district offices 

which is not sufficient to capture what we have just seen on screen. 

You do an onsite, you verify. 

17 

I cannot sit here and tell you that none of those have occurred, 

because I just met with the region administrators this week, yesterday, along with the district directors. It is an advisory field 

group that we have. And I challenged them on the procedure or 

process that they manage on these site visits and learned very 

quickly that they did desktops, but when they had an inclination 

or a flag that they should pursue an onsite visit, they would perform that too. 

And I asked, what resulted from your interaction? And they indicated, typically it resulted in decertification. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Shear, Mr. Kutz, from what you heard of 

Ms. Carranza’s original 5-minute testimony, will the plan that she 

intended to implement solve some of these things? 

And let me go on. 

And then, Mr. Kutz, would you explain your background before 

you went to GAO; and would it then not be prudent for possibly 

SBA to hire people that maybe are of an investigative background, 

maybe that are a little more suspicious minded? Not that we don’t 

trust people, but that could look into these things on a full-time 

basis, as opposed to when a committee has to call for an investigation? 

So will what she says works, work? And why do we have to wait 

so long for these things to get investigated? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, it is too early to tell whether it is going to work. 

And I don’t want to minimize the problem. This problem developed potentially over a long period of time. And so you have again 

the issue of preventing new people from getting in the program 

that shouldn’t be. And how do you clean up the mess you have got 

with maybe hundreds or thousands in there now that shouldn’t be, 

who are taking business away from legitimate HUBZone companies? 

My background is, everybody in my unit is a certified fraud examiner. I am a Certified Public Accountant. We have criminal investigators with 20, 30, 40 years of law enforcement experience 

from around the executive branch. We have tremendous data, analysis, and technology tools available; and we use many, many processes, including covert testing which we do for many congressional 

committees, which gives you an inside look at what is really happening with a program like the HUBZone program. Because how 

else can you get that unless you actually go out and try to commit 

the fraud yourself? 

And so, again, the first question would be, do they have the right 

people to put an effective fraud prevention program in place? That 

is doubtful at this point. That requires people with certain types 

of skill sets. 

Again, could they do better than they can with the people they 

have got? Probably. Do they need different types of people? Possibly. And additional training? I expect so. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I would steal him, Ms. Carranza. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I guess the first thing that occurred to me, and I listened to your 

audit on what happened after Katrina, and I was mad for about 

3 weeks afterwards—particularly one of your closing comments. 

18 

I said, Of all these different people outlined, there are tens of 

thousands of people that have defrauded the government and my 

taxpayers. I said, What is going to happen to them? And you said, 

Candidly, you really want to know? And I said, Yeah. And you said, 

Nothing. 

And in this situation, I assume that what happens is that you 

have got somebody over in the Department of Justice that has 

prosecutors. The prosecutors are going after people that are shopping cocaine and doing all these other sort of high-tech, more spectacular things. And the guys that are just ripping off the taxpayer 

on a daily basis, making an honest living ripping off taxpayers, are 

probably going to be ignored just the same as they were in Katrina. 

So I guess my first question is, does that suggest that you would 

almost put some law enforcement people in the SBA, or something, 

so that you have at least a dedicated resource of people going out? 

Because if you let all these people know that if you lie, you get 

busted, that is going to clean up an awful lot of stuff right there. 

I have always thought we should do that on voter fraud. Nobody 

ever gets prosecuted for that, and it gets worse and worse, or at 

least it stays bad. 

Is that something? That is my first question. Let me start with 

that. 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, certainly investigators and forensic auditors and 

things like that would be best in this type of environment. 

And it is interesting, the experience on Katrina; and that is even 

the best case. We set up a Katrina fraud task force, as you may 

be aware, we referred 22,000 cases to them of potential fraud. And 

that is what we identified, and as you said, it is probably tens of 

thousands more. 

Mr. AKIN. Those are just the dumb people that photocopied their 

drivers license living in Minnesota saying they got hit by Katrina. 

These aren’t really bright criminals exactly. 

Mr. KUTZ. Exactly. And out of 22,000, at least 50 or 60 of them 

have been indicted. So that is not a high percentage, and that is 

kind of predicted, what probably would happen. 

So here, though, I do think it is important that there are consequences to people who do lie about this program and who take 

away business from legitimate HUBZone companies. So we would 

certainly support SBA and anything this committee can do to help 

them—working with U.S. Attorneys, for example, on making some 

examples of these. Because I would predict, if you make examples 

of people and you publicize it, you will have a lot of people coming 

forth during an amnesty program that are going to decertify themselves before they get a chance to lose all their other government 

business. 

Mr. AKIN. From a structural point of view, would it just mess everything up to have a couple prosecutor types attached specifically 

to a program like this? 

Maybe I don’t understand the structure of the administration, 

but do you have anybody that you can go to, Ms. Carranza, where 

they are going to work on your cases for you and make sure people 

get busted? Or are you at the mercy of the Justice Department? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congressman Akin, we have a couple of avenues 

that we have addressed already. One is working closely with the 

19 

IG. They have the appropriate skill sets to support us, and we can 

partner in that aspect. 

Mr. AKIN. Do you have the resources there, though, to go after 

some of these people? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. I believe, as you stated earlier, that if we 

make an example of one or two, or follow through with the suspension— 

Mr. AKIN. I understood that. But can you get the people to get 

on these things and start dealing with it or not? Do you have the 

power in your position? Or do you know yet? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes, I have the authority. I have already deployed not only IG support, but also the district directors; and they 

are knowledgeable of the need to do more, and things better on the 

site visits and the recertifications process. 

Mr. AKIN. So you do think you have the resources to do that— 

Ms. CARRANZA. Oh, yes. 

Mr. AKIN. —to make sure people, if somebody breaks the law, 

you can both criminally prosecute them and debar them from government contracts? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. We have an attorney who is actually our 

suspension and debarment officer. 

Mr. AKIN. Let me just cross-examine then. 

