Document Library

 

Press Room Search
Search for Media
   

 


ASBL Newsletters

September 2008

July 2008

May 2008

February 2008

December 2007

*************************************

To Access ASBL's Consolidated Document Library, Please click here.

*************************************

Use the links below to view a specific federal investigation regarding the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations.

Report 8-14 GAO-08-995 DOI OIG, July 2008 GAO-08-643 GAO-06-874T
GAO-06-791R GAO-06-399 Report 6-18 Report 6-15 SBA OIG semi-annual Report 2005
Report 5-20 GAO-05-459 Report 5-16 Report 5-15 Report 5-14
EAGLE-EYE Report GAO-03-704T SBA OIG Semi-annual Report 1995 GAO-09-174 | EXCLUDED PARTIES LIST SYSTEM GAO-09-16

*************************************

  • USVentCap061009r1 | RIGHT-SIZING THE U.S. VENTURE CAPITAL INDUSTRY | June 10, 2009
    http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/USVentCap061009r1.pdf
    Summary: The report evaluated venture financing among companies on the Inc. 500 list of the fastest-growing private companies. Only approximately 16 percent of the roughly 900 unique companies on the list from 1997-2007 had venture capital backing. The report also noted that only a tiny percentage (less than 1 percent) of the estimated 600,000 new employer businesses created in the United States every year obtain venture capital financing.

    "We recently studied the prevalence of venture capital financing among companies on the Inc. 500 list of the fastest-growing private companies in the United States. Looking across ten years of that list-roughly 900 unique companies from 1997-2007-we found that approximately 16 percent of the companies had venture capital backing. In other words, even among the fastest growing and most successful companies in the U.S., less than one-in-five companies had venture investors."

  • GAO-09-440 | HUBZONE PROGRAM - FRAUD AND ABUSE IDENTIFIED IN FOUR METROPOLITAN AREAS | March 25, 2009
    http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html
    Summary: GAO found that fraud and abuse in the HUBZone program extends beyond the Washington, D.C., area. GAO identified 19 firms in Texas, Alabama, and California participating in the HUBZone program that clearly do not meet program requirements (i.e., principal office location or percentage of employees in HUBZone and subcontracting limitations).

    " Our work on the HUBZone program to date has shown that numerous ineligible firms have taken advantage of the opportunity to commit fraud against the federal government."

    "SBA's failure to promptly remove firms from the HUBZone program and examine some of the most egregious cases from GAO's July 2008 testimony has resulted in an additional $7.2 million in HUBZone obligations and about $25 million in HUBZone contracts to these firms. For example, a construction firm from the July 2008 testimony admitted that it did not meet HUBZone requirements and was featured in several national publications by name. It has continually represented itself as HUBZone certified and has received $2 million in HUBZone obligations and a $23 million HUBZone setaside contract since the July 2008 testimony."

    "Of the 19 firms that did not meet HUBZone eligibility requirements, we found that all of them continued to represent themselves as eligible HUBZone interests to SBA. Because the 19 case examples clearly are not eligible, we consider each firm's continued representation indicative of fraud and/or abuse related to this program."

    "To date, other than the firms identified by our prior investigation, the SBA program office has never referred any firms for debarment and/or suspension proceedings based on their findings from their program eligibility reviews. By failing to hold firms accountable, SBA has sent a message to the contracting community that there is no punishment or consequences for committing fraud or abusing the intent of the HUBZone program."

  • GAO-09-174 | EXCLUDED PARTIES LIST SYSTEM - SUSPENDED AND DEBARRED BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS IMPROPERLY RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS | February 2009
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09174.pdf
    Summary: Businesses and individuals that have been excluded for egregious offenses ranging from national security violations to tax fraud are improperly receiving federal contracts and other funds. GAO developed cases on a number of these parties and found that they received funding for a number of reasons, including because agency officials failed to search EPLS or because their searches did not reveal the exclusions. GAO also identified businesses and individuals that were able to circumvent the terms of their exclusions by operating under different identities.

