It has been more than 20 years since Congress began granting tribal 

firms special advantages under the 8(a) program. The steady growth in 

government obligations to these firms, largely through sole-source 

contracts, draws attention to policies that are designed to promote small 

businesses and the need to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. SBA has 

taken some steps, based on our earlier recommendations, to clarify 

program rules, including the need for monitoring the limitations on 

subcontracting. However, contracting officers generally are not 

performing the monitoring—often because of confusion about how to go 

about doing so and a lack of clarity in existing regulations, particularly 

with respect to indefinite quantity contracts. Not monitoring the limitations 

on subcontracting can pose a major risk that an improper amount of work 

is being done by large business subcontractors under large-dollar value, 

sole-source contracts to tribal 8(a) firms. 

Tribal firms, because of their special advantages in the 8(a) program, can 

operate under more complex contracts and business relationships than 

typical 8(a) firms, making oversight difficult. SBA’s recent revisions to the 

8(a) regulations are intended to address several issues we had raised in 

the past regarding improved oversight of ANC 8(a) contracting that also 

apply to all tribal 8(a) firms. However, SBA does not have a way to track 

the information it needs and lacks clear procedures to deter certain 

prohibitions addressed in the regulations—for example, sister subsidiaries 

winning follow-on sole-source contracts and joint-venture partners unduly 

benefiting from their 8(a) partners’ contracts by performing most of the 

work or improperly subcontracting to an affiliate. The new 8(a) tracking 

database, which is in the initial stages of development, could, if structured 

to capture key information, better position SBA to implement these new 

regulations and to address issues we identified, such as tracking 

revenues from tribal 8(a) firms’ primary and secondary industries. Further, 

when agencies do not provide the full acquisition history in offer letters, 

SBA may not have the necessary information to enforce the new 

regulations. Finally, while SBA officials recently told us they are in the 

early stages of drafting a policy that will outline a process for determining 

unfair competitive advantage, SBA still has not addressed in its 

regulations the process for implementing the statutory requirement to 

determine whether substantial unfair competitive advantage exists for one 

or more tribal 8(a) firms. 

Finally, some tribal 8(a) firms effectively operate as large firms in a small 

business program. The practices we have identified, such as capitalizing 

on corporate resources to promote business and using sister subsidiaries 

for subcontracting and past performance, are currently allowed, even 

under SBA’s revised regulations. However, it is within SBA’s purview as 

the agency statutorily authorized for the 8(a) program to determine if 

these practices are congruent with the purpose of the 8(a) program— 

which is to develop sustainable, small, disadvantaged businesses in the 

U.S. economy.