What is your sense, Mr. Kutz? Does she have the resources to go 

after some of these people, do you think? Or not? Because you have 

been around longer than she has. 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, I don’t know. I haven’t looked at her human capital. But I suspect she doesn’t necessarily have the right people. 

She may have people, but they may not be the right people. I don’t 

know. 

I think the other issue of actually prosecuting and something is 

not an easy issue. If you look at suspension and debarment in the 

government, typically people don’t get suspended and debarred unless they are proven to be guilty of a crime. But the law says you 

can actually suspend or potentially debar without having to prove 

someone is criminally responsible. 

So if they can prove some of these cases, that people are the in 

the program inappropriately, they can still potentially suspend and 

debar without going through the prosecution, I believe. 

Mr. AKIN. I guess the other question I have—a couple of them— 

and that is, my understanding is, working in the administration is 

even more frustrating than being in Congress. And our job is like 

watching glacier races many days. 

But do you—because of all of the different union things with government employees, if you have got a bunch of incompetent people 

who are currently working for you, can you get rid of them and 

move people around? Or does it take you a year and a half to build 

a case to get rid of somebody who is basically some toad that is 

doing nothing? 

Ms. CARRANZA. I will address that from an operator’s perspective, 

because I have 30 years as an operations manager, working with 

thousands of employees. Recognizing many times that you didn’t 

have top performers, you have an A team, B team, C team, you 

look at their strengths or capacity. 

20 

What we have done in the agency, because we have employees 

with limited capacity or lack of focus or perhaps not the skill sets, 

we have trained in the past 2 years over 1,500 employees to look 

at the quality controls, quality improvements. We look at metrics, 

we look at employee relations, and we also look at the importance 

of auditing. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Time has expired. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Shuler. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Kutz and the gentleman from the GAO, I want to commend 

you for your work. 

Mr. Kutz, in your testimony you talked about the firms who had 

gained fraudulent access to the HUBZones. When you had the conversation and confronted them, what was their response? 

Mr. KUTZ. I will let Mr. Causseaux answer that. 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. In many cases, they were sort of, well, this is 

how the game is played. They didn’t seem to have any fear, if you 

will, of any consequences, whether it was prosecution or suspension 

or debarment. It was: It is easy to get in the program, there is lots 

of money that is out there, and nobody is going to come after me. 

Mr. SHULER. Ms. Carranza, if you suspend someone or debar 

someone, the debarment is, what, a 1-year? A suspension that 

could be a 1 year? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Suspension is typically 12 months; that can be 

extended for 6 months and actually can be extended beyond that 

for various reasons. They both have the same effect. 

Debarment, the typical is 3 years. However, the suspension and 

debarment official has the prerogative, based on the gravity of the 

circumstances, to make it longer than that. 

But the effect of suspension and debarment is the same: It precludes that entity from doing business with the Federal Government in contracting, receiving Federal loans, receiving Federal 

grants or any other Federal monies. 

Mr. SHULER. And that is what I understand that you have looked 

at, is doing the suspension and debarments? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. 

Mr. SHULER. Will the SBA go after criminal indictment of these 

10 people? Because I have not heard you say anything about criminal indictment yet. Do they actually go criminally after these folks? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congressman Shuler, once we assess the severity 

of the issues, our immediate action would be to follow the same 

pattern we did with the firm in Kentucky. That was not only heard 

in court; it wasn’t strictly a suspension or debarment; it was prosecution, so he will have his day in court. And that is what we expect to do with not only those 10 companies, but other companies 

that we may come across. We are very determined, focused, to work 

through that as soon as we have the specific companies. 

Mr. SHULER. If we are looking at just these 10 companies, what 

was the amount of contracts—dollars? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. In 2006 and 2007, the amount of Federal contracts received, obligations now, was $105 million. One of the companies had a $40 million HUBZone set-aside contract. It is a—that 

21 

is the ceiling amount. They haven’t been—that much money has 

not been obligated yet. We estimated something over $24 million of that $105 million 

was in actual HUBZone type of contracts. But many, many companies get a HUBZone certification, and then they may or may not 

get a HUBZone prime contract. They may be getting subcontracts 

using that certification, or it may make them more attractive to 

contracting officers because, as you may know, companies that 

have multiple certifications, that receive a contract, get credit 

against those—each individual entity—for the small business 

goaling requirements. 

Mr. SHULER. So, theoretically, we could be talking billions of dollars in fraud? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Theoretically, yes. 

Mr. SHULER. Those are our tax dollars. 

Madam Chair, you know, the SBA, the former director, the good 

thing about the SBA, he is no longer with the SBA, correct? The 

former administrator? 

Ms. CARRANZA. The administrator has been assigned as Secretary of HUD. 

Mr. SHULER. So he is with HUD now, correct? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. 

Mr. SHULER. And with our housing crisis that we have, now he 

is administrating HUD. So we are talking about a guy that—essentially, despite his lack of oversight of billions of dollars; and is now 

with HUD with the housing crisis that we have now. 

Madam Chair, I think there needs to be extensive and more investigation going on because these are our tax dollars. These are 

people, their hard-paying tax dollars that are going to these programs, and we have got a crisis on our hands. 

I want to thank you and the ranking member for having this 

hearing and the good work that the whole committee and the staff 

has done. I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

How big was the universe from which these 17 companies were 

selected? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Total HUBZone firms in the United States, 

13,000. 

Mr. BARTLETT. 13,000, 14,000. Did you mine the whole universe 

of 14,000 to find? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. No, sir. We focused on the Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I understand. But what was the universe from 

which these— 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. There were several hundred. But, again, we selected the companies, only those who had received HUBZone contracts of at least— 

Mr. BARTLETT. How big is that universe? 

See, to get some idea as to how significant these findings were, 

we have to know how big the universe was. 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. It was at least dozens in the D.C. Metro area, 

and then we drilled down. 

22 

Mr. BARTLETT. If you could make that available to us for the 

record, we would be very pleased, because in evaluating the significance of this, we have to know how big the universe was from 

which you chose this. 

[The following information was provided to the Committee by the 

SBA: ′′The 17 HUBZone firms discussed in the testimony were selected from a population of 44 HUBZone firms in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area that met certain criteria. 