    “We confirmed allegations that businesses and individuals that were excluded for egregious offenses were continuing to improperly receive federal contracts.”

    “GAO also found several agencies that did not enter exclusions and others that did not check EPLS prior to making awards. Finally, GAO found that excluded parties were still listed on GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule, which can result in agencies purchasing items from unscrupulous companies.”

    "In July 2005, GAO reported that the data in EPLS were insufficient to enable agencies to determine with confidence that a prospective vendor was not currently excluded. In response, GSA agreed to modify EPLS's data requirements to include a mandatory provision that agencies enter a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to facilitate the identification of excluded contractors. Despite this modification, recent allegations indicate that businesses or individuals that have been excluded for egregious offenses have been able to "resurface" under the same or a different business name or identity in order to continue to receive federal contracts and other funds."

  • Top of Page

  • GAO-09-16 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – AGENCY SHOULD ASSESS RESOURCES DEVOTED TO CONTRACTING AND IMPROVE SEVERAL PROCESSES IN THE 8(A) PROGRAM | November 21, 2008
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0916.pdf
    Summary: SBA’s administration of the 8(a) business development program is challenged by several factors, including some participants not understanding the program’s purpose and requirements, its staff’s diminished ability to conduct business development activities, an inefficient process to terminate firms, and a lack of routine surveillance reviews specific to the program.

    “Delays in terminating firms also could result in noncompliant firms obtaining contracts…in 2006, the SBA IG recommended that SBA regularly conduct surveillance reviews for the 8(a) program. However, SBA has not yet implemented this recommendation. As a result, SBA has reduced assurances that agencies have complied with monitoring requirements for the 8(a) program.”

    “Resource constraints have limited the ability of SBA staff to carry out core responsibilities…Years of SBA downsizing and budget reductions significantly reduced the resources available for these agency functions, including contracting review and monitoring.”

    “Of the 24 agencies rated, half received the lowest rating (for failing to meet at least two contracting goals and other criteria).”

    “For fiscal year 2006, the SBA IG reported that CMRs [commercial market representatives] monitored less than half of the 2,200 large prime contractors. These resource constraints reduced assurances that SBA can monitor contracting effectively.”

  • GAO-08-995 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO BUILD ON LEADERSHIP’S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE AGENCY PERFORMANCE AND EMPLOYEE MORALE | September 2008
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08995.pdf
    Summary: Over the past 6 years, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has sought to transform the agency and improve its operations. The GAO concluded that extreme budget and staffing reductions have led to continued and ongoing problems in administering programs and with employee morale.

    “…some district offices told us that it can sometimes be a challenge to meet goals and carry out SBA’s mission, given limited staffing resources…District office employees also said that they have to take on multiple responsibilities for which they do not necessarily receive training due to decreased staffing levels.”

    “However, we found that budget constraints impeded work on this initiative [small business outreach] and could continue to do so. We also found that the agency’s budget requests for transformation were inconsistent and lacked a detailed plan that showed priorities and linked resources to desired results.”

    “SBA's workforce has declined significantly since the 1990s. During the restructuring in the 1990s, SBA's workforce decreased from over 3,800 employees to about 3,100 employees - a decrease of about 19 percent. Between 2000 and 2007, when additional restructuring occurred, SBA's workforce decreased further by about 26 percent. As of September 2007, SBA had 2,166 employees.”

  • Top of Page

  • SBA OIG REPORT 8-14 | NON-NATIVE MANAGERS SECURED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM 8(A) FIRMS OWNED BY ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS THROUGH UNAPPROVED AGREEMENTS THAT JEOPARDIZE THE FIRMS’ PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY | August 7, 2008
    http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba/oig_reptbydate_8-14.pdf
    Summary: The purpose of this report is to notify you of two 8(a) participants owned by Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) APM, LLC (APM) and Goldbelt Raven, LLC (Goldbelt) who did not comply with the terms and conditions of their Participation Agreements, creating grounds for their termination from the 8(a) program. Based on concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Congress that ANC-owned firms may be serving as conduits for large businesses, the audit is examining the percentage of 8(a) contract revenue reaching Alaska natives.

