Congress has generally broad authority to impose requirements upon the federal procurement process, or the process whereby agencies obtain goods and services from the private sector. One of the many ways in which Congress has exercised this authority is by enacting measures intended to promote contracting and subcontracting with "small businesses" by federal agencies. Among other things, these measures (1) declare a congressional policy of ensuring that a "fair proportion" of federal contract and subcontract dollars are awarded to small businesses; (2) establish government-wide and agency-specific goals for the percentage of contract and/or subcontract dollars awarded to small businesses; (3) require or authorize agencies to conduct competitions in which only small businesses may compete (i.e., set-asides), or make noncompetitive awards to them in circumstances when such awards could not be made to other businesses; and (4) task the Small Business Administration (SBA) and officers of the procuring agencies with reviewing and helping to restructure proposed procurements so as to maximize opportunities for small business participation. A companion report, CRS Report R42391, Legal Authorities Governing Federal Contracting and Subcontracting with Small Businesses , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], provides an overview of these statutes, the regulations implementing them, and the various judicial and other tribunals that construe them. This report describes measures that Members of the 112 th Congress enacted or proposed in response to particular issues pertaining to small business contracting and subcontracting (e.g., increasing SBA's size standards, increasing government-wide or agency-specific goals for contracting and/or subcontracting with small businesses). In particular, it analyzes changes to existing law that were made, or that would have been made had certain measures been enacted, and discusses legal issues potentially raised by certain types of measures. Although a number of bills are included in this discussion, the report does not attempt to address all bills, nor does it address all provisions of any bills that are included. Rather, these bills are presented as examples of particular approaches to issues of interest to the Congress. In addition, this report's discussion of the legal questions potentially raised by various approaches to current issues (e.g., creation of additional set-aside programs) should not be construed to mean that any specific bill cited in the report would necessarily raise these questions. Much would depend upon the drafting and details of particular bills, the analysis of which is outside the scope of this report. The report will not be updated. A separate report will address issues pertaining to small business contracting and subcontracting in the 113 th Congress. The Small Business Act currently gives the Administrator of Small Business considerable discretion as to what firms qualify as small for purposes of the act, or for certain other purposes of federal law. The act requires only that small businesses be "independently owned and operated," be "not dominant in their field of operations," and meet any size standards established by the Administrator. The Administrator first promulgated regulations specifying standards for size in various industries in 1956 under the authority of the Small Business Act of 1953, which established SBA on a temporary basis. Between the early 1980s and 2007, SBA conducted no comprehensive reviews of the size standards, instead making only intermittent changes to the standards for particular industries. Its failure to do so prompted some Members of Congress and commentators to question whether the standards adequately reflected recent trends in industry or government procurement. Partly in response to such concerns, the 111 th Congress enacted legislation that requires SBA to conduct a "detailed review" of at least one-third of the size standards every 18 months, and make "appropriate adjustments" to them to reflect market conditions. The legislation also includes certain provisions regarding "small business size and status integrity" intended to combat fraud in the small business programs that are discussed below. Following the enactment of this legislation, SBA completed its first "comprehensive" review of the size standards since the 1980s, and has promulgated or proposed regulations that could reportedly result in thousands of additional firms becoming eligible for small business programs. Some increases to the size standards took effect in March 2012; other increases are pending. Concerns about the size standards and, in particular, SBA's discretion in crafting them persisted, however, notwithstanding the legislation enacted by the 111 th Congress and the changes made or proposed by SBA. Partly in response to these concerns, the 112 th Congress enacted legislation that requires SBA to consider and publicly address certain factors (e.g., the industry for which the new size standard is proposed, and its competitive environment) when conducting any rulemaking to "revise, modify or establish" size standards pursuant to Section 3 of the Small Business Act. This legislation also prohibits SBA from limiting the number of size standards, and from establishing or approving a single size standard for a grouping of 4-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes unless SBA justifies that such a standard is appropriate for each industry classification included within the grouping. Members of the 112 th Congress also introduced legislation that would have required SBA to establish a new classification system to replace the current system based on North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes; repeal the "nonmanufacturer rule," an SBA regulation that permits firms with fewer than 500 employees which supply the products of small businesses (or obtain a waiver from SBA) to qualify as small in certain procurements; and exclude firms that are publicly traded, or more than 50% directly or indirectly owned by "individuals" who are not U.S. citizens, from programs under the Small Business Act. Other Members of the 112 th Congress proposed the creation of set-aside programs for firms that are very small and/or new, and for "mid-sized" firms. In both cases, the proposals reflected concerns that particular firms may be included in, or excluded from, existing small business programs because of the size standards. Proposals to create set-aside programs for mid-size firms responded to concerns that such firms are too big to qualify as "small" under the size standards, but too small to compete effectively with "large" government contractors. Conversely, proposals to create set-asides specifically for "early stage small businesses"—or particularly small and/or new businesses—addressed concerns that the current size standards can encompass firms of very different sizes, and that the smallest such firms may be unable to compete effectively against larger ones. Depending upon how eligibility for any new set-aside program is defined, certain programs could potentially have been vulnerable to challenge upon equal protection or other grounds. The current 8(a) Program, which incorporates a rebuttable presumption that members of certain racial and ethnic groups are disadvantaged, has been challenged on the grounds that it deprives individuals who are not members of these groups of equal protection of the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Programs that include a similar presumption, or otherwise define eligibility in a manner that could be found to constitute a de facto racial classification, could face similar challenges. Congress amended the Small Business Act in 1978 to require that agency heads, in consultation with the SBA, set goals for the percentage of federal contract and subcontract dollars awarded to small businesses each year. Congress further amended the act in 1988 to require the President to set government-wide goals for the percentage of federal contract and/or subcontract dollars awarded annually to various categories of small businesses. These goals must be equal to or exceed certain percentages specified in statute (i.e., 23% of federal contract dollars awarded to small businesses; 5% of federal contract and subcontract dollars awarded to women-owned small businesses; 5% to small disadvantaged businesses; 3% to HUBZone small businesses; and 3% to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses). Agency performance in meeting the small business contracting and subcontracting goals is of perennial interest to Congress because it is arguably the clearest indicator of whether the stated congressional "policy" of encouraging contracting with small businesses is being implemented. In particular, commentators frequently note the government's failure to meet either government-wide or agency-specific goals, and some have suggested that the current government-wide goals are too low and do not adequately reflect the availability of minority-, women-, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in today's marketplace. Partly in response to such concerns, the 111 th Congress enacted legislation requiring that senior procurement executives, senior program managers, and agency directors of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization communicate to their subordinates "the importance of achieving small business goals." The 112 th Congress enacted legislation which reiterates this requirement, as well as makes a number of other changes to Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act in the hopes of improving agencies' performance vis-à-vis their contracting and subcontracting goals. Among other things, this legislation directs SBA and the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy to "insure" that agencies' annual prime contract goals "meet or exceed" the annual government-wide goal. It also requires that agencies separately address prime and subcontract awards for each category of small businesses (e.g., women-owned) in their goals, and make a "consistent effort to annually expand participation" by small businesses in each category. In addition, the legislation enacted by the 112 th Congress directs SBA to review its "Goaling Guidelines" to ensure that agency subcontracting goals are established on the basis of "realistically achievable improvements" in levels of subcontracting, rather than on the basis of previous years' performance; agency goals are established in a manner that does not exclude certain categories of contracts based on the type of goods or services acquired; or, in the case of certain contracts subject to competitive procedures, based on whether the contract is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), or funding is made directly available by an appropriation; and agencies document the basis for any decision to establish a goal that is lower than the government-wide goal for small businesses in that category.