Specifically, with one exception, each of the 44 had received at 

least $450,000 in obligations related to HUBZone set-aside, 

HUBZone sole source, or 8(a) with HUBZone price preference contracts in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

The one exception was a HUBZone firm that was included in the 

population and our selection due to allegations received via the 

GAO FraudNet.′′] 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would like to first say a couple words about the 

HUBZone program in general. I have a lot of HUBZones in my district. One is a whole county. 

One of the HUBZone contractors in that county has done two 

very admirable things. He has brought jobs to that county where 

the base pay is four times the average income of that area. That 

obviously is going to be a huge economic lift. 

The other thing he has done is a really big benefit to taxpayers. 

The same contractor has similar work that—he works for NSA; 

that is not in a HUBZone. And he had an employee come to him, 

and he had two different positions the employee could have gone 

to. One was in Howard County for $100,000, the other was in Garrett County for $70,000. He wisely chose to go to Garrett County 

in my district for $70,000, because you live better with $70,000 in 

Garrett County than you do with $100,000 in Howard County. 

What this means is that if all of NSA’s work was done in Garrett 

County, they, for the same amount of money, could hire 50 percent 

more people. 

So the HUBZone program is not only a very good program for the 

disadvantaged areas it serves, it is a very good program for the 

taxpayer, because you get the work done much more economically 

there. 

I was disappointed, but not surprised by your results because I 

know human nature, I have been watching it for 82 years now. And 

what the HUBZone program relied on was self-reporting and selfcertification. This requires honest people, and what it also required 

was peer policing. And I am distressed that we have so many dishonest people that took advantage, that gamed the system. 

I am also distressed that the peer policing isn’t working as well 

as it should, because the companies that have tried that get punished. And I know one of them, particularly, who has been punished because he has availed himself of this opportunity for peer 

policing. 

I think that if you could assure your contractors that they were 

not going to be punished for peer policing, that they would do a 

better job than you could do, Madam Secretary, because there are 

a whole lot of them out there and they are really smart and they 

know what is going on in their communities. 

23 

I am distressed that we are going to have to take on more manpower and spend more money in supervising this program because 

there are too many dishonest people out there who want to game 

the system, and because we have not made it advantageous for 

peers to police the system because when they police the system, 

they get punished. 

How can we change? We can’t change the honesty of people. How 

can we change the peer policing so that it works? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congressman Bartlett, we can and we have and 

we will continue improving the controls, the internal stringent controls that are very necessary and that have been pointed out by 

GAO and the IG. 

And I want to assure you that it is not the SBA personnel, strictly, who are going to have oversight in this area. Our associate administrator of our government contracting office has already drafted a memorandum to share with the 24 large agencies, government 

agencies, so that we can alert them to our areas of concern and the 

exposures of this audit. 

Also, I have personally spoken to the key government contracting 

leaders, in a separate meeting, to share with them the 

vulnerabilities of our program and that we are going to need their 

support. 

So there is a memorandum. I have met with them personally, 

and I have plans to continue to communicate so that it is a contracting community obligation to ensure that the noble mission of 

this HUBZone program is kept intact. Because, as was stated earlier, it is all about job creation and it is all about economic development in the most challenged areas of our community. 

Mr. BARTLETT. When we know of peers being punished for policing, can we come to you for help? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, GAO was able to perpetrate fraud with a photocopier and whiteout. 

Why are your internal controls so weak that such an unsophisticated scam is able to defraud the Federal Government? I need to 

understand why. 

Ms. CARRANZA. Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, it has been noted a couple times that this is a self-certifying process—program. And so, as 

noted also, we relied on the integrity of the applicant. And because 

we did not have sufficient validation and verification of the information that is supplied, it allowed loopholes. As a deterrent, we 

don’t want to continue with the lax processes that would enable 

someone to defraud or misrepresent the information. 

So it is a matter of tightening the controls, monitoring those controls for adherence and compliance, and documenting it in our 

SOP. Our SOP, as we speak, is being modified to incorporate those 

new procedures. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. You are telling us today you are going 

to have internal controls in place and you are going to have oversight? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Better controls and greater oversight, yes. 

24 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. In trying to understand the magnitude 

and if any structural changes are later needed to take place, I am 

going to ask you the following question: 

Fraud seems to be something you hear mentioned regularly in 

conjunction with SBA. Last year, the Department of Justice and 

Secret Service uncovered massive fraud in the SBA loan programs; 

and now, GAO has found similar, if not greater, fraud in SBA’s 

contracting programs. 

We have also heard about problems with Katrina, a former Bush 

administration official being awarded work in the 7j program, and 

big businesses getting small businesses’ contracts. 

Ms. Carranza, what has occurred over the last few years that has 

made your agency so susceptible to fraud? 

Ms. CARRANZA. I can explain very— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Is it the reduced budget, 40 percent in 

the last 7 years? Have the agency buyouts forced out more experienced staff? Is it because there has been high turnover in the administrative portion? What is it? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congresswoman Chairman, to delineate every 

one of them would take greater than 5 minutes. But I will explain 

that we have addressed every one of those areas and have put in 

place—I can answer for the past 2 years that I have been here— 

with Secretary Preston a reform agenda that not only looked at 

simplifying processes, developing the skill sets of the existing workforce. 

We have actually added employees, over 100, since we were addressing the resource allocation or alignment. We have also put significant controls in our ODA, Office Disaster Assistance. In our Office of Capital Access, as you know, we are addressing oversight. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. But we are here today. Thank you Ms. 

Carranza. 

Ms. Fallin. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate you coming today, all of you, to testify on a very important subject; and it is certainly very disturbing, some of the information that we have heard. 

And I know, Madam Administrator, you are relatively new to 

this job and new to this position, so I appreciate what you are trying to do with your agency and some of the steps that you have 

been taking to identify the challenges, map out an appropriate 

course of action to remedy some of these issues that have been revealed by the various other government entities. 

I want to ask you a question. Do you think the HUBZone program is worth keeping? 