    "Companies Owned by Non-Native Individuals Were Paid Millions of Dollars from 8(a) Revenues Through Unapproved Agreements"

    "After being admitted into the 8(a) program, APM and Goldbelt did not seek SBA's approval of agreements with companies owned by non-native individuals that purchased ownership in the 8(a) firms and provided management or other services associated with the performance of APM's and Goldbelt's 8(a) contracts. Under these agreements, APM and Goldbelt paid or were obligated to pay more than $23 million of 8(a) revenues to these companies over a 3-year period."

    "In making a size determination, SBA's regulations state that the revenues or employees of all of a firm's affiliates must be considered collectively in determining whether the firm meets the applicable size standard…However, because neither APM nor Goldbelt obtained SBA approval of these agreements, the Agency was precluded from considering the impact that these relationships had on the eligibility of the two participants for approximately $833 million in awards."

  • DOI OIG REPORT W-EV-MOI-0003-2008 | INTERIOR MISSTATED ACHIEVEMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS GOALS BY INCLUDING FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES| July 1, 2008
    http://www.doioig.gov/upload/2008-G-0024.pdf
    Summary: Department of Interior’s Office of Inspector General conducted an investigation examining if small business contract awards that were being counted towards the agencies small business goals were going to large or Fortune 500 firms.

    “We found about $5.7 million in awards [from a sample of 0.3% of the total] to large businesses for which DOI received small business credit for fiscal years 2006-2007. Several of those businesses are obviously large, such as Home Depot, John Deere, Dell, Sherwin Williams, Starwood Hotels and Waste Management. These awards were included in the accomplishments reported by DOI’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and in the SBA Small Business Goaling Reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.”
  • Top of Page

  • GAO-08-643 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – ADDITIONAL ACTIONS ARE NEEDED TO CERTIFY AND MONITOR HUBZONE BUSINESSES AND ASSESS PROGRAM RESULTS | June 2008
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08643.pdf
    Summary: The Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program is intended to provide federal contracting opportunities to qualified small business firms in order to stimulate development in economically distressed areas. As manager of the HUBZone program, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is responsible for certifying whether firms meet HUBZone program requirements. To participate in the HUBZone program, small business firms must certify that their principal office is located in a HUBZone and that at least 35 percent of the firm's employees live in HUBZones. GAO identified substantial vulnerabilities in SBA's application and monitoring process, clearly demonstrating that the HUBZone program is vulnerable to fraud and abuse.

    “…GAO's work shows that these vulnerabilities exist because SBA does not have an effective fraud-prevention program in place. Using fictitious employee information and fabricated documentation, GAO easily obtained HUBZone certification for four bogus firms…We were also able to identify 10 firms from the Washington, D.C., metro area that were participating in the HUBZone program even though they clearly did not meet eligibility requirements. Since 2006, federal agencies have obligated a total of more than $105 million to these 10 firms for performance as the prime contractor on federal contracts.”
  • GAO-06-874T | TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEES ON GOVERNMENT RFORM AND SMALL BUSINESS |ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS – INCREASED USE OF SPECIAL 8(A) PROVISIONS CALLS FOR TAILORED OVERSIGHT | June 21, 2006
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06874t.pdf
    Summary: Congress has extended special procurement advantages to 8(a) ANC firms, such as the ability to receive sole-source contracts for any dollar amount and to own multiple subsidiaries in the 8(a) program. We were asked to testify on an earlier report where we identified (1) trends in the government’s 8(a) contracting with ANC firms, (2) the reasons agencies have awarded 8(a) solesource contracts to ANC firms and the facts and circumstances behind some of these contracts, and (3) how ANCs are using the 8(a) program. GAO also evaluated SBA’s oversight of 8(a) ANC firms.

