Directors, Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business

2.

(2) a listing of the contract identification numbers
by procuring installation with appropriate dollar

values by contract of those contracts, and all appropriate
modifications, which should have conformed to the

pertinent provisions of Section 211 (above) but, when
awarded, did not do so.

The foregoing ((1) and (2) above) should be furnished at the installation level to the SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR) where there is such a person assigned as a resident by the SBA. Where there is mo resident FCR assigned to the installation, the referenced documents (1) and (2) should be forwarded to the SBA Regional Administrator (attention APA/RP) in the geographical area of the installation concerned.

For civilian agencies, this will include contractual instruments issued from July 2, 1979 on, and for DOD the starting date will be from time of receipt of DAC 76-19 or September 1, 1979, whichever is earlier.

Mere ranial action consists of contract termination and resolicita':ion or here existing contracts are modified to include subcontracting plans required by Section 211 (above), SBA involvement in processing will be as in the case of new procurement actions. In the few cases where a determination is made that no remedial action should be taken, such determination should be in writing and signed by an appropriate official with a copy to the SBA PCR or Regional Administrator as in submitting (1) and (2) above. We recommend that the approving official be the head of the Acquisition Activity.

By January 15, 1980, please furnish this office, on a total agency basis, a report indicating the number of items submitted in (1) and (2) above, the number and the total dollar amount remedied by category of remedy used and the number of cases remaining where action as yet has not been taken.

Additional reports to SEA should be made on the 15th of each succeeding month until the action "as yet to be taken" figure is zero.

Your cooperation in an understanding of the necessity for these unusual actions is appreciated. We feel that they serve our mutual mandate to maximize procurement opportunities for small business and small businesses oned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

This memorandum has been coordinated with OFPP.

Being Kulise

Bernard Kulik

Associate Administrator for
Procurement Assistance

At the close of my oversight subcommittee hearing held on December 4, 1979 on government agency compliance with the procurement provisions of P.L. 95-507, I indicated that I would be submitting further questions to each of the witnesses.

Kindly provide

attached questions by

to the Subcommittee responses to the
January 4, 1980.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Mr. George Neidich of my subcommittee staff at (202) 225-9321.

Sincerely,

JOHN J. LaFALCE
CHAIRMAN

1. Please describe the report you were requested to submit to SBA at the conclusion of FY 1979 on the extent of participation by small business in procurement contracts let by your agency. If your agency has not submitted such report, when will this be done?

2. Please describe your performance in meeting your agency' S goals for participation by small business in subcontracts as required by section 211 of P.L. 95-507. Has your agency and the SBA failed to agree on established goals? If so, has this disagreement been submitted to OFPP for final determination?

3. Describe what studies or surveys your agency has conducted to determine the extent of contractor's compliance with the "best efforts" subcontracting clause. Have any guidelines been established for making this determination?

4. What incentives has your agency provided to encourage maximum subcontracting opportunities as required by section 211 of the law?

5. As of the date of your response to this letter, describe your compliance with the subcontracting provisions mandated by section 211 of P.L. 95-507 including (a) the number of deficient solicitations and contracts you have remedied since December 4, 1979, (b) the number of solicitations issued since December 4, 1979 which are deficient, and (c) the total number and dollar amount of prime contracts awarded since December 4, 1979 which do not contain required subcontracting plans.

Thank you for your letter of December 21, 1979, relative to the implementation of Public Law 95-507 in the General Services Administration.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The report reflecting FY-79 accomplishments on the extent of participation by small business in procurement contracts let by this Agency has not been submitted to the Small Business Administration but will be dispatched not later than January 18, 1980. Preliminary data

manually gathered from our field Acquisition Offices indicates the following:

a. Total GSA Procurements (in thousands of dollars) excluding 8(a) $3,220,877

Small Business Portion of Item a. above

C. Minority Business Portion of Item a. above

d. Total 8(a) Procurement Awards $70,088

e.

Total subcontracts made by prime contractors

to small minority firms - $743

2. While FY-79 goals were not submitted to SBA Enclosure 1 shows goals established for all of the socio-economic procurement programs and related accomplish

ments.

Our FY-80 goals will be submitted to the Small Business Administration on January 18, 1980 and we will commence negotiations at their convenience.

2

3. With the exception of normal contract administration reviews the GSA has not established guidelines or conducted studies to determine the extent of contractor's compliance with the "best efforts" subcontracting clause.

4. To date incentives have not been provided to encourage maximum subcontracting opportunities. We are still selecting "test" cases.

5. On December 26, 1979, I issued guidelines for implementing Section 211 of Public Law 95-507, Amendments to the Small Business Act, to Heads of Services and Regional Administrators. The purpose for these guidelines was to bring together in one document all regulatory material and instructions associated with implementing Section 211 of Public Law 95-507. The December 26, 1979 letter also required the recipients to provide my office with the following information by January 19, 1980:

a. The number and dollar amount of IFBS issued that met the thresholds for requiring a subcontracting plan and did not contain the applicable provisions;

b. The number and dollar amount of these IFBS amended to include the applicable subcontracting provisions; C. The number and dollar amount of RFPS and SFOS issued that met the thresholds for requiring a subcontracting plan and did not contain the applicable provisions;

d. The number and dollar amount of these RFPS and SFOS amended to include the applicable subcontracting provisions;

e. The number and dollar amount of solicitations issued which contain the required clauses;

The number and dollar amount of contracts awarded that met the thresholds for requiring a subcontracting plan;

g.

The number and dollar amount of these contracts where negotiations have begun on a subcontracting plan;

h. The number of subcontracting plans incorporated as part of an existing contract; and