Ms. CARRANZA. What I can— 

Ms. FALLIN. Is it beneficial to our economy, beneficial to small 

business? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes, Congresswoman Fallin. The noble mission of 

HUBZone is about job creation and economic development and in 

the most challenging areas. As I explained earlier, to suspend a 

program that meets the needs of so many - this is not about a program problem, this is about a program management problem. 

And it is my responsibility to ensure that we put in the controls 

and address all those efficiencies so a program such as HUBZone 

25 

and others are not negatively impacted by the loose controls that 

we have and are then accessible to fraud or misrepresentation or 

the eligibility of the applicants. 

Ms. FALLIN. That is good to hear. And let me ask you something 

else. 

What would happen, and I will ask maybe all of you, if we had 

an announcement—and maybe you have already done this—but an 

announcement by all of you that said we are not going to tolerate 

fraud and abuse of government taxpayer dollars, especially as it 

deals with HUBZones or any other program within the SBA, and 

here are some cases we identified that are going to be prosecuted 

promptly; we are going to take care of them, and we are going to 

give everybody in the Nation a warning, who may be taking advantage improperly of this program, that we are going to crack down, 

and you’d better get ready? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congresswoman Fallin, I believe we have accomplished that already by being named collectively with GAO and IG 

on a press release that just went out. That is just the beginning, 

because the proof is in the suspensions and the debarment activity, 

as well as making sure that we communicate this in the forums 

that we participate in. 

As you know, we attend government contracting matchmaking 

events, summits, conferences, and that is our platform to make 

sure that we articulate this stringent observation. 

Ms. FALLIN. Did you want to say something here? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think you are on a target. 

Advertising that people are being held accountable and giving 

people an opportunity under an amnesty program to come forth 

and decertify themselves, I think would have an effect. The suspension and debarment, as Mr. Causseaux said, that pretty much 

takes you out of the government business for a year, 2 years, 3 

years; plus, you can’t get government grants and other types of 

payments. 

So that is a real consequence; and if people knew that their lifeline was at stake, basically, from a business perspective, they 

would come forth. 

Ms. FALLIN. Let me ask you this. After hearing the plan of action 

that she has laid forth—and it takes a long time to change government at times; it is unfortunate, but it just does. It is hard to work 

through. People have been in government for a long time, and even 

the red tape and the bureaucracy itself. 

But do you feel like the plan that the Administrator has laid 

forth with the time lines, with the procedures and what her agency 

hopes to do with restructuring and the goals that they have in 

place, is moving in the right direction? 

Mr. KUTZ. Let me talk about fraud, and Mr. Shear can talk about 

from a performance standpoint. 

But from the fraud standpoint, we haven’t seen a fraud prevention plan yet, so I am not aware of one. They are working towards 

one, it sounds like. They just heard from us last week. 

When we do covert testing, we don’t tell them we are coming. We 

don’t tell them until we are done. So it is going to take some time 

to see. 

26 

But you have a mess on your hands, effectively. I mean, you have 

got to fix the application process, to put fraud prevention controls 

in place. 

And then you have to figure out what you are going to do with 

10,000-plus companies in the system. You can’t audit all 10,000 of 

them. So that is why your idea of publicizing some poster childrentype cases could potentially do some of your work for you in the 

early stages. 

So that is kind of where we are with the fraud side. 

Mr. SHEAR. When we make recommendations to an agency—and 

in this case, it is a program where we have what I will call—we 

identified ′′very severe deficiencies′′ in this program and recommended corrective action. We are always glad when the agency 

agrees with us and states that they are going to take action. 

This is the concern I would raise here for Administrator 

Carranza and for this committee, that the response we received at 

the beginning of June to our program audit in terms of agency comments and the response today, I think there might not be a recognition of the size of the task that is involved. 

Some things can be done fairly easily to try to get a handle on 

the issue, which could be using data smarter, to try to identify the 

virtual offices, the locations where you have multiple HUBZone 

firms, and the like. But some of these things, especially verification 

of employees, all these other types of actions we recommended, are 

more difficult. 

So I do have—we have a concern as far as the ability to do this 

quickly. At a minimum, we would like to see a process in place so 

that it could lead to success down the road. 

And as far as the specific plans, such as developing regulations 

and policies and procedures around certification and recertification, 

it is in the draft stage. It hasn’t been shared with us yet. We would 

be glad to work constructively with the agency as they move forward, but we don’t know what the plan is. 

Ms. FALLIN. Let me ask, are you willing to work with him as 

they move forward on these plans? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Last week when we met—to answer your question, Congresswoman Fallin, 30 days from now. I am not supposed 

to give exact dates, but 30 days from now I invited him back to the 

office, so we can look at our strategy and evaluate whether it is 

sufficient or not. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz, can you please explain to 

this committee, how are taxpayers affected if a company fraudulently gains access to the program and receives a contract or a 

price evaluation preference? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, certainly from the standpoint of this whole issue 

we are talking about here, they are ripped off from the standpoint 

of the wrong areas are being stimulated. 

I mentioned McLean, Virginia. McLean doesn’t need any stimulation. McLean is a very wealthy area, as some of you may know, the 

Tyson’s Corner area where some of these companies were. 

The other thing we haven’t talked a lot about here is the legitimate HUBZone companies, like in Garrett County, Maryland, for 

example, may be losing out on business to fraudsters who are taking the business away from them. 

27 

And from a price standpoint, in some cases you might be paying 

more because you are limiting the competition, you are setting 

aside to a limited number of companies or you are doing solesourcing. So these things. 

So there are a number of reasons where taxpayers are not getting what they paid for. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Carranza, last year, the House passed H.R. 3867. And in this 

legislation, we included a provision to require onsite verification of 

HUBZone status prior to the award of a second contract. The administration voiced their opposition to this provision, and I quote, 

′′This provision will create a large burden on the Small Business 

Administration. The firms are already required to certify their status prior to award of a contract.′′ 

Given the GAO’s investigation and the evidence of substantial 

fraud in regard to the HUBZone program, do you still feel that this 

will put such a burden on the SBA? And will you continue to oppose onsite verification? 