    “. . .the Army awarded noncompetitive 8(a) contracts to two ANC firms; these firms in turn subcontracted with large security guard companies.”

    “. . .significant improvements are needed in SBA's oversight of the program. Without stronger oversight, there is potential for abuse and unintended consequences.”

    “The officials noted that the goal of ANCs—economic development for Alaska Natives from a community standpoint—can be in conflict with the primary purpose of the 8(a) program, which is business development for individual small, disadvantaged businesses.”

  • Top of Page

  • GAO-06-791R | COMMERCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS NEXT GENERATION GOVERNMNETWIDE ACQUISITION CONTRACT| June 14, 2006
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06791r.pdf
    Summary: Concerns have been raised about the fairness of the “bid down” approach of the Department of Commerce’s Information Technology Solutions Next Generation (COMMITS NexGen) contract. In response to these concerns, the fiscal year 2006 Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies appropriations conference report requested our review of COMMITS NexGen.

    “We found that many of the 55 COMMITS NexGen contractors have grown significantly or have been acquired by larger businesses and may no longer meet small business size standards. In addition, small business accomplishments might be overstated since specific small business size standards are not identified for each task order. We also found that a significant portion of the task orders intended for the smallest contractors were issued to larger, incumbent contractors.”
  • GAO-06-399 |CONTRACT MANAGEMENT – INCREASED USE OF ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS’ SPECIAL 8(A) PROVISIONS CALLS FOR TAILORED OVERSIGHT | April 2006
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06399.pdf
    Summary: In reviewing selected large, sole-source 8(a) contracts awarded to Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) firms, GAO found that contracting officials had not always complied with certain requirements, such as notifying SBA of contract modifications and monitoring the percent of work that is subcontracted.

    “Examples where SBA's oversight has fallen short include not . . . adhering to a legislative and regulatory requirement to ascertain whether 8(a) ANC firms have, or are likely to obtain, a substantial unfair competitive advantage within an industry . . .”

    “Areas where SBA’s oversight has fallen short include: determining whether more than one subsidiary of the same ANC is generating a majority of its revenue in the same primary industry, consistently determining whether awards to 8(a) ANC firms have resulted in other small businesses losing contract opportunities, and ensuring that the partnerships between 8(a) ANC firms and large firms are functioning in the way they were intended.”

  • Top of Page

  • SBA OIG MANAGEMENT ADVISORY REPORT 6-18 | THE CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION NEEDS LARGE BUSINESS AND SMALL BUSINESS DESIGNATION IMPROVEMENTS | March 21, 2006
    http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba/oig_reptbydate_6-18.pdf
    Summary: While reviewing a congressional request to determine whether a Hurricane Katrina related Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contract was appropriately reported as a small business in the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS – NG), we noted that the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Integrated Acquisition Environment’s (IAE) initiative, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), allows contradictory information on a contractor’s size status to be included in the system.

    “CCR has two sections that reflect a company's size information and the information in one section can mistakenly contradict the information in the other section. Contracting Officers and other government officials may use incorrect size information to justify a small business procurement . . .”

    “FEMA reported that the contract was awarded to a small business in FPDS - NG even though the contractor appeared to be other than small.”

    “There are no checks in CCR to ensure that there is consistency between data concerning a company’s size in the “Corporate Information” and “Small Business Types” sections. Because of this inconsistency, Contracting Officers are more likely to access incorrect information on the size of businesses.”

  • SBA OIG AUDIT REPORT 6-15 | AUDIT OF MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH 8(A) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DURING 8(A) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE | March 16, 2006
    http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba/oig_reptbydate_6-15.pdf
    Summary: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit to determine whether Federal agencies were effectively monitoring compliance with 8(a) Business Development (BD) regulations when completing 8(a) BD contracts.

    “We reviewed awards to five large companies . . .[that] received contracts totaling over $1.1 billion in [FY] 2001, including 460 million reported as small business awards.”

    “. . .contracting officials were using databases that contained outdated and inaccurate information about the size of the companies we reviewed.”

