Opinion ID: 805808
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal and Regulatory Background

Text: The Small Business Act (“the Act”) establishes various programs that assist qualifying small businesses in obtaining Federal contracts, and sets forth the requirements incident thereto. 15 U.S.C. §§ 631-657. Two of the programs are involved in this case: the socalled Section 8(a) Program (§ 637(a)(1)(B)), which assists small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and the HUBZone Program (§ 657(a)), which assists small businesses that are located in historically underutilized business zones. Among its requirements, the Act mandates that each Government agency establish annual contracting goals for the various small business programs created by the Act, including these two. Id. § 644(g)(1). The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is charged with carrying out the requirements of the Act and issuing such rules and regulations as it deems necessary. Id. §§ 633(a), 634(b). In its regulations the SBA decreed that there should be “parity” between the 8(a) and HUBZone programs. By so decreeing, the SBA gave the Federal agencies’ contracting officers substantial discretion to consider and designate contracts for either program without having to prioritize one program over the other. See, e.g., 13 C.F.R. §§ 124.503(j), 125.18, 126.605, 126.607. Whether this parity policy is consistent with the terms of the Act itself lies at the heart of the dispute in this case.