Ms. CARRANZA. What I am committing to you, Chairwoman 

Vela ́zquez, is to further assess that situation with the new information that we received up to and including having a contractor come 

in and conduct an assessment of what it would take to ensure that 

recertification is accomplished. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Let me remind you also that that legislation passed overwhelmingly, bipartisan support, over 300 votes. 

Mr. Kutz, to get a library card from the local library a person is 

generally required to bring identification, as well as a recent bill 

with a local address on it, to prove residency. 

In your experience, would you say that it is easier to get into the 

HUBZone contracting program, making one’s company eligible for 

millions of dollars of contracts, than to get a public library card? 

Mr. KUTZ. I don’t have a library card, but given what you said, 

and back quite a few decades ago when I actually had a library 

card, showing up and having to prove who you are is more than 

was required for the HUBZone. So under that scenario, yes, it 

would require more diligence to get a library card than a 

HUBZone. 

And that gets into some of the solutions here. Rather than this 

being an entirely Internet/e-mail-driven process, a little more like 

the site visits we are talking about would be a good step. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, you spoke about electronic annual reviews in your testimony. 

Can you tell me more about this system? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes, Congresswoman Vela ́zquez. 

This is a mechanism that allows individuals, anywhere from the 

headquarters personnel to the district offices, to perform reviews, 

site reviews, firm reviews. And it facilitates and simplifies the process. 

As I indicated earlier, we have reassessed that process because, 

again, we have allowed technology to manage the process versus 

the other way around. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So it is exactly this sort of electronic 

system without verification that has caused the problems with the 

HUBZone program. 

28 

Let me ask, Mr. Causseaux, while you haven’t examined this program, can you tell us if you will be concerned about the potential 

for fraud using this type of annual reviews? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Any system that is predicated on self-certified 

information without verification and validation is highly susceptible to fraud and abuse, particularly when millions, if not billions, 

of Federal dollars are at stake. 

We sometimes use the term ′′faith-based contracting,′′ which is 

essentially a process where we kind of simply sit back and hope 

and pray that the company we are doing business with isn’t ripping 

us off too badly. This is a situation where, if you don’t do due diligence and validate that you are getting what you are paying for, 

that those you are paying are the ones that purport themselves to 

be, you are susceptible to fraud. 

So it does take more than the electronic system, yes, ma’am. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, I just would like for you 

explain to us what kind of fraud prevention measures will be put 

in place to supplement these electronic reviews, annual electronic 

reviews. Because it, by itself, will be open to fraud. 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, as indicated by Mr. 

Causseaux and Mr. Kutz, it is about validating and verifying the 

information that is given, that we are now taking a more stringent 

and more aggressive manner in doing. If a drivers license was required, or a utility bill for validation or verification of address was 

allowed, now we will ask for copies of the office lease, now we will 

ask for much more in-depth and comprehensive documentation to 

validate and verify the information that is electronically shared 

with us. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. You are telling me that you are not 

going to rely only on annual electronic reviews? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Exactly. 

Mr. KUTZ. Chairwoman, could I comment on that? 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Of course. 

Mr. KUTZ. Because verification is more than getting a copy of 

something. When we submitted our first application, they asked us 

for a copy of our lease. We dummied one up, faxed it to them, and 

they bought it. So validation means possibly maybe calling the lessor or doing something besides taking a piece of paper and saying, 

yep, I met the item on the checklist. 

So I think when we talk about verify and validate at this discussion here, it is more than simply requesting a piece of paper. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And getting the fax machine or e-mailing. 

Mr. KUTZ. Especially by fax. A carbon drivers license by fax looks 

a lot better. With the holograms on a drivers license, if you faxed 

them in, you can’t tell if it is a real license or not. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. How would you react to Mr. Kutz’s assessment? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, I actually took a couple of addresses and pursued Google Earth. And I believe you are 

very familiar with Google Earth, where it will zoom in and catch 

that storefront Starbucks. 

This is just one of about nine other types of search engines that 

we are expanding to ensure that we narrow down the focus of the 

29 

documentation that has been given to us. So these are going to be 

expanded search engines, they are going to be consistently utilized. 

And, once again, this is just one of many that will be utilized to 

verify the information and validate it. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I was very pleased, Madam Secretary, that you 

noted that this was not a program problem, it was a program management problem. 

I would like to again say something about HUBZone programs 

generically, because I know they are now under attack. Most of our 

other small business programs are very admirable in that they help 

people. You can be an 8(a) contractor and you can get a contract 

in McLean, Virginia, which doesn’t need any economic help at all. 

And that is nice that we have programs that will help these disadvantaged companies no matter where they are. 

The HUBZone program is one of those things that occasionally 

I note, and such a really creative idea that I say to myself, gee, 

why didn’t you think of that? Because this is a program that not 

only helps people, individual companies, but it helps whole areas. 

And we don’t have any other program like that in the Small Business Administration. It is an absolutely unique program. 

The jobs that I mentioned that went to Garrett County, except 

for the HUBZone program they would not have gone there. This 

contractor inconvenienced himself by going to Garrett County, and 

he went there because it was a HUBZone area and because he 

knew that he would have some advantage in getting contracts from 

NSA because they have a checkoff of whether or not they are meeting a number of goals of subcontracting, and this is just one of 

them. 

So I did want to appeal to fixing the problem, not putting the 

whole program in jeopardy, because I think this is a really unique 

program, a very worthwhile program. As I said, when I first saw 

it, I said, gee, why didn’t you think of that? It is such a unique 

idea. 

And the example I mentioned not only helps Garrett County 

which, when I came to office, had 14 percent unemployment. And 

I went there door-to-door, and I was surprised. 

Most places I went door-to-door, it was very easy, because after 

I rang the doorbell, I filled out the little door hanger that said, I 

was here; and I give the time and the date and I hang it on the 

door, and I’m sorry I missed you. And almost nobody came because 

they were out working. 