    “While these results cannot be projected to all contract actions reported, they raise serious questions about relying on FPDS data to measure federal agencies' effort to meet the government's 23 percent small business goal.”

    “Neither SBA nor Procuring Agencies Ensured that 8(a) BD Companies Complied with Applicable Regulations when Completing 8(a) BD Contracts.”

  • Top of Page

  • SBA OIG SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT | September 2005
    http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba/oig_sar-9-2005.pdf
    Summary: During this reporting period, we issued 12 reports with recommendations for improving Agency operations, reducing fraud and unnecessary losses, and recovering funds. OIG investigations led to 26 indictments and 22 convictions of subjects who defrauded the Federal Government. In addition, the Office collectively reviewed 77 legislative, regulatory, policy, procedural, and other proposals concerning the SBA and Government-wide programs.

    “In June 2005, the OIG recommended that SBA debar a company for misrepresenting that it was a small business concern in obtaining a Government contract which was set-aside for a small business. The OIG's recommendation to the Agency related that the company had exceeded the applicable size standards identified in the relevant solicitation at the time that it bid on the contract.”

    “An SBA employee allegedly used his position to obtain over $20,000 for his personal benefit from an 8(a) contractor who received over $3 million in contracts.”

    “After issuing a new Management Challenge during the last reporting period concerning Federal procurement as it relates to small business—“Flaws in the Federal procurement process allow large firms to receive small business awards and agencies to receive small business credit for contracts performed by large firms,”—the OIG conducted additional Federal procurement projects during this reporting period…[which found the] SBA has not taken all the steps needed to be an effective advocate for small business.”

  • SBA OIG AUDIT REPORT 5-20 | AUDIT OF THE CONTRACT BUNDLING PROCESS | May 20, 2005
    http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba/oig_reptbydate_05-20.pdf
    Summary: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit survey of the contract bundling process to determine whether the Small Business Administration (SBA) is properly receiving and reviewing all bundled contracts. We found significant problems with the SBA’s ability to obtain and track bundlings.

    “SBA did not review the majority of reported bundled contracts that we identified, though procuring activities must provide, and SBA must review proposed bundled acquisitions. As a result, 192 contracts identified by procuring agencies as bundled were awarded without SBA's review. If all of these are actually bundled contracts, a minimum of $384 million would be potentially lost to eligible small businesses, based on minimum dollar reporting requirements of $2 million.”
  • Top of Page

  • GAO-05-459 | DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY – IMPROVED OVERSIGHT COULD BETTER ENSURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING | May 13, 2005
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05459.pdf
    Summary: DOE’s facility management contractors’ small business subcontracting achievements—reported as a percentage of their total subcontracted dollars—are not useful for monitoring purposes because the reported data overstates subcontracting achievements.

    “All of the contractor-reported data incorrectly excluded some large-business subcontracts, beyond what federal reporting guidelines allow. Excluding these subcontracts made the percentage of subcontracted dollars going to small businesses appear larger than it would have, if such subcontracts were not incorrectly excluded.”

    “…contractor-reported data is not useful to DOE in determining its contractors’ actual small business subcontracting achievements or adequately assessing whether small businesses are receiving maximum practicable subcontracting opportunities.”

    “DOE has not taken adequate steps to address known problems with the contractor-reported data.”

  • SBA OIG REPORT 5-16 | REVIEW OF SELECTED SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENTS | March 8, 2005
    http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-16.pdf
    Summary: A review of the propriety of small business certifications and whether certain contractors who received small business contracts were indeed small.

    “The second MAC [small business contract] was awarded based on a false certification that the company was a small business manufacturer and regular dealer.”

    “…an order placed against a MAC [small business contract] would be reported as a small business award, even if the business was no longer small at the time of the order.”

    “…and in that instance, the [large] company made an improper small business self-certification to receive the contract.”

  • Top of Page

  • SBA OIG Report 5-15 | NEW MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES - LARGE BUSINESSES RECEIVE SMALL BUSINESS AWARDS | February 24, 2005
    http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-15.pdf
    Summary: As the advocate for small business, the Small Business Administration (SBA) should strive to ensure that only small firms obtain small business awards and agencies only receive small business credit for awards to small firms. Too often, however, this is not the case.

    “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today is that large businesses are receiving small business procurement awards and agencies are receiving credit for these awards.”

    “Recent studies by the Government Accountability Office, SBA’s Office of Inspector General, and SBA’s Office of Advocacy have found that agencies are counting awards made to large firms towards their small business procurement goals.”

  • SBA OIG Report 5-14 | SBA SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT AWARDS ARE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO SMALL BUSINESSES | February 24, 2005
    http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-14.pdf
    Summary: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an evaluation to determine whether small business procurement awards reported by the Small Business Administration (SBA) in Fiscal Years (FY) 2001 and 2002 were indeed awarded to companies that were small at the time of the award.

    “The SBA awarded four of the six high dollar procurements, reported as small business procurements, to large companies at the time of the procurements.”

    “If SBA had put as much effort into verifying whether the company currently met the award's size standard as it put into trying to find ways to earn credit toward its small business goals, then perhaps the contract action would have been awarded to a company that was legitimately small at the time of the award.”

  • Top of Page

  • EAGLE EYE PUBLISHERS | Prepared for the SBA | ANALYSIS OF TYPE-OF-BUSINESS CODING FOR THE TOP 1,000 CONTRACTORS RECEIVING SMALL BUSINESS AWARDS IN FY 2002 | December 2004
    http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs246tot.pdf
    Summary: A review of the transaction records coded as being awarded to small businesses in the Individual Contract Action Report (ICAR) file identified large vendors as some of the actual recipients.

    “Of the top 1,000 small business contractors in FY 2002, Eagle Eye Publishers' analysis found 44 parent companies it identified as either large firms or 'other.' Contracts to these two groups taken together had a total value of $2 billion.”

    “As a result of this lack of transparency, many awards that should be reserved for small firms . . . go to large firms unchallenged.”

  • GAO-03-704T | TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | May 7, 2003
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03704t.pdf
    Contract Management: Reporting of Small Business Contract Awards Does Not Reflect Current Business Size
    Summary: According to FPDS, five large companies that the GAO reviewed received contracts totaling $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2001, including $460 million as small business awards.

    “The primary reason these contract actions were reported as small business awards is because federal regulations generally permit companies to be considered small over the life of a contract—even if the company grows into a large business, merges with another company, or is acquired by a large business. We also found that contracting officials reported some contract actions as small business awards because they relied on databases containing conflicting and incorrect information about the current size of some of the companies we reviewed.”

    “In fiscal year 2000, the four [large] companies received 1,313 contract actions valued at over $190 million that were reported as small business awards. In fiscal year 2001, these companies received 1,271 contract actions amounting to over $200 million reported as going to small businesses.”

  • SBA OIG SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT | September 1995
    http://www.asbl.com/documents/SBA_OIG_Sem-annual_sept_1995.pdf
    Summary: OIG audits, inspections, and investigations during this 6-month period achieved $27,391,466 in potential dollar results, 31 indictments, and 27 convictions.

    “Over the past few years, the Investigations Division has noted several instances of a particular fraudulent practice: companies that SBA, after sustaining protests against them, had prohibited from representing themselves as small businesses . . .were continuing to falsely certify themselves as eligible for small business set-aside contracts.”
  • Top of Page

    For a back-up list of federal investigations and private studies on the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations documents, please click here

     
         
           
           
         

    Press Contacts

    Christopher Gunn
    Communications Director

    707-789-9575
    email to cgunn {at} asbl.com

    American Small Business League
    3910 Cypress Dr.
    Suite B
    Petaluma, CA 94954

    707-789-9575

    fax 707-789-9580
    email to info {at} asbl.com



     


     

    watch for the yellow star

    indicating some of our
    favorite news stories