When I went to Garrett County, a lot of people came. And they 

were senior people that told me that during their working years 

they had to go to Pittsburgh or Baltimore to make a living, but 

when they would retire, they came back to Garrett County. I said, 

gee, this must be a great place to live; too bad that we have 14 percent unemployment here, that our people have to go away to Pittsburgh and Baltimore to make a living. 

The HUBZone program is now changing that, and there are really good jobs there. As I mentioned, four times the mean annual salary is what is paid to these people. And that uplifts a whole community when you have that kind of salary. 

30 

So I just want to make an appeal that we need to be focusing 

on fixing this program. And, again, I am very disappointed that 

there are so many people out there that would—and the taxpayer 

maybe gets value from these contracts, but what is really hurt is 

the area that should have gotten the contract and didn’t get the 

contract. 

I think that probably pretty good work is done on these contracts, but the real tragedy is the area that should have got the 

contract, that should have been uplifted by it economically, missed 

that because it was fraudulently given somewhere else. 

So I hope that our focus is on, what do we need to do to fix this 

program, so that it is really a viable, good program and not have 

any hint that the program should be at risk because of this. 

This is just human nature that you have unearthed. And again, 

Madam Secretary, we are going to come to you, because we want 

to make sure that people who are trying to self-police, peer policing, that they don’t get punished for doing that. And I know that 

happens and I know that is a huge detriment to the success of this 

program. 

So thank you for your invitation to come to your office. We will 

be there. 

Ms. CARRANZA. Thank you, Congressman Bartlett. And if you 

will allow us to visit your office, as we have done in the past, we 

would definitely look forward to giving you a report, and Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, on the progress of our plan so that we can keep 

you updated. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would be honored. Thank you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Ellsworth. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would associate my comments with Mr. Bartlett’s and agree, 

this is a good program. It is doing good things. 

But knowing some of the people that I know back home in Indiana, they would rather have no program at all than a program that 

is riddled with fraud and abuse, because they are the taxpayers 

that are paying these dollars. And so its incumbent upon us to fix 

it. 

I was just sitting here, thinking out of the box, we want to keep 

government spending down. But contracting, if you offer these 

areas a stipend, even if it is not your agency, another Federal agency or even a local agency, to go out and make some of these spot 

visits and train them, there are companies that would love a 

$30,000 a year stipend to go out and make that part of their duties. 

A sheriff’s department or police department or, like I said, a welfare department, they could do this. And there is nothing in replacement. 

Like Mr. Kutz said, you can dummy these things up all day long 

with technology and fax in anything you want, and there is nothing 

like eye-to-eye contact and eyeball, and asking questions and seeing who is in and checking a payroll roster. There is just no substitute for that. 

And so I think there is—if we think out of the box a little bit, 

we can do that. 

Mr. Shear, we talked about self-policing, and I guess this is along 

that. Is self-policing, to you or Mr. Kutz, an effectively tool to monVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:40 Sep 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\40869.TXT RUSS
31 

itor HUBZones when—like I said, we just discussed it, but is it 

going to be effective, or do we have to go further? 

Mr. SHEAR. Well, I will address it from the standpoint of our program audit. And our program audit focused on SBA because it is 

the agency that is in charge of administering and overseeing this 

program; and we think that agencies that play that role have a 

very important responsibility. 

As Mr. Kutz said a little bit earlier, self-policing, the extent to 

which it occurs among recipients of a program can be useful. But 

the idea that SBA officials stated when conducted our program 

audit, and reference was made to self-policing in the program, 

there is a burden of proof: Is self-policing working and can it work? 

And when we started asking questions about self-policing, such 

as self-policing status protest in the HUBZone program, we started 

asking questions, how many times are there status protests? And 

there aren’t that many. 

Then when we started asking questions—which is really out of 

fairness to the businesses that participate in this program in that 

many of these contracts, even though they are small businesses, 

they are in HUBZones, they are local businesses many times, especially with construction, you are talking about contracts that could 

be in other HUBZone areas and things of the like—how is it that 

a HUBZone concern or somebody with skin in the game would 

know enough information? 

If SBA doesn’t know the information, how are different participants in a program going to have the information to really self-police? And that is where we started getting nonanswers. 

So we have a concern about self-policing in this program, the degree to which it has been used, the degree to which it has worked. 

Now, given our focus on SBA’s actions for internal control, I will 

say that what we observed in terms of the high level of firms that 

apply being certified, and then the large number of firms that, 

when anything is looked at very closely and where verification is 

asked for by SBA, for those small numbers of firms, the high numbers that end up being decertified, to us that is an indication that 

whatever policing is going on by SBA and self-policing is not working. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you very much. I have got about a 

minute left. Any suggestions, as you sit there and think about the 

same things that I was thinking about, short of hiring 30,000—how 

many HUBZones across the country, 30,000? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Fourteen thousand. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Short of hiring 14,000 new government employees, any suggestions that you can say that you have all been talking around the office and saying, if they would just do this, they 

would get that eyeball-to-eyeball check? 

You know, let them split. Is there another agency? Have you all 

thought of anything? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Thank you, Congressman Ellsworth. 

We have not only looked at the density of the need to do onsite, 

the density of firms, but we also recognize that we have other 

agencies and other resource partners that can be deployed as well 

to perform some of those physical onsite versus site reviews. 

32 

In addition to that, we want to be a deterrent up front. So when 

we look at the application, we are going to ask for a lot more information up front and validate that information, and then take it 

personally that after that application is completed and the information validated, we zoom in with all of the search engines to again 

verify it, so that no business can be disruptive, the job creation can 

be realized and, of course, economic development. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Sure. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, it caught my attention 

that you said that you have other partners, and that you will use 

personnel from other agencies to go and do onsite visits. 

How is that possible? That is the sole responsibility of SBA. Are 

they trained? Who will train them? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, when I say other resources and agencies, we have government contracting community 

members, whether it is other agencies that are out in the field. We 

also have our resource partners from the Entrepreneurial Development Office. 

We are just looking for other avenues that could participate in 

this scrutiny. We have not locked it in yet; this is still going under 

assessment. But we have opportunities to offer the training that is 

required. 

Again, we are going to first manage it from our office before we 

branch out and commit those resources, but I believe that there are 

other options that we can consider. It may be premature to say 

that at this time, because I haven’t fully assessed it. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I hope so. I hope that it is premature 

to say. This is too serious. This is fraud. This is about taxpayers’ 

money. This is about hurting legitimate companies that are doing 

their job in our communities. 

So to contract out or to give the responsibility due diligence that 

is your sole responsibility to other partners out there who do not 

have—first, do not understand the program; two, do not have the 

training—that really concerns me. So I hope that you will revisit 

that. 

Ms. CARRANZA. I will take that under consideration. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Cuellar. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Taxpayers expect efficient, effective, and accountable government. I think that is the basic premise when we talk about governance. There are different ways of doing this, and I think the gentleman just mentioned this. 

You can go into a policing effort where you go in and say, we 

have a thousand places we have to search or we have to hire a 

thousand people, and that is hard to do with a budget. Or you can 

use more of a red-flag approach, where you look for certain areas 

that will say, hey, there is a red flag, so we need to go in and send 

somebody in there. 

Customs, for example—I am from Laredo, the border area, one 

of the largest inland ports. We get thousands of trucks, actually we 

get about 10,000 trucks going up and down. If Customs were to try 

33 

to stop everybody coming across, they would stop the traffic coming 

in, the international trade. So they use specific methods to do spotchecking to go in and look for those red flags. 

And I assume you all have some sort of model that we can employ or SBA can employ. I would like to have you all submit that 

to us to look at the different models we are looking at, because you 

can’t send a thousand people out there, but there are ways that you 

can red-flag those areas and then send them in when there is a red 

flag. 

You know, one of the things, for example—a red flag, for example, as Mr. Kutz, I think you mentioned the virtual offices in your 

testimony. Can you elaborate on what that term means and how 

that relates specifically to the HUBZone program? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. It is an office that you can rent that could be a 

legitimate HUBZone if you were actually having people working 

there part-time and onsite part-time. But we also saw the other 

end of it where there was actually just a mail forwarding. 

And the indicator you are talking about in this particular case 

would be, if 10 companies—and this is a real case here—10 companies using the same suite at the same address are all HUBZone 

companies. Well, that doesn’t make much sense. And when you actually get behind that, you see that that is one of the ways companies can beat the system here. 

So that will be the kind of red flag you are talking about, looking 

for virtual offices. And you can investigate all 10 of them by doing 

one visit in that particular case. 

So that is a way to leverage your resources also. I think virtual 

offices is one thing SBA should build into their fraud prevention 

program. 

Mr. CUELLAR. So what does it mean when you have a virtual office? Does that mean that there is an intent to commit fraud, or 

does that mean there is some legitimate? And I know the answer 

to that— 

Mr. KUTZ. It could be either one. 

Mr. CUELLAR. —but how do we use that red flag so we can send 

in individuals to do the personal visits? And how does the SBA use 

that model? I want to see models out there because, again, our resources are limited and we know that for a fact. But there has to 

be a system in place to bring in the red lights and the red flags 

to come up. 

Do you all have a model that could be shared with the SBA? 

Could you send that to us, to the committee also? 

Mr. KUTZ. We don’t. But in this case, it was simply sorting the 

addresses and looking for multiple hits at the exact same address; 

and you can do that with multiple software packages out there. 

So one of our fake companies was in a virtual office, and we were 

there in the same office with nine other companies. So the other 

companies there were suspicious. 

So that is a basic software. We don’t have a model in this particular case that would apply to the SBA situation necessarily. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Should we have a model? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Clearly, the easiest tool in that situation is 

when a company makes an application for HUBZone certification, 

34 

if that address happens to be one that another firm or firms is at, 

that ought to send a flag. In fact, it is a fairly clear indicator. 

As we said, in Rockville, Maryland, there is a very small 

HUBZone. There are 17 HUBZone firms in that particular sliver; 

10 of those 17 firms are in the same suite in the same building in 

that one location. 

Mr. CUELLAR. So shouldn’t that have alerted somebody right 

there? I mean, that is what I am saying. There has got to be some 

sort of systematic approach to addressing this. 

Ms. Carranza, I would ask you. A lot of times people look at GAO 

or any auditing firm as the enemy, but I have always looked at it, 

how do we improve the information that GAO provides? How do we 

use that? 

Instead of saying, oh, my God, they found some weaknesses in 

the program and therefore that is negative. I would ask you to just 

work with them and look for—I am a big believer. I did my dissertation on performance-based budgeting. There are models that 

you can set up; there really are models. 

So I would ask GAO to work with Ms. Carranza and look for— 

especially in these virtual offices. There should be a system in 

place for your employees to say, there is a problem right here; we 

have got an office and there are 17 different companies in the same 

place. 

Mr. KUTZ. If you look at the monitor, that is what Mr. Causseaux 

was talking about. That is the building that has the suite. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. How big was the suite? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. It was about 30 offices that are in this suite. It 

is a shared office arrangement. Some of the firms—or at least one 

of the firms paid $50 a month strictly for mail forwarding; and they 

could rent an office or a conference room on an a la carte hourly 

basis. 

Some firms rented, they paid a couple hundred a month, and 

they received up to 4 hours or 6 hours use of an office on a scheduled basis. And there were two firms, I believe, that actually had 

a full-time office there. 

But of the 10 offices, or the 10 HUBZone firms that were there, 

seven of them were on a virtual office situation; and those seven 

had another office that was not in a HUBZone area, one of which 

was in one of the larger—one of our case example firms was in 

McLean, another one in McLean. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Kutz, I am so lucky I don’t suffer 

from high blood pressure. 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Me, too. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Time has expired. 

Mr. Bartlett, do you have any other questions? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I just want to verify what I thought I heard emphasized in the discussion, is that the two major sins that are committed by these people, one is not having the major headquarters 

of the company in the district, and the other is not having 35 percent of the people live in the district. 

These are the two main things? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. That is correct. There are four attributes for 

being a HUBZone: You have to be a small business; you have to 

be 51 percent owned and controlled by U.S. citizens; 35 percent of 

35 

your employees have to live in a HUBZone; and the principal office 

where the majority of employees, essentially, work has to be in a 

HUBZone. 

We tested the 35 percent and the principal office attributes for 

our case examples. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, at least three of those are pretty obvious, 

if you are in the community, aren’t they? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah, which would lead me to believe that pure 

policing, if we encouraged it, really would work. Because there has 

to be other HUBZone businesses in that area which are really mad 

when the contract goes to somebody who is cheating. Isn’t that 

true? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. If I could answer that question, I believe that 

is true. However, the problem with the peer policing is that it is 

based on a protest mode. And in order to protest, first of all, you 

have to have been a competitor for that particular award or that 

particular— 

Mr. BARTLETT. But can’t we change that, sir? 

Mr. CAUSSEAUX. I can’t. But perhaps you certainly can, yes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, if we need to change that, if the regulators 

can’t change it, then we need to change it, Madam Chairman. We 

need to not limit who can say, ′′Gee, that guy is cheating.′′ And as 

far as I am concerned, it can even be anonymous. You know, I like 

a suggestion box, an anonymous suggestion box, outside my door. 

I remember a very interesting case when General Shinseki wanted to have berets made for all his soldiers. And he was enormously 

embarrassed when he learned that they were going to be made in 

China. And I suggested that he maybe ought to have a suggestion 

box outside his door, because lots of people in that line of command 

knew they were being made in China but nobody dared tell the top 

guy that. 

You know, you just need to be able to get this information. This 

isn’t rocket science. These three things are really easy to discern. 

And I would think that if we made it easier and we didn’t punish 

these people who were protesting—and it shouldn’t be just the—if 

the only person who can signal this is the guy who was involved 

in the bidding process, then you really, really have limited— 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Time has expired, Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah. 

Can you do something to change that, or do we have to do it? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congressman Bartlett, at this time, I don’t believe that we need additional legislation. What we need to do is adhere to the procedures we have in place. 

We have referred to flags, red flags. I have a three-page description of, when red flags occur, the following should take place. And 

I mentioned earlier, it is program management and adherence and 

comply to procedures. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. The time has expired. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. We are ready to wrap up. But before, 

I need to ask three questions for the record to reflect. 

Mr. Shear, we hear talk about the economic benefits of the 

HUBZone program and how good they are. So do you have or saw 

36 

any ways where the benefits are quantifiable? Do you think that 

we can measure the benefits of the program? 

Mr. SHEAR. We make recommendations in our report for SBA to 

come up with measurement and an evaluative approach to determine the benefits of the program. Because, to date, we see the benefits of the program tend to be on indicators that don’t work very 

well. The indicators SBA has now, it is based on anecdotal information, which, while it can be very valuable to provide some insight, 

it isn’t systematic looking more broadly at benefits. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. SHEAR. And this is a program where we think that such an 

evaluation to guide the Congress and the SBA is very important. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Carranza, in your testimony you 

mentioned that you are undertaking several projects—hiring more 

staff, requiring site visits to firms that have received HUBZone 

contracts. 

All this is going to cost money. How much was the mapping contract? 

Ms. CARRANZA. I don’t have that information, but I would be glad 

to supply that information to you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. How much was the contract to 

add additional employees to clear the backlog of recertifications? 

Ms. CARRANZA. We have had a contractor for a couple of months. 

I don’t have the exact dollar amount. However, we are realigning 

our workforce because of other backlogs that we have worked 

through so that we can reallocate the resources. So we should not 

be adding additional personnel. 

Oh, the mapping cost is about $30,000. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. $30,000. 

Ms. CARRANZA. Yes. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. And I am asking all these questions because we know that putting together the plan that you lay 

out is going to cost money. And my concern now is that, in trying 

to fix the fraud issue with a HUBZone program, that we might create other problems with other programs, because we are going to 

rob Peter to pay Paul, since the budget of the agency for the last 

8 years had been reduced by 40 percent. 

So my question to you is, would you request a supplemental appropriation to pay for all these measures? 

Ms. CARRANZA. Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, at this point we have 

the resources in place and space in the contracts that we are in— 

currently. If it required, then we would revisit and come back to 

you. But, at this point, I am not in a position to give a dollar 

amount or if we need additional funds. But we would consider that. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It just brings memories back when we 

all witnessed in our Nation the Katrina debacle, disaster. And the 

Administrator came before us, and I kept asking him, ′′Do you have 

the resources?′′ Eighteen months later, we saw that people were 

still waiting for assistance. 

So I hope that, months from now, you don’t have to come before 

our committee because some of the other programs are having the 

same concerns and the same issues that we are discussing today. 

So, with that, I want to thank all of you for being here. 

37 

I ask unanimous consent that members would have 5 days to 

submit a statement and supporting material for the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

38 


40869.001
39 


40869.002
40 


40869.003
41 


40869.004
42 


40869.005
43 


40869.006
44 


40869.007
45 


40869.008
46 


40869.009
47 


40869.010
48 


40869.011
49 


40869.012
50 


40869.013
51 


40869.014
52 


40869.015
53 


40869.016
54 


40869.017
55 


40869.018
56 


40869.019
57 


40869.020
58 


40869.021
59 


40869.022
60 


40869.023
61 


40869.024
62 


40869.025
63 


40869.026
64 


40869.027
65 


40869.028
66 


40869.029
67 


40869.030
68 


40869.031
69 


40869.032
70 


40869.033
71 


40869.034
72 


40869.035
73 


40869.036
74 


40869.037
75 


40869.038
76 


40869.039
77 


40869.040
78 


40869.041
79 


40869.042
80 


40869.043
81 


40869.044
82 


40869.045
83 


40869.046
84 


40869.047
85 


40869.048
86 


40869.049
87 


40869.050
88 


40869.051
89 


40869.052
90 


40869.053
91 


40869.054
92 


40869.055
93 


40869.056
94 


40869.057
95 


40869.058
96 


40869.059
97 

Æ 